OK experts is it a 68 like the ebay seller says or is it an 1980 like the serial number says
https://www.ebay.com/itm/SCHWINN-PAR...kAAOSw9sheLg3d
sorry about the spelling in the title but woln't let me edit

I'm not an expert, but my gut says 1980.

The decals say 1980 but seller says it was a repaint.

Not gonna be 1980 with Nervex is it?

This bike is a mash-up of parts. And maybe the seller is correct that it is 80% Campy. But the Japanese bars and stem say built out of parts. Let's say the serial number is correct as a 1968, My bike from 1969 was serial number H829 no 029 involved with the coding. And the fork is not a 68 model. That cast fork crown wasn't around in 1968. If it is a 1980 model, there were only a few made for the team and I think Eric Hieden was taller than a 50 cm frame. The 7-11 team was just getting started and most of the member as I recall were also taller. I would ask the seller to verify the serial number on the fork stamped into the steerer tube. JMHO, MH

I'm no expert on Paramounts but the serial numbers are well established.

https://waterfordbikes.com/w/culture...amount-dating/

From '66 to '69, there was a letter (month) and 3 digits with the first being the year.

The serial number is wrong. This is my '68 Paramount:

Two more things strike me as odd about the eBay bike.

First, shouldn't it have brazed on cable guides? My '68 does and I would have thought by 1980, cable guides were pretty common. But I don't know for sure when cable guide braze ons became standard on Paramounts.

Second, the seller claims a weight of 25-26 lbs. If the seller is right, that weight is wrong for a 531 bike with high end gear and this is a small bike.

Well maybe he used his fish weight scale for the weight? (smiles) My 1972 Track bike is just like yours with the same lugs and decals. And I get the repaint thing. When I sent my 1969 model in, Schwinn repainted it in gloss pearlized white instead of the silver it came with, and gave it a set of the current decals which were like 1983 variety. I was OK with it as it was from the factory after they repaired a couple of seat stay caps that came loose and did it all under warranty. So this may be a repaint from the factory, but still it doesn't scream 1968 to me. And if it is a team bike, it would be documented as such from either a team member or Schwinn. and that year is more in the 1980 realm. JMHO, MH

So I also went to the Flea bay site and there is another 1968 P 13 for sale as a frame and fork. Correct decals and lugs. Easy to compare, the only braze on is for the rear derailleur. But when I look at the pics for the $1300 bike the serial number is on a bright red frame and not a maroon frame as in the pics. There is just too much wrong with this bike to even consider buying it.
I sent a querry to the seller about the matching serial number on the frame and the fork. I got the reply that in this era the serial number was only stamped on the rear dropout. So in my mind this is one to avoid!
Again JMHO, MH

I swapped messages with the seller last week, about the vintage of this Paramount, by the serial number it is a 68, as mentioned above, it has been repainted and had decals from the mid-late 70s added by a previous owner. Several of the parts are not correct, by his replies to me. Kind of vague in his responses to me too.

I figured it would come up here as a question, so I pinged him about the colourway and decals being later than 1968. Thought he would have put something correcting the listing by now, seems he is determined to leave the listing as is for some reason.

See Mad Honk 's last sentence above.

Bill

So I sent the seller a question about the serial number on the fork and told him my 1972 has the serial # stamped on both the frame and fork, and he asked me to verify my frame and fork serial number. Why should I make his life any easier??? This again is one to avoid any involvement with. JMHO, MH

You hit the nail right on the head. I punted any more communication with him and wished him well. I was pretty certain that he'd get nailed by several people that know Paramounts, and get put in his place eventually.

Then again, some people just are 100% Certain that they know everything about everything.

Bill

In a case like this, I am more inclined to just punt. I am not gonna spend any $ money with this guy and I don't need to antagonize him. He thinks he has a pot of gold and no one will convince him otherwise. Somebody may bite on this one but not me, I am a bit too old and too long in the tooth to think I might get some good in this deal. I have one frame and fork from a BF member that will serve me well and doesn't say Paramount on it. I have had more than one of those and I will admit that Wanda's skills were great. But I don't need another bike to verify that. So I am going to bed on this one. Smiles, MH

Agreed 100%, and its overpriced IMHO, so that's strike 3 for my interest in it. Or out 3 in reality.

Bill

The fork crown is not correct. There's no way it is an original fork. There are other examples of Paramounts having a Star of David stamped in the BB. But IIRC these were ones that were outsourced during the early '70s bike boom.

The serial is definitely 1980 and there are a couple of 1979s pictured on the net that have Nervex lugs like this one, so that would be my guess. It doesn't really matter though....there's no way that bike is worth what they're asking for it given its questionable provenance and the painting over of the chrome lugs and stays.

There is a big dollar Cinelli pista for sale right now on eBay that is so much more pleasant to look at. $7k or best offer.

sellers like the one offering this repainted Paramount are only worth pointing out to the less knowledgeable of what to avoid.

This is a weird one for sure, but it is a 1980 serial number. First bike (...01) built in February of 1980, and the lack of braze-ons correlates with 1979 P13-9 production. Thing is, I've never heard of second-generation Paramount production ever continuing past 1979.

Also, that is the same type of off-the-shelf Tange fork used on the 1981 Schwinn Superior - something that would be easily accessible at the time. However, the serial number typeface on the Superiors is smaller, so this isn't a Superior dolled up as a Paramount.

Note that Schwinn went through the trouble of chroming and masking the dropout area. This was done on the '79 Paramounts, but not on the Superiors that followed.

However, this is not a repainted Paramount. This is the original paint job and original decals. All the decals are present in their correct locations, they don't appear to be current-day replicas, the minor scratches match up with the overall condition of the frame, and - extremely noteworthy - it also wears the 1980-83 Paramount Design Group logo under the seattube. Find me someone in 1980 who knew how to get everything right - prior to the internet - and knew to put the highly exclusive PDG logo on the seattube, much less knew to get their hands on it?

My theory is that a dealer sent in a warranty request on a Paramount frame after production closed, and the Chicago factory cobbled this one together and threw a Superior fork in it, because the Superior forks were there and accessible. Pretty sure the BB is the same Japanese unit used in Superior production, IIRC.

Either that, or Mainland made this and Chicago stamped it. Or Waterford made it and had the Chicago stamps. Or Mainland had the stamps all along and just changed for the Superiors. Or whatever - it really doesn't matter who built it or who stamped it - the fact is, Schwinn apparently made a 1980 Paramount P13-9 with a Tange fork and this is it.

Remember, we've also seen a 1984 Waterford Paramount apparently painted and decaled from the factory as a Superior. Strange things have happened with this marquee at Schwinn.

Also, I'm really curious about this color now. If it's the color I think it is, this is the third time I've seen a Schwinn Parasuperiorsomethingorother wearing it - including my own 1982 Superior. The color has come up one too many times to be a coincidence, even though some examples may be factory repaints. Also, my '82 Superior wears the 1984+ PDG logo in the same place below the seat lug. Somehow, I'm not surprised at this anymore.

The seller may be a jerk, but the interesting thing here is that there's a fair chance that this may be the very last second-gen Paramount ever built, if the above theory is correct. Not that it makes it valuable though - as repechage points out, this is not a particularly pretty machine, and the components are a mishmash. Even if it is the last second-gen Paramount, what are you getting? A Paramount frame with few trimmings and a mass-produced Japanese fork. Nothing earthshattering. Also, without provenance (this is a bike definitely worth pulling a report on), it is all just conjecture.

-Kurt

Kurt,

My thoughts align with yours. It’s a 1980 frame, that’s a original paint and decal job. Tang fork like you say used for Superiors , Campagnolo Gran Sport componets again used on Superiors. Weinmann Brakes Schwinn was using them in 79 I am wondering if this was a factory build. Another possibility besides a warranty frame is Schwinn had one or more built for evaluation thinking of starting production back up ( I think that star is an inspection mark) maybe they were looking to make the Paramount more price competive and decided to use the Superior name instead of two levels of Paramounts.

I am guessing Richard Schwinn has no records on this one .

I did momentarily consider the possibility that this was a prototype for the Superior, but it wouldn't have made sense for them to decal it as a Paramount - or put an S/N on it. Given that the PDG seattube decal was available, I would have assumed Schwinn would have done the bike up with the newer decals throughout if it were a prototype - but I can see them opting for the outgoing Paramount decals for a warranty job.

I considered the possibility that the components were original Nuovo Gran Sport, but the Superior had NGS brakes and crank too. The Nuovo Record crank and Weinmann brakes make me think the entire component group is owner-chosen.

Might be worth it for someone to eventually get RS's report on this one. Might take a while, given the owner's attitude.

-Kurt

'Cuda K,
I tried to get mote info from him, but then I looked to his history at E-Bay; only been there a few days. Perhaps he has some very high expectations. I have moved on on this one. Smiles, MH

Looking at the pix- I don't think he's a "bike person."

The index shot is a NDS pic and the rest of the pix aren't like dorks like us take pix.


But that SN shot on a red frame is really not cool.

Invite them to see the thread.

It'd be worth the amusement to see them go from being reluctant to change the ad...to being way too eager - based entirely on the unproven theory that it might be the last second-gen Paramount made (and thus perceived $$$).

And just in case they are seeing dollar signs, I'll reiterate: This bike has no added value because of these theories, which carry no weight without a Waterford Provenance Report documenting that this is truly the last second-gen Paramount made.

Incidentally, I'm not convinced on my paint theory anymore. This is my '82 Superior, presumed repainted and with the wrong fork, but the braze-ons are identical other supposedly modified Superiors (and fairly consistent with Waterford products of the time), and there's remnants of the later PDG logo on the seattube. Mine seems to have more metalflake and a different sheen. Pretty sure these are just similar colors and that this particular theory isn't valid.





...and the eBay bike:


-Kurt

cudak888 , Kurt, I doubt he'd acknowledge any of the facts presented here, and would flat reject any of the hypothesis put forward. He tried to present hisself as knowledgeable about the serial number date of manufacture when I first messaged him on ebay. After that I figured it was like beating my head against an oak tree, to attempt to point out he had so many things wrong. and probably more productive. Let him and out when it never sells, and the experts start to pole on him after a few re-listings, at the same price probably.

Bill

Maybe so, but he's already pulled the 1968 reference off. Still claims to be a repaint. Meh.

Reminds me of that thread where folks were putting down Schwinn collectors for being arrogant, cocksure, and egotistical. Sounds like this seller is trying to validate all three stereotypes.

-Kurt