Originally Posted by alanbikehouston
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.
I couldn't disagree more. The classic Reynolds, Columbus, Vitus, etc. steel frames are like a fine works of art compared to the lifeless high-tech frames sold today. You can just feel the love that was conveyed from the brazer into the frame. I have absolutely no desire to spend thousands of dollars for a weight savings of a few pounds and a questionable lifespan. If somebody wants to offload a nice steel frame for $50.00, I'll eagerly gobble it up and add it to my fleet. I remember spending hours drooling over beautiful lugged steel bikes in the cycling mags and now I meerly glance over the modern bikes that all look the same. What happened to the art and the love? Sorry for the rant, but there just seems to be something missing in the bicycle manufacturing industry today, and I think it might be craftsmanship.