Back during the "Bike Boom" of the 1970's, many folks thought the BEST bikes were the ones with Reynolds 531 frames (based on that frame being used on the winning bike in the Tour de France virtually every year from 1950 to 1980). So, back in those days, I rode the bikes I could afford, but I was lusting after a Schwinn Paramount, or some other bike with a nice Reynolds 531 frame.

Over the years, I began making more money, but the price of such bikes went from around $300 in 1969, to over $1,000 by 1980 - always a bit more than I could afford.

So, yesterday, I'm looking on E-Bay, and a bike with Reynolds 531 frame sells for around $50. The same bike sold for around $1,000 back in 1983. And, instantly, a Reynolds 531 framed bike became MUCH less attractive to me. It was too cheap. Nobody wanted it. It was an outcast. It was a Hollywood movie actress who, in her declining years, was dancing for tips in a back alley bar.

So, is that how it works? We only "lust" after the bikes we can't have? And, if suddenly we can have it, we no longer want it?

Are the bikes we can't afford always better than the bikes we can afford? Sigh.