I had a UNIVEGA fork that was just bent about 3° back. It really was not perceptible until I shoved a PVC pipe down the steerer tube to compare the fork arms alingnment. At replacement I was rewarded with not having to worry about the tip of my toes hitting the front wheel in a tight turn. I am still surprised at how only a 3° bend changed about 2cm of wheel clearance at the end of the fork.

Or, "Do these pants make my butt look too wide?"

Seriously, as someone said above, why bother with a bike that has had questionable treatment that's admitted, especially if you're not there to investigate it first hand? Who needs the aggravation? There's very little going on in this thread that's conclusive WRT the subject bike.

For my own part, and being completely aware that there's a lot of love for them, Treks are one of those whistles I don't hear, like Colnagos. I've had a few pass through my doors, been very negatively impressed by the paint/corrosion protection of the 80s examples (unaccountable chipping and rusting), don't think their graphics are "all that". In that vein (Ford vs Chevy), I've always found Specialized models to be more attractive, and seemingly better made.

When our kids were younger, we bought them each their first serious bike; they got to choose a 26" wheeled model. My daughter bought a really nice indigo Specialized, and my son (2 years younger) went for a bright orange Trek. I'd say that in quality they were as close to equal as you could wish. One day, when we'd been cycling around Central Park, and had stopped to rest, sitting on a bench beside the loop road, my son said "Have you ever noticed how all the girls are riding Specialized, and the boys Trek?" We thought that this was a bit sexist, and told him so. As we sat there, of course, we began counting, and after awhile, it became embarrassingly obvious that he was right. Maybe it was just that day, that time . . . we still laugh about it.

Sure is... Lol

The price is never right for a Colnago and the 710 I had didn't have any graphics/stickers but did have super nice paint.so There is that.

My. experience is different on 1980s Treks. I bought one from the early 1980s at Goodwill, had a tree limb growing through the rear wheel. Components were all rusty. But the frame and fork paint was near perfect. I have found Trek paint to be the best of any of that era bike. As I understood it, they used DuPont IMRON paint. Anyway, extremely durable IME. Components on the other hand were not Trek made, came from the suppliers everyone else used. They were subject to rust.

I'd guess I have had 75 to 100 pass through my hands over the years.

Generally, I favor the made in Japan brands from the 1980s: Miyatas, Panasonics, and a few others. In the world of Treks, I really like the early 1980s MTBs: 1983 and 1984 in particular, along with the late 1980s/early 1990s 9xx series with lugged steel frames.

FWIW, I have an 83 Trek 700 that I bought several years ago. The profile pic is similar.



As purchased 83 Trek 700


This fork looks nearly the same as the subject bicycle. I was concerned also and put a straight edge alongside the headtube to have a reference point. It seemed fine, and perhaps the 79 may also be. I my pic, and the subject pic, the off side fork leg because of the camera angle appears to be behind the drive side leg. It does give the impression of both legs being bent back.

My fork and subject fork have a curve that seems to begin further up the fork leg and with a more gentle taper. I think that adds to the optical impression also. I’m not saying the fork isn’t bent, but there are optical factors too. Mine rides nice with the full 531, so the OP might miss out. Perhaps taking a straight edge along while checking out that bike would reveal things.

It is interesting to me that as a framebuilder, I see common frame alignment issues as no big deal just like an out of true wheel isn’t a big deal. They are both - with the right tools and knowledge - an easy fix. It is standard practice for me to align frames when I repaint them. I know from years of experience that most frames that come into my shop have alignment problems of one sort or the other. Only some Japanese or better custom American frames don't need messing with. Collector's come from a different perspective and can see misalignment as more of problem - if they know how to look for them at all. I belong to the club that believes good alignment makes some difference.
Early Trek frames were painted with Dupont Imron if I understand correctly. This is a polyurethane enamel that hardens by chemical reaction like epoxy. It requires a hardener to be added before spraying. Dupont isn't the only company that makes this kind of paint. It is the toughest paint there is. It was designed for airplanes. Dupont also made Corlar primer that was designed to be used in combination with Imron. This is by far the best primer ever. It sticks to bare metal like crazy and is hard to get off with chemicals or sandblasting. They stopped making it because it wasn't convenient to use. It was hard to stir and the activator had to be added an hour before it could be sprayed. Furthermore there were environmental issues with it as well. I've repainted a lot of 70's/80's steel Treks and their paint was difficult to get off. There is the possibility that in some cases it wasn't mixed correctly or not handled right after the primer was applied (for example with greasy hands) and before the top coats were put on.

I've never been fond of Trek's graphics and overall appearance of their bicycles either. The workmanship on their frames including alignment did not come up to the precision of the better Japanese brands. However this model of Trek is really nice for those not wanting a racing frame designed to be ridden in fast group rides. I've enjoyed riding this model thousands of Kilometers in Ukraine. While I was ridding it in the boonies, we would go by wells where people of the town had to get their water and see outhouses because of course those that live in these villages don't have running water available. I had 2 competing thoughts. The 1st was that I'm a really lucky guy to be able to enjoy riding such a nice bike in a foreign country where most people could not begin to afford one. And this was before the Russians have been destroying everything they can destroy. And the other competing thought was that the Trek I was riding was nice, it just was not nearly as wonderful to ride as the custom frame/bicycle I made for myself (even though "it was just my size"). For that matter neither is any other production frame. Those that are looking for the ultimate ride shouldn't be trying to find it in production bikes (unless looking for an all-out racing bike). I believe I can hold both of these ideas in my head at the same time. To enjoy and appreciate what I have because it is good (and much better than what others can have) but at the same time know it isn’t the ultimate. If I was looking for a good bike at a modest price, this would be one I’d be trying to find. Well unless I could find a similar Miyata.