Old 01-22-15, 05:43 AM
  #6  
photogravity
Hopelessly addicted...
 
photogravity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Central Maryland
Posts: 4,955

Bikes: 1949 Hercules Kestrel, 1950 Norman Rapide, 1970 Schwinn Collegiate, 1972 Peugeot UE-8, 1976 Raleigh Sports, 1977 Raleigh Sports, 1977 Jack Taylor Tandem, 1984 Davidson Tandem, 2010 Bilenky "BQ" 650B Constructeur Tandem, 2011 Linus Mixte

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by Antieverything
We all know that pristine, Grail bikes are the bees knees. This question would be more for the average hobbyist then the full on collector.

Do you think the value of collectable bikes in fair condition will increase as years go by? (Meaning you leave it in the collection and keep it high n dry without doing a full restore)

Or should you part out, grab the cash, and run? (I could possible make 3-4x the purchase price by parting while selling whole will not make nearly as much)

Or ride it into dust because it's not a museum quality piece? (I rarely ride it now as there's others that are my favorites)

Another question would be would you part the original groupset in favor of something you like better? (campy nr in lieu of dura ace, I hate the campy group on the bike!)
A collectible bike in good condition will probably continue to increase in value. I use probably because markets make "corrections" and it can be difficult to determine when one will happen. Parting out a bike will yield more money than if you were to keep it intact. If it is a truly rare bicycle, parting it out is highly distasteful to me. You lose much of the history of a bicycle when you part it out. Of course, if you really like the bike, there's nothing wrong with putting the original components to the side and replacing them with something you like better. In the case of some of my bicycles, I have taken just that approach.
photogravity is offline