Classic & Vintage - My latest find...thrift store...

Hi, I picked this up today from a local thrift store (see related post abuot Matrix Strada wheels if you want) and this is exactly as it came, dirt and all.

I haven't run the #'s yet, but it appears to be a 1983 or 1984 Trek 500. It also appears mostly original. I haven't done a thing to it yet, but over the coming weeks I'm going to clean it up, see what's right/wrong and adjust accordingly. It's a 21" so it's a tad small for me, but if I decide to keep it I might make it a fixie.

What do you think?

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/260049/Trek500.jpg


<img src="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/260049/Trek500.jpg" width=600 height=369>


PJBAZ

How much?

Looks great

Cheap...if I told you, you'd weep...well, it was $30 no tax, out the door.

PJ

Cheap...if I told you, you'd weep...well, it was $30 no tax, out the door.

PJ

Weep. weep :cry:

I think that the Denver metro area is so knowledgeable about bikes, that any good bikes that end up in a thrift store are instantly taken. I have looked at several but only find real junkers and X-mart bikes.

Truly, there are bikers all over the place around here.

That's a great buy on a great bike!

I asked at the counter yesterday and was told the bikes were in the basement and might not be for sale...so I persuaded the girl to ask the boss. I was brought into the basement and she told me "The Huffy's are $40" which made me think if anything good was there it'd be way overpriced. Fortunately, they know nothing about bikes and when i asked about this one she said i could have it for $30.

PJ

Good find. Our thrift stores haven't had much worthwhile for nearly a year & since they now have a kid who is a "roadie" doing the pricing, I doubt I will find any more bargains. My only big find for the year was $4 for a pair of Carnac mtn Bike shoes with SPD cleats. Appeared unworn but I'm guessing somebody reacted badly to that 1st stop without unclipping!
Don

Nice, but not vintage...just another used road bike.

Pj,

it is a 1984 Trek, the decals were different in 83
(still had panel with trek on seatube). Your bike is
reynolds 501 main tubes. Contrary to previous posts
it is "vintage". If you need help with Serial number
let me know, can probably get it pinned down to when
exactly it was built.
Nice find
Marty

Thanks Lotek.

I was searching Vintage Trek and have the '83 serial # codes, etc. But you're right, the paint is wrong for '83. However, the head badge is the gold with black, not white which I believe they went to in '84. Also, during the quick look I gave it before heading to work I checked the seat post and it's "E '83" which should be May, right? So, I'm wondering if it was a late season '83 painted as an '84.

When I have a few minutes I'll check it thoroughly and see what I can find. If I need some help you'll be the first e-mail I send.

Jamison
PJBAZ

The headbadge note is misleading. I have an 85 Trek
(Built Nov 84) and it has the gold/black headbadge.
It says for 84 new headbadge white or gold. That colour
blue was available in 83 but decals were different.
I'm thinking the E83 is for the seatpost, not the frame.
You can also talk to Skip who runs Vintage trek. Very nice guy and helpful.
Wait till you ride it, those old Treks were great rides.
Marty

Ok, the plot thickens...a little anyway.

I checked the frame serial # against the Vintage Trek Web site and the frame is 1983. The seatpost and crank are both 83- E-83 and H-83 respectively. The headbadge is gold/black. BUT, the paint is not an '83 scheme, it's '84.

SO, my best guess is this is a late '83 painted as an '84.

PJ
P.S.- I have an '88 400T (yard sale find) which I just got back on the road (new crankset) and it is a nice ride.

Mine was "serialized", and built Nov 1984, but left
the factory in 1985 paint/decal schemes (with gold and
black badge). I believe all my derailleurs are pat. 84
(n. record) so that jibes. My feeling is that towards the
end of the year Trek played fast and loose with paint
and decal schemes. The dates on your components don't
surprize me, one would not expect 84 components on
an early 84/ late 83 bike, use what's on hand.
what bars/stem do you have? Belleri or SR? (SR was 83 model).

Marty

The bars are Belleri, I'm not sure of the stem.
The wheels are Matrix Strada. and the rear hub is the Helicomatic.
The frame is 501 and it has Suntour shifters, derailleurs.

My guess is now that it's an '84 with a frame built in '83.

PJ

Well, aside from the Helicomatic hubs (gaaaag!), it looks like a really good bike. If there was ever anything that good around here, I'd snap it up in a second no matter what size the frame is.

Sorry, I hate to pick a bone, but 19 years old is not 'vintage'. Vintage is maybe 1970s, probably 1960s, definitely 1950s, but NOT 1980s.

Ha, ha......an '83 lugged Trek is definitely vintage. Just like my '87 Paramount and '88 Trek 770 are vintage. And who made you the arbiter of what is and what is not vintage? You sound like the vintage nazi's at classic rendezvous.

hey,

1983 frame IS vintage for CR (20 year sliding time frame?). Given Trek's current crop of carbon fibre,
and lack of lugged steel frames it qualifies as vintage to
me, as does my 1984 built 1985 Trek.

Marty

I think almost all my bikes are vintage...

'84 Bianchi Squadra
'84 Trek 500
'88 Trek 400T
"70'-80's (unknown) Fuji

PJ

The cutoff for vintage cars is 25 years. Anything older, you can't get into Hershey. For bikes, I've seen twenty years bandied about.

I consider almost any older (no, I won't define it, age is an epemeral thing in cosmic terms, anyhoo) lugged steel frame to be vintage. But what the heck do I know? I just like the bikes, that's all. They're cool.

I really have no idea if any of my bikes are vintage, but I use the term in desribing them, as all but one of them are at least nearing twenty-five years.

It could be argued as well that certain elements of design are "vintage." For example, my UO-10 might not be considered vintage-- too low end, while the PX's might be vintage because they have a pedigree another bike from the same period may not have.

Ultimately, who cares? If you like the bike, that's it.

Personally I would say that 85 or 87 would be my cut off
for "vintage" why you ask? 85 Campy introduces C-Record which is the
beginning of the end of the "classic" period, or
87 which was last year that Super Record was produced.

Works for me.
Marty

Ultimately, who cares? If you like the bike, that's it.

I'm certainly fine with this, and I'm not a vintage 'nazi'; but I do know that there are certain definitions of vintage for other collectibles, including cars, guitars, certain toys, and I'm sure others...and I'm sure older bikes fall into this milieu somewhere...for example, I would think that maybe a true 'vintage bike' is one that predates widespread use of derailleur gears and 27" wheels??? I dunno...

Didn't mean to get up on a high horse about all this, but I really get tired of the guys at CR who are so haughty about what is and what is not vintage. Any nice, older bicycle can be called vintage, in my opinion. And what is 'older' doesn't really matter, as long as one is not ridiculous. It will be some time before I'll get to call my Serotta 'vintage', but that day will come about the time I have to stop riding due to frail bones.

Like I said, the cutoff for cars is twenty-five years. As far as I'm aware, there really isn't one for bikes, perhaps because there are no regulating bodies running classic bike shows that I'm aware of (In this, as in many other things, I could be wrong). But I'd argue that there's something more in the terms classic and vintage than mere carbon dating (or Reynolds 531 dating, whatever). There's a certain aesthetic to the classic/vintage.

Lotek's comments about the Campy components are interesting, although I don't think I'd use the output of one manufacturer to make a cutoff date (or, as randya posits, the introduction of certain technologies), no matter how nice their stuff might be. Classics may run earlier, they may run later; there's a quality to them which is hard to pin down. Certainly nothing as easy as age does it. A pair of Simplex retrofriction shifters is classic and vintage, for example, but I'm not sure about the stock simplex shifters that came on a UO8-- even though the retrofriction ones likely date later. Huh. At about twenty years old, the retrofrictions can even be considered "vintage," I suppose.

There's a quality to the classic and vintage, I think, which is hard to equal and has at least stood some test of time. I'm using the two terms (classic/vintage) interchangably here, I know, and anyone smarter than me can feel free to saw them apart again. But I don't think "classic" and "vintage" are terms you can easily pin down with dates. It just don't work that way; there's an aesthetic in them. Now I'm off to re-read Santayana.

Jeez, I feel like I'm in art school again. I may have to drop out all over again. :(.

Yep..dropping out is where its at. I agree with your thinking. I think all Paramounts made by Schwinn can be considered classics/vintage. Same with lugged framesets by Trek. Not because I own them but because they are no longer made and haven't been for some time and were built by artists and not machines. I say although the last lugged Treks seem to have been machine built as they switched their lines to automated fabrication. To me, vintage and classic includes a heavy dose of the asthetic and some nostalgia. Maybe I'm just getting old.