This is my first post to C&V, but I've done enough lurking to know that I'm feeling the old school...

Here's what I know:

Serial # 570 B WA 8818

Owner claims its an 89, 50th anniversary model. serial number shows 88, which makes sense.

Claimed to have full Dura Ace and to be in good shape, "but 3 small rust spots on top tube where cable stays are braised on"

I've done some googlin and can determine that it's a 57 (which i think will be a touch small for me at 6'2" with a 33.5" inseam.) It was made in Waterford in January of 1988 and was the 18th frame built that month.

It's the "B" that's throwing me off. I found that an A to an E in that location would refer to steer tube length in the fork. According to Waterford's site:

"Product Code: This was not applied consistently. Up to some point in the early 90's, it designated the fork length with forks short bikes getting an "A" progressing to large forks getting an "E". Later, it was used to designate the kind of frame: A=Road, B=Off-Road, C=650C Road, E=Track."

So is this an off road (mountain) bike? Or would a B size fork be found on a size 57 frame?

The kicker is, the seller does not have a camera and is only offering minimal details.

He's asking for $1,000.... I have to imagine this is a pretty outrageous price, but am interested in seeing the bike and negotiating with him if its something interesting.

Thanks!

at your height, I can't imagine that bike fits you, but the seat tube is actually too big for your inseam.

My only road bike is a 57cm Mecier Kilo (bikes direct bike) - sized center of bb to center of top tube. It fits perfect, so I think id be a 59ish on most frame measure center to top. Maybe it was 34.5"

Regardless, just curious about the bike. Seems interesting.

Schwinn frames, including the 1988 Paramounts, were measured from the center of the crank to the top of the seat tube (where the seatpost is inserted), so a 57cm Paramount frame will be smaller than your 57cm c-c Mercier. I'm 6' 0" tall with a 35.5" leg length, and have a 62cm '87 Paramount (620E WK87077) that's a little big for me; the seat tube length is fine, but the length of the top tube - even with a relatively short stem extension - causes me to feel a bit stretched. I think the B fork steerer is probably right for a 57cm frame.

Is the 33.5" inseam your trousers inseam measurement, or your leg length?

I tend to agree with unterhausen that the frame is likely too small for you, especially if the 33.5" is your leg length. That would mean you have a pretty long trunk, and you'd probably feel cramped on a 57cm Paramount which has a top tube length of 56cm c-c.

I also think $1,000 is high for that bike. I paid $500 (Craigs List) three years ago for mine with Dura-Ace 7400 7-speed group.

Here's the 1988 stock (not custom) Paramount geometery:

Wow, any geometry charts for an '86 paramount? I think '87 started using os tubing. Maybe the geometry is different.

OS tubing was introduced in Paramounts in the 1989 model year. I have the '87 Paramount geometry, but not the geometry for '86.

Here's the '87 geometry. Note some minor changes from '87 to '88:



Here's the geo for the '89 Paramounts, including the new OS model.

I see. Thanks. I started drooling after looking at the short top tube model frames until I read a 26" wheel would be needed. I'd like to replace my 51cm frame for a 49-49.5cm now.

Edit, I want a 51cm short top tube frame for my weird body type (51 doesnt require 26" front wheel)