I have enjoyed reading about the Paramount serial number coding issues. Many members certainly seem to know their stuff. I recently corresponded with Richard Schwinn regarding the number on my 1989 Paramount. A couple of things members know or perhaps find interesting: My serial number is 660GMWG89051. I determined that 660 is the size (it's huge) and W meant Waterford (although some say it means Wisconsin). It was made in July 1989 and was the 51st frame (or fork) made, or bike assembled. What was curious was the letter G, which is fork size. I had never read of a fork larger than "E". Mr. Schwinn told me the "M" indicated OS sized tubing, 31.8mm for that year. Could someone tell me if this is correct? Is there anything members can add to this information? Thanks for your help.

I'd say you already got it straight from the horse's mouth. Got any pics?

Welcome to Bike Forums and C&V specifically. It is challenging to add anything to what Richard Schwinn has already offered. So it is a 66cm frame? I'm guessing that would have been a special order originally. I can't say that I've seen any Waterford Paramounts larger then 61cm or 63cm. Please post a few pictures.

I can't say as I have seen a 66cm Waterford Paramount either. That was a common size in the 70's and early 80's, I had one. Please post a picture if you are able.

The "fork size" is actually the length of the steerer tube, which of course is dependent on the length of the head tube. My 1987 62cm frame (620E WK 87077) has an "E" length steerer, so I'm guessing a 64cm frame would take an "F", and a 66cm frame would take a "G".

I believe Richard is correct about the "M". 1989 was the year the OS Paramounts were introduced, and they were built using True Temper OS tubing which Schwinn called "Paramount Tubing" as it was joint development effort by Schwinn and True Temper. The Paramounts using standard diameter Columbus tubing (SLX on frame sizes up to 57cm; SL with SP down tubes on larger frame sizes) were also available that year.

From the 1989 catalog:



Tubing diameters:

The Columbus tubing Paramounts used standard diameter tubes; the Paramount tubing Paramounts used OS diameter tubes.

Here is the Paramount geometry from the 1989 catalog. Note that the Paramount OS was available in stock sizes up to 68cm!

Here it is. As you can see, it is a mix of newer and not so new components. The frame (66cm) probably has in excess of 25,000 miles on it. It was by far the biggest and heaviest frame at the HTH 100.
The frame is due for another repaint at Waterford.
I will either restore it to original and purchase another bike as my primary ride, or upgrade it to Etap (DI2 has too many wires, boxes, zip ties, etc., on a classic frame).
It was originally a shade of black cherry metallic. I had it painted by Waterford in the mid-90's to its current shade of the closest they could do to Guardsman Red. I'm thinking either the original color if I restore, or Fly Yellow, BRG or Laguna Blue if I upgrade. Suggestions? Thanks to all, especially Scooper. Doc

That is a huge frame. You probably get this question all the time, but did you play basketball?

When I purchased the bike, the dealer had another 66 frame for sale. I passed. I regret it to this day. Yes, I played basketball, poorly.

Glad you shared this - all the other details jibe with my understanding of the Waterford coding, but this is the first time I've heard that "M" indicated the OS tubing. I think I recall one table referring to that digit as a "company code." That never made any sense to me at all until now, so good information!

My '89 is two months younger than yours and a bit smaller. One interesting thing about my 60cm OS frame is that it is has a Columbus SLX decal. So it's wrong on two counts: (1) it's not Columbus tubing at all, and (2) SLX - at least to my understanding - would not have been used on a 60cm frame. Nevertheless, this odd decal is the only peccadillo. It's a truly remarkable bike, as I'm confident in saying yours is also likely to be.

At one point I had two Waterford Paramounts, built within a couple weeks of each other in Jan '89, IIRC. The earlier one was a late Columbus skinny-tube, the later one an early OS-tube. Both bought/won on separate ebay auctions, from different sellers, so the production timing was completely coincidental. I thought it was cool having model changeover-cusp examples. It's been a while since I sold them---I liked how they both rode, can't recall if I perceived much difference due to the frame tubing.

Unfortunately the frame isn't for sale but it is a 66cm.

I'd go with purple if you're repainting.

I was going to post all the sellers pics but the frame is in really bad shape. The front looks the best.

I always like the Black Cherry. My vote would be to repaint it, replace the current parts and pick up a new Waterford. Two bikes are always better than one.

Just for fun, as I was cleaning the bike the other day, I took a metric tape measure to the bike. Curiously, the wheelbase is significantly different that the measurement listed by Waterford. No matter how many time I measure, I come out with a wheelbase of 99.5mm center axle front to rear. Granted the rear stop screw is a few mm forward, but not enough to account for the 36 mm difference between Waterford's/Schwinn's figure and mine? Comments?

Wow! What a size!!!!!

Yes its a big bike, but I am 6'5", 220lbs. The bike rides like a dream although I will never climb or corner as my friends on their carbons. Great century bike that is easy on my back. There is quite a bit of weight on the front when I am on the aero bars but I compare it to a mid-sixties Cadillac convertible. The plan was to go Etap this summer but I don't like the idea of spreading the rear drop out. I'll probably reinstall the original rims and put the SLR's on a carbon "burner" for those "hammer" rides.