Every bike show I've been to, the Paramount owners seem to be a unique bunch. I've never seen a group spend so much time denigrating the other Paramounts on display, pointing out the defects, repaints, errors, etc. At the first one in High Point, I listened for a few minutes, and then asked the guy "why should I believe you?" He walked away. Lord knows what they'd say if a person brought in a PDG OS Series Paramount. The horror, the horror.

I've had a Waterford-made Paramount, and I've had several PDG OS-Series Paramounts. Last time I checked, they all said Paramount on them, named by Schwinn. I've had the Series 2 (Taiwan), Series 3 (Taiwan) and the Series 7 (Japan). They all rode well, and were excellent frames. The filing and finish on the Waterford version was a bit nicer, both before and definitely after Waterford repainted it. The filing and finish on the Series models was a bit lower, on the 2 and 3, but the Series 7 was right there, and had a much more interesting paint scheme, the amoeba-like splatter under the clear coat.

Ride-wise, the Waterford SLX model had no advantage over the Tange OS Series 7. The unicrown fork was really nice on the Series 7, easily the equal of the lugged fork on the Waterford model, if you like the unicrown shape. The Tange rep at NAHBS told me that the ovalized forks were very likely Prestige-tubed, but the decals only had Tange on them.

Schwinn spent a lot of R&D money with the PDG team, and a lot of what they developed in R&D helped make OS tubing into a good choice for building bikes, not just for Schwinn. And yes, the "real" Paramount was actually made in an OS tubing, too. True Temper, if I'm correct, but I'm not sure.

The gap between the "real" Paramounts and the OS Series, some would have you think, is as wide as that of the Centurion Ironman and the Huffy Ironman. Not quite. My opinion is that Schwinn spent so much on R&D of the OS tubing for the OS Series, when the yen went way up, they were left having to use lower-end components, and it killed sales. The Series 7, if outfitted with the 1992 Dura Ace 8-sp STI, would have been right there with the Waterford-made Paramounts of the same era. I also opine that if I blindfolded 95% of the Paramount "experts" I found at bike shows, and had them ride a DA 8-sp STI Waterford model and a Series 7, they'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.

The Series 2 and Series 3, upon close inspection, closely match other more mass-produced bikes of Asian origin of the same time. They should. I've never ridden a Series 5, having only seen one of the frames hanging in a bike shop (and they wanted $300). However, I have ridden a Series 7, and it was light, precise, and handled every bit as well as my Waterford model. The paint was far more interesting, and of course, it was worth about 1/3 the "real" deal. Much better deal than buying the pedigree.

Perhaps it's an Asian bias. If so, I'd take a Tsunoda Lotus Classique vs. a Paramount from the same era, any day. Not every Paramount owner is like this, and I surmise it's more a function of self-promotion of a brand, and the intense competition of sorts amongst Paramount "display folk." I can relate to the self-promotion of a brand, of course, but I rarely denigrate other bikes for any reason, much less due to their pedigree. Heck, I even owned one of those Huffy Ironman bikes. I gave it away, but I'm not sure I did the recipient any favor in that.

Now, excuse my while I go put on my flame-******ant suit.