corrado33

I couldn't think of a good way to title this thread, but I thought of it the other day when I was selling a bike.

Before I got into bikes and fixing them, old mountain bikes were just that... old mountain bikes. They were "cheap" and crappy. "Nice" bikes were ones that "looked" nice. So an old Landshark that had a really cool paint job or something that had flashy graphics.

However, as I've gotten to know old and classic bikes better, my differentiation between "oh that's a nice bike" and "oh that's just an old bike" has gotten more sharp.

However, it's gone a step further than that. In the first couple of years getting to know old bikes I knew enough to look up the bike and know whether is was high end (in it's day) or low end. Then, I judged all "low end" bikes harshly and praised all "high end" bikes.

But now it's slightly different. I may see a relatively low end univega with a bolt on rear axle, but I know those univegas produced around that time actually rode pretty nicely, regardless of how high up on the hierarchy they were.

In essence, the number of bikes that I would consider "nice" has grown to include many older cheaper bikes. Many of you have many more years of experience than me, and I'd like to hear your take on the subject? Did you have similar realizations at some point in your life? Or have you gone the opposite direction and only consider high end brands worthy of your (and other's) time?