First, I am pointing out what was top tier and what was second tier in the 1950s.
Second, in terms of collecting, it doesn't really matter what a n00b wants, ****ty or not, it should hold your interest.
Third, "rarity" has nothing to do with "collectible".
Forth, context matters as second tier was likely top tier a few years back.
Need me to clear it up some more?
Read the title of the thread. "Assistance for Newbs: post your pics of varying quality levels of bike-related stuff"
Read the original post.
Originally Posted by
Drillium Dude
I'm hoping that newbies will get an idea of what is at the extreme ends of the spectrum and that information will be helpful in discovering where they want to fit themselves in.
Here is the thread this is spawned from.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...-on-Craigslist?
Here are the quotes from that thread:
Originally Posted by
The Golden Boy
Originally Posted by
repechage
To The Enthusiast, You need some information of which to judge these possible bikes on your own a bit.
We should come up with some sort of 'noob' checklist so that people can evaluate frame material, component groups, makers and such.
Knowing that a 4130 CrMo frame would be preferable to Mangalloy or 1020 HiTen would be valuable.
Generally knowing that unmarked, chromed components are generally not "quality."
Knowing that the presence of lugs doesn't mean it's a good frame.
Knowing the names of Huffy, Murray, Columbia... names you may know, but don't necessarily mean quality bicycles. (now watch someone pass up a $25 Serrota built "Huffy")
I'm asking what your posts have to do with that.
As an aside- relative "rarity" does have an effect on collectability.