I see bikes come to Bicycles for Humanity, many of which I give myself, that are really just a rebranded something or other. For example, we have a Glider road bike at the shop which is really a Raleigh Clubman. (Should have taken a picture but didn't.) The headbadge holes in the Glider headtube match up with the Raleigh headbadge, I think though I have not checked carefully. I know, I know, is there actually a question? Yes...

Is it unethical to paint and rebadge the bike as a Raleigh, even though it was sold as a Glider?

This situation must manifest itself, time and again, considering all of the built the same, but for the other company, bicycles that have come and gone, over the years.

I have no intention of doing this, myself, but I have wondered at the concerns a few times. The Glider, incidentally, will likely get rebuilt and sold to a university student for sixty or seventy dollars. And who knows, it might end up in the snow bank, like the drop dead gorgeous Nishiki mountain bicycle, sitting directly across the street from my house. It has been abandoned and left at the mercy of Mother Nature. By next summer, it will be mint no more:-(

Anyway, thoughts on this would be interesting to hear.

Gliders were made by Raleigh? If so, I see no ethical conflict. As long as the prospective buyer gets the story of what was done, if possible. If not, at sixty bucks a student might not care too much.

Is it ethical to rebadge a Pontiac Astre as a Chevy Vega?

That's pretty much my view on it, rebadge however you want.. just don't lie if you sell.

We won't have much to do in the evenings if people know what kind of bikes they just bought. I say "let 'em ride".

my thoughts exactly...well, I was thinking rebadge a Toyota as a Lexus...same difference though lol

I've never heard of a Glider-Clubman connection. There were Rudge and Humber versions, but Glider?

Glider was a store brand of T Eaton, a now defunct Canadian department store chain, and they did indeed sell rebadged Raleighs back in the day.

Dunno... I have seen more than one F150 with Lincoln grills...

Aaron

Specialized
Raleigh
Cannondale
Surly
Novara
Motobecane
Trek (most of them)
Kona
Schwinn
Mongoose
GT
Masi
Bianchi
Rivendell

Old School:

Nishiki
Lotus
Univega
Fisher

Name one of the above that actually makes most of their own bikes. They don't. They get their stuff from Taiwan or China and put their own stickers on them. It is WAY too late to start caring.

I'd even go so far as to say that if it gets the rider to take better care of it, why not fudge on the side of how good of a bike it is?

No real bike junkie was ever bothered by ethics. Ed

I've never seen a lightweight (or roadster) Raleigh Glider that preceded the 60's just as I've never seen a Clubman made later than the early 50's. That's not to say they weren't made but Eatons sourced Gliders from other companies in the pre war and post war eras. I've owned 2 of them and they were both British standard Birmingham style bikes.

It's certainly not unethical to dress it up as whatever model you want as a keeper. Selling it would be another thing. Think Windsor and Cinelli.

Now that I've got all defensive about it, I'd love to see some pics. It's not that I don't want it to exist, I just want it for myself.

You can sell a knock-off of the Hope Diamond if you like - WITH full disclosure.

The example given by the OP is not a good one to make a decision as to how ethical rebadging is. How does this group feel about someone who takes a low level Schwinn a rebadges it as a vintage Paramount complete with correct tubing decal?
I'm not in favor of rebadging anything.

Personally, I would feel the answer is within the person (who's doing the rebadging's) intent. If they intend to deceive, then yes, it would be unethical. If it is because, say, finding a NOS or clean Raleigh headbadge is a whole lot easier than finding a Glider's headbadge, and the two brands really do show the parallel the OP mentions, I'd say, with full disclosure should the builder sell that bike, no worries! If the buyer is looking for an all original this or that, they will have the correct information to make their decision to buy or not.

Now a low-level schwinn to a paramount...that's a stretch!

A couple of years ago, I took this:



and turned it into this:

I think it matters little.
Someone gets a decent bike for a decent price, and what it says on the side is irrelevant.
It's not like you're trying to pass off a $50 bike for $500.

if you're selling for $60-70, first i don't see the point of rebadging or doing any cosmetic work. i doubt someone in the market for a 60-70 bike would care or even know the difference

Ron,
I would think if you simply put on the tag, when it goes up for sale, that is a "Glider, re-badged as a Raleigh," things would be kosher alll the way around. It is not as if you are trying to pass off the bike as a fully restored or NIB/NOS Raleigh and what you do is for the good, not for the profit, of selling the bikes. I would agree with absolutely no re-badging if you were strictly selling to collectors or such, but not in what you are engaged in doing. JMHO.

BTW, in my book, the fact you even asked our opinion in an up front manner speaks volumes about your ethics and moral calibre.

Bill

I disagree. I think it's a pretty good example. Even if it's a bad example, the hypothetical situation is simple: Here we have a bike that is identical to a Raleigh Clubman in all respects except the graphics. Is it ethical to put different graphics on it? The ethics of this are not clear to me.

Your example is a different situation, in which the ethics of the matter are perfectly clear.

Going back to Randy's ethical question, how about this one. I have a Raleigh Twenty with terrible paint, terrible decals, and the head badge is messed up. I have a perfectly good Phillips headbadge, though. Raleigh made all these bikes, put Raleigh decals on most of them, but a few other brands were used as well; Phillips, Triumph, BSA, and I don't remember what else. No matter how I paint it (even with Cinelli decals) no one would ever mistake it for anything other than a Raleigh Twenty. And I could make it perfectly indistinguishable from a Phillips Twenty, which would be (I think) a little cooler. Would that be wrong? I don't think so.

For the record, I'm not going to do it. Not because of the ethical dilemma, but because it's a Twenty.

One dissention.

It was originally sold as a department store bike, not a Raleigh. Imagine taking a BD bike, finding out the same factory builds Trek frames, and rebadging it as a Trek.

Now for personal use only, whatever you want to call it is fine with me.

I used to be in manufacturing, where we would sell rebranded products to other resellers. In some cases, these buyers would take 2nd grade product, as their standards were not as high as ours. As long as our name was not on the product, we would do it, up to and including putting their label and branding on it.

My last point is part of the reason I refurbish bikes is in the hopes they will continue on for many years/decades to come. I would like that owner 25 years from now knowing exactly what he had, rather than being confused by badging decisions I made. I predict at some point, people will collect bikes from smaller dept stores, looking to get the entire lineup. Myself, I am rapidly amassing a collection of Panasonic built Schwinns.

Randy, I think the your example of the Glider to a Clubman is fine, since the Glider was simply a rebadging to start with. Although, if I did it, and later sold the bike I'd make it clear what was done. As wrk101 stated even thought you believe the it is only a paint finish and badge that differs, perhaps the serial # or even frame material could be differerent.

Not sure exactly where I am on this issue. One of the reasons is this; you re badge your xxxx as yyyy and it really fits and looks the part, you later sell it with full disclosure. Buyer says, hmph...this really looks the part and sell it on as yyyy. Or, it goes through a few hands and along the way the story of what it really was gets lost, and is fully represented and believed to be yyyy. You may have had good intentions, but the next owner may not. Then, some years later, we're all sitting here looking at pics trying to determine what it really is.

I have one like that now. I know it is not a Pinarello. It came to me with Pinarello decals, but I already knew otherwise. I could refinish it with Pinarello decals, or try to determine what it really is and get it back in the proper markings. I am trying to opt for the latter, but nobody seems to know what it really is. Ok, now what ?

Joe

Okay, but I think you are missing the heart of the hypothetical situation. It's not a question of who made the frame, but that the frame in question is a Raleigh Clubman frame with different decals on it. For there to be an ethical dilemma here, the frames have to be the same. Not a Lenton Tourist frame, not a RRA frame, not a DL-1 frame. It has to be a Clubman frame. No difference. Indistinguishable from a Clubman. Identical. If the Glider does not have exactly the same frame as a Raleigh Clubman, then it is clearly unethical to pretend it is a Raleigh Clubman. The question of ethics comes up only after we establish that it is exactly the same frame as a Raleigh Clubman.

The Raleigh Clubman came with other distinctive features, such as a Williams crank with a special chain ring with herons on it. I presume the Glider lacks the heron chain ring, and it may even have a different crank. I wouldn't worry about that, though; many Raleigh Clubmans have had a component or two changed over the years.