cpsqlrwn

I am looking at a 1982 Guerciotti and the owner has advertised the components as being Super Record. Would someone be so kind as to give me confirmation or rebuttal of that please? Thanks for any info! Here are the pics....

cyclotoine

wow! yeah it's super record and pantographed! I have the same bike only smaller and without the pantoed parts (though I sold the pantoed chainring). Mine is beautifully finished and I think the old Guerciotti logo is much nicer than the new one. How much is it? You had better snap it up quick and see if the original seatpost is kicking around.

Edit: you will notice the original brake hoods have been replaced, no biggie, and the brake levers were technically nuovo record to begin with but they provide the suitable canvas for the beautiful pantographing.

cpsqlrwn

What do you mean by "original seatpost". This is what's on the bike.

caterham

i agree that the bike is represented accurately as 'full super record' but to be precise, it's probably what was called a "super record,reduced" group. the brake levers are record since the official sr levers are perforated and wouldn't take to the pantographing. tho it can't be verified either way from the pic, the pedals are most likely record superleggerro and the btm bkt ,record.at the time, most folk avoided using the light but less reliable sr titanium btm bkt and sr ti pedals.

also agree that you should snatch this one up asap.that's about as classic a gooch as you're likely to find.

caterham

the post is a late 90's version and not original to the bike

carpediemracing 

Nice condition. Rear derailleur with no scratches? Incredible. Pedal (the one pictured) also has none of the silver "gouged away" bit. My derailleur and pedals were scratched within months.

Seatpost is very new compared to the rest. The original SR post has fluted sides and a one bolt (not allen head) clamp system.

As pointed out SR groups normally came with steel axled version of SR pedals and the NR bottom bracket (steel axle and steel cups vs ti axle and al cups) due to reliability/cost concerns. Also the pantographed brake levers are NR (else you can't pantograph them).

The small ring is SR, normally geeks would have put the 1 gram lighter NR small ring on there.

I'm pretty sure the skewers are not right, at least the rear one.

cdr

caterham

hmmm.... i'm apparently not seeing that in the pics provided.
the only anomolies from stock that I readily see are the seatpost as mentioned,the regal saddle(introduced in 86,iirc)which is still well within the bike's prime, the rear triangle most likely spread to accept the longer 7 speed rear axle & regina FW and the modolo hoods. all save the seatpost (& maybe the non-campy hoods for the anal retentives tho the timeline for the modolo anatomics is fine) are in my mind perfectly suited, well selected and period acceptable for this bike.

k

T-Mar

While the other components are period correct, I'm wondering how many are not original to the bicycle. Given the pantographing on the brakeset, I would have expected similar on the outer chainring, shift levers and stem. Either they have been replaced or the owner found a pantographed brakeset to replace the originals.

cyclotoine

Good eye carpediemracing. The rear skewer is incorrect, record hubs of that vintage would have the QR lever secured with a nut. I the picture of the rear hub there is no nut. This also corroborates caterham in that a longer axle may have been installed for 7 speed and thus a longer skewer was needed but the original nut of course was kept.

caterham

of course,you're correct about the nut feature but are you absolutely sure that the picture shows otherwise? seems to me that there's a hex shaped reflection off the chroming of the skewer head. hard to say for sure with the skewer so out of focus and the acorn presumably seen from head-on in the pic provided.

cyclotoine

You're right, there is a hazy hex shape and the fuzzy spoke doesn't help matters.

stronglight

I don't think the rear spacing was necessarily re-spaced, and I suspect the axle and skewer were for standard 126 hubs.

A full width 6-speed freewheel would have required 126 mm and they were available LONG before 1982.
In fact, Suntour and Shimano both had introduced 7-speed freewheels by 1982... so "technically" even a 7-speed could be considered Period Correct on the bike (even though Campy didn't make one until 1987).

And, Suntour had introduced their narrow "Ultra" chain in 1977 - to allow the compact 120 mm spaced Ultra-6 freewheels. This simply became the Ultra-7 chain a few years later to allow 7-speed freewheels in 126 mm spacing.

caterham

i wrote:"...,the rear triangle *most likely *spread to accept the longer 7 speed rear axle... "

I based that statement largely on the lack of skewer thread protruding thru the derailleur side nut, the seeming lack of a washer/spacer on the rear axle's non-drive side between the inner cone and outer jamnut, and the large amount of space between the r-rear dropout and first cog.
again the pic is lacking in resolution, esp in regards to the washer.

In regards to being "period correct" ,to me the freewheel options between 6 and 7 speed clusters would be a personal choice , trading between broader functionality and "authenticity".It's my preference to run as much freewheel as possible with my own bikes as they are all used as regular daily riders. One can always spin on a "correct" freewheel or wheelset for show purposes.

cpsqlrwn

These are the only pictures I have that show the skewers. Have a look....

caterham

the skewers look correct,having nuts to retain the levers as they should. the wheels were re-rimmed at some point. I would also assume that the original stem was swapped out for the Cinelli x/a at some time to better suit the original owner as that would be most buyers first choice for pantographing as per T-Mar's enquiry. my hunch is that this particular gooch was built up as a frameset and equipped with as much pantographing as the original owner could obtain or afford and maintained & updated whenever it was required or desireable in keeping with the character/personality of the bike tho not necessarily with intensions of 'catalogue perfect correctness'.
imo, it's a lovely, well equipped and very nicely kept bike that should bring you much pleasure and pride.aside from a freshen-up, tune& and bearing repack ,the only thing I would do is to replace the seatpost for a 27.2 super record single bolt unit and ride the beegeesus out of it.

edit-

fyi, the reason for our collective confusion regarding the rear skewer is that the lever retaining nut should be a chromed acorn nut . the original was apparently lost and then replaced with a conventional metric hex nut. not a biggie but just so you know.

cpsqlrwn

Thanks for all the info guys. You have all been very helpful and I am very appreciative!

Bob

cpsqlrwn

One last question. Is $1200 a reasonable value for this bike or is that too much to pay?

cyclotoine

Ohhh, actually $1200 is a little steep, if it was all pantographed (i.e. shift levers, chain ring, stem and seat post) then yeah maybe, but it's not pristine and lacks the original seatpost and the stem has been swapped at some point. I never liked the look of the XA stem on a nuovo/super record bike. I retro grouch like me sees it as incorrect. If he has the original stem and seatpost to give to you that makes it a little better but I could see that bike selling for more like $800 on the bay.

cpsqlrwn

Thanks Cyclotoine. That was my feeling as well. What is this "XA" you're referring to? Pardon my ignorance!

cyclotoine

Edited above. it's the stem.

coelcanth

i have a 1982 guerciotti full panto'd..
i bought it from da original owner (with original receipt)
it has the same wheelset & rims as your bike.
spacing is 6sp @ 126mm.
stem is a panto'd 1R.
the seatpost is a panto'd nuovo record. (like the brake levers)

interestingly, the brake calipers are panto'd but in a style different from yours..
and one brake was an early nuovo record (flat quick release) with the center bolt modified for recessed mounting.

cpsqlrwn

Unfortunately, this is not my bike. This bike was on eBay and just finished bidding. I bid it up at far as I was comfortable, higher than I should have, and the bike went for $1280.00. Pretty high considering the frame condition, I think.

Old Fat Guy

I can't believe that so many folks got sucked into a detailed discussion of an eBay bike.

FWIW, the bike went to a Taiwanese buyer, so $1280 is not indicative of what it would bring in the USA. Gotta love the cheap dollar.