I'm not sure from a collector standpoint. I do know the six series grand touring bikes are very highly rated. I believe the frames are very similar if not the same. Think I saw this on sheldons site. I have a Sixten that is to big but a dreamto ride none the less. Im not sure of the 3 series touring bikes.
The fork is hi-tensile or hi-carbon but not chromoly so my guess is the stays are too, the wheels are probably 27" as the early 1000s were. That chainring set-up is awful also, it's like they built these for racers who wanted to take up touring. But the bike looks mint, I honestly, am not sure what the collector appeal of 1000s is. I seem them from a utilitarian standpoint and I have to wonder if the people who buy them feel the same or are there actually "collectors" keeping them original and riding them on sundays.
If you look at it's value from this standpoint this grand touring bike becomes mediocre. The 27" wheels make upgrading to 700s undesirable because the brake adjustment is a little more difficult (you'll need original shimano deore cantilevers), but is still possible and the fork and stays are heavier. There's also only one set of eyelets on the rear drop-outs.
The seatpost is WAY past the min insertion.
1 Super Record bike, 1 Nuovo Record bike, 1 Pista, 1 Road, 1 Cyclocross/Allrounder, 1 MTB, 1 Touring, 1 Fixed gear
that's an interesting design... does away with a few bosses so you have to use clamps.
Food for thought: if you aren't dead by 2050, you and your entire family will be within a few years from starvation. Now that is a cruel gift to leave for your offspring. ;)
Looks like a Great bike in really Superb condition! And has my favorite rear derailleur of the era, too. Wish it were 3 inches taller.
I hope it sells well - since it appears to have been beautifully maintained (... or seldom used?)
The bars remind me of some 1950s Cinelli City-bike bars I once saw with levers molded right into the bars. Those bas are maybe not so desirable on a full touring bike as drop bars, but no stranger than many of the Rivendell Albatross type bars I've seen on some. And I suspect they are probably quite comfortable for leisurely weekend touring!
Amazing to see those beautiful racks still on the front and rear! I love racks which have a "Stop" on the top. For some reason Bruce Gordon decided this was not necessary, but it comes in very handy when you DO NOT want an unexpected addition to your load to slip forward against the brake cables [what the heck was he thinking!... DUH - probably the sales of his $500 dedicated panniers, of course].
As Cyclotoine mentioned, there are still many "sport touring" characteristics about the bike (such as the gearing). But, I think this came out around the time when there were NO production touring bikes at all available in the US, and I suspect Miyata was testing the waters to see if anyone would go for this. There were some very elaborate touring bikes available in Japan throughout the 1970s (much more acessorized than the later 1000s had ever evolved into), but this would have been a very unique and "complete" touring bike to see on US roads in 1979.
Those are the original Miyata racks (I had a 1000) and they are not good racks for a touring bike IMHO, but I suppose they are collectable. Notice how the rack platform bolts to the struts. I imagine this made the racks easier to pack inside the bike box in a broken down state. These bolt together racks are not as strong at resisting sway and wobble as welded racks for loaded touring.
This bears no resemblance to a 1000, other than it's Miyata and it has canti brakes.
Canti brakes don't have any advantage on a bike stuck with 27 by 1 1/4 tires.
I was noticing the same thing, what a poor design for racks, they'll break at the frame mounting if any real load is applied, and there's no provision for keeping the load out of the spokes. This frame looks devoid of touring features- no rack mounts, no midfork mounts, no downtube shifter mounts, no bottle cage mounts, the gearing is way too high on all three rings, obsolete 27" wheels with what I assume is 25-year-old road tires. Barcons sticking out horizontally on a touring bike is an invitation for disaster, the trip is over if you tip the bike. I'm happy for the seller that the bid went wildly high, but for that price someone can find a decent later-model Miyata touring bike with lots of money left over.
Stronglight- On the contrary, everybody was riding a "touring bike" in the 70s! I was riding a Nishiki production touring bike in the mid-70s- the big differences was that we used centerpulls instead of cantis in those days, accessories were bolt-on rather than braze-on, and we had five-speed freewheels. My bike in 1976 was lugged steel, long wheelbase, forged dropouts, came with Suntour Cyclone long-cage der, Suntour DT shifter, high-rise alloy stem and drops, rear rack, full fenders, bottom bracket light generator. I think it weighed 27 pounds with rack and fenders, same as a modern touring bike. Triple-butting is a lot of hype on a touring bike, it doesn't make sense to ultra-lightweight a bike that's intended to be loaded with 40 pounds of gear. Granny gears and triple cranks were rare and very expensive in those days. Most people devised a homemade granny mounting scheme on their doubles and manually switched to the granny. This was before the days of mountain bikes. I routinely used my bike in mud and snow and fire roads in the 70s, and for distance touring- the big disadvantage was that the tires available in those days weren't ideal for off-road use. But I have to laugh at folks who think they need a mountain bike for a dirt path! It ain't so!
The Miyata Gran Touring was unusual for 1979 for having canti brakes and triple crank, but neither of these features had any real advantage- canti's aren't needed if you're using 27 by 1 1/4 tires, and that triple gearing was massively too high to be useful. Oh, and good luck finding 86 BCD rings. The lovely blue color and fluted chainstays were very unusual for the time.