Wow, nice Paramount
 

Restored frame:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...STRK:MESELX:IT

That's from a Tourist bike, which complete was (as per the person's pictured brochure) a full 43 lbs. That's about 2 bikes worth of weight and the price is probably missing a decimal point (painting and all)...

That's the shipping weight. The actual weight of the '55 Tourist Paramount should be around 25 pounds (packing material was more substantial in the fifties).

Also, bear in mind that there are fenders and a chainguard.

EDIT - It's quite possible that's an Oscar Wastyn built Paramount, and if so it's probably worth more than the $1,000 starting price to many collectors. Frank W. Schwinn's 1956 Paramount was built by Oscar, so he was still building them as late as the mid-fifties.

Georgeous.

Too bad it's a 21" frame. :(

If it were a 24", I'd consider bidding.

In the same source, the racer is listed as shipping weight of 35 lbs. If the tourist was around 25, the racer would be 25-8 = 17 lbs. Impossible for 1955. If the racer in 1955 was closer to a more realistic, but still probably outrageous for the era, 25 lbs, the tourist would be more like 33 pounds. Still a heavy bike but much lighter than the 50+ lbs competition.

I don't really want to argue with you, but in 1899 the Schwinn World track racer weighed less than 20 pounds:

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d7...Catalog/08.jpg

I raced my dad's mid-fifties 22-inch frame P-12 Paramount track racer (Reynolds 531) in the late fifties when I was in high school, and it weighed 20 pounds.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d7...Paramounts.jpg

If the P-11 Tourist weighed more than 25 pounds, it wasn't by much. It certainly wasn't 33 pounds.

With steel fenders, chainguard, seatpost, bars and a Sturmey Archer 3 speed hub, my guess would be closer to 33 than to 25 pounds. My Reynolds 531 Carlton with aluminum fenders, no chainguard, lightweight components and an aluminum-shelled SA 3 speed weighs over 25 pounds.

I'll bet that Waterford charged close to $1000 just for the paint, decals and striping.

I assume that EjustE is just trying to give us a laugh with his appraisals.

Not necessarily... and it was not an "appraisal", just my opinion of its "value" (to me who I don't see that bicycle as practical today) but I am sure that someone might be willing to pay $1000 for this frame to have it sit behind glass and look at it. Who knows? Value is relative and in the eye of the beholder. In my eye its crazily-priced

This particular frame is not Waterford-painted (it is "restored") and in 2009 $1000 can buy about 10 frames (instead of this one) each more appropriate for use than this one. It does have collective value, but not much use value. Take the "Paramount" sticky off and it changes a whole bunch of things.

So because Waterford "restored" it, you're saying that means that Waterford did not paint it??

Well, we won't know unless we have one to weigh. However, I know the 22" P12 weighed 20 pounds ready to ride, and the shipping weight was 35 pounds (shipping crate and packing = 15 pounds). Assuming the P11 shipping materials weighed the same (15 pounds) and the stated shipping weight was 43 pounds, the bike would weigh 28 pounds. That, I'll buy into.

Heck, my 24" 1973 Super Sport with straight gauge 4130 CrMo frame, triple chainring, 10-speed cassette, derailleurs, seatpost, Brooks saddle, stem, handlbars, shifters, and pedals only weighs a hair over 26 pounds.

I had that question too; a Waterford restoration includes historically accurate paint and decals.

Some of us consider a bike like that one to be much more practical for everyday use than an obsolete racing bike.

I've seen at least one that wasn't entirely correct.

-Kurt

Tourist bikes with 3-speed hubs may not be popular but they sure would be practical for bridging the market gap between impractical cruisers and derailleur-equipped "fitness" bikes. I've met so many potential customers who want practical bikes but are scared of derailleurs, unguarded chains, and unfendered wheels.

I guess you had to grow up before the 1970s to see firsthand how useful this kind of bike can be.

You're assuming value only in terms of utility, and not in terms of history. This bike, like many others discussed on these forums, is part of cycling history.

In this case value is more in history and rarity than utility. Thank goodness people treasure these items so, and value them so highly. Otherwise, they'd be treated more carelessly, and probably not preserved as well.

Edit: not saying they're not useful, but it is true that a bike can be had for much less that would be usable in all the same ways.

i think that frame was actually painted at elliot bay cycles. excellent painter there, excellent.

What makes you think so? The seller says it was painted by Waterford.

This description has so many inconsistencies that makes a potential buyer worry. For starters:

a. at the Waterford Restoration web page
http://waterfordbikes.com/now/home.p...e=randrCollect the company itself stated about painting frames:

If it is historically important and in decent condition, then new paint may actually reduce its value..

(the seller claims that it was restored by Waterford - with no receipt, btw - so I would assume that either a. Waterford did not paint that bike or b. the frame was not in "decent condition" or c. someones is making a story)

b. the seller claims this: Waterford Cycles, who made the last real Paramounts for Schwinn as the Paramount Design Group in the early 80s . Here is the connection between Paramount and Waterford per the Waterford web site and who produced those last "real" Paramounts. Website:

http://www.waterfordbikes.com/2005/d...ory/pdgnew.php

When Ed Schwinn took over the company in 1979, one of the first things he did was to shut down Paramount production. [...] By 1981, enough demand had built up to justify bigger plans. Marc got the go-ahead to build a factory which, after a considerable search, landed in Waterford, Wisconsin [...] When Schwinn was sold in 1993, a group of Schwinn employees bought the factory and started Waterford Precision Cycles (that's, of course, another story). Waterford continued to build Paramounts pretty much as before the sale though the end of the 1993 model year. In 1994, Schwinn contracted with Waterford to build Paramounts - both for stock and on a custom basis.






So if the real paramounts (including the one for sale) were stopped being made in Chicago in 1980, the Paramounts that Waterford made were not "real" also some Schwinn employees (who actually had nothing to do with Paramount :) ) bought the factory and started Waterford that as Waterford made Paramounts for one single year... Connection overstated by the seller. And actually I doubt that there are any bodies left in the Waterford factory who made bikes of the second (or third -waterford-made paramounts) generation (PDG) of Paramounts. Of course, very few people who work on that bike restoration were probably even born when that bike was made in Chicago...



c. This is a good one. Seller says: "Buyer to pay actual shipping plus $25 for professional packing. I wrap frames in pipe insulation to prevent damage"


Still a good deal at $1000?

edit: through the listing and the link to the seller's flickr site, it is apparent that the seller works at Elliott Bay.
Draw your own conclusions. Here is the link:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8379107...7606377598435/

(some great looking bikes, btw, including at least 8 Paramounts ;) )

oh nvm. seems it was restored before bob got it. i saw it on the flickr page of the half owner of elliot bay plus the ebay seller location is seattle...
elliot bay does lots of restoration work though.

*sigh*

he doesn't just work at elliot bay, he's part owner.
they do pack well.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3357/...888c8408de.jpg

why are you even here? this is a forum about classic bikes, it seems to me you have no interest
in classic & vintage bikes other than to criticize them.

Criticizing one particular ebay sale and the price of a particular frame is waaaaay different than criticizing a particular bike. I am sure that there are a lot of people drooling about this bike. We'll find out whether their money is where their mouth is....

As far as my "criticism" about this bike being a heavy and impractical frame for the price, is just my opinion. Feel free to disagree. Opining that a 50s heavy frame that can do less than a 70s lighter frame in the 21st century, does not make someone less interested in vintage and classic bikes. I am sure a Model T is highly collectible, I just think that a '65 Mustang is more practical today. That does not make it less "classic".

Huh? You sound as if you're the cousin of DonQuixote1954.

-Kurt