Argh! There ought to be a law!
 

I hate seeing this. I don't care how bad the paint was on the ORIGINAL bike, this is just a travesty.
Call me a curmudgeon, luddite, "get off my lawn", whatever, but this is just wrong. Urago's are just plain rare, and a Urago pista, rarer yet. Why would you do this?

Reminds me of a Rickert track bike I had. Beautiful blue with yellow accents. paint was in good shape. Sold it to a guy and years later I saw it hanging in a local bike shop painted black! There ought to be a law!

urago track bike siiiiiiiiicck errrrrrr mean pre spring deal!!!!!!!!
http://images.craigslist.org/00909_h...Pd_600x450.jpg

sometimes when it says "sick" it actually means...sick...

I can't be too upset - it's an old bike that's been put back on the road. I wouldn't have made any of the same choices as this guy has, but it's not in a landfill.

For all we know, the guy saved it from death by rust. (Admittedly, describing it as a ssssiiiiiiiiiiiiiccccckkkkkk bike makes me think otherwise, but let's not make too many assumptions).

In any case, as the fellow above points out; at least it's not getting thrown away. Paint is not such a big deal. Think of it this way: it's just a good excuse for you to take on a new restoration project. ;)

I'm always one the fence about painting vs. original. I tend to leave original more often than not but a lot depends on the bike. It the bike is a common low end bike that's not complete or if the bike has been clearly overly abused/vandalized/neglected I will repaint and fit it with quality chrome and parts making a truly custom one off. On the other hand if the bike is unique, rare or only suffering from patina due to age and use I do everything I can to keep the original paint. I love the patina and age but there is a big difference between neglect/abuse/vandalism and age/use

All in all I don't get upset with a repaint unless it is poorly done in which case you're just abusing it. I have a 50s ladies ccm that has been previously brush painted.... clearly I'll repaint it.

I don't mind this approach. On Milwaukee CL.
http://images.craigslist.org/00H0H_d...sG_600x450.jpg

Actually this appeals to me. At least some thought went into the look of the bike. But painting a bike black with all black parts, gee, haven't seen that before.

I responded to the Urago ad inquiring about the original parts. Hopefully they are still around. Maybe a steel skiptooth crankset, Weinmann woodfill rims, steel track stem and bars. Who knows?

I've got an Curly Lugged Flyer, only produced for a year and half....and it's a Road/Path...even rarer still. Sometime in it's life it was painted black with stove enamel and ridden hard. Now it wears it's black patina as a badge of hard earned respect in my eye's. Seems it would be a lot less interesting with a proper Carlton paint job and decals.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=373535

That's the brain working on urethane fumes.

Anyhow, the topic brings up the thought of early bikes repainted and as an example 40 years ago. Funny how some think that's OK. I like them either way and to each their own. Prefer them original but if its a spot rusted 70's or 80's bike and a rider, I'll coat those spots. Left undone, especially those in humid or wet locations its only going to get worse.

Personally, I think if the paint is too far gone, there should not be an issue about not trying to save what's left, if it's just going to make the bike look like a swamp monster that will just continue to decay into flakes of rust and paint.... Heck, most of us won't ride on 30 year old tires, if we can help it, At a certain point of the finish's deterioration, I see it as something similar.... JMOs

The paint is one thing, but the components too are just wrong for a classic like that. It looks heavy and blocky. The wheels are just terrible. And the crank, yikes.

I have to admit that I can't get too upset about about repaints, no matter what the colour. A Urago is still going to be a Urago no matter what the colour but I hate the idea of turning classic bikes into single speeds. There are more than enough old Free Spirits and bottom of the line Raleighs for that crap.

Its a track bike.

The only problem I have with it is that not all of the components are black. If you're murdering it out you have to go all the way.

Sorry to say I just can't get worked up over this. These are bicycles, not sacred things that can be defiled. If you own it, do whatever makes you happy. Paint it, powdercoat it, leave the rust, put old parts on new frames, new parts on old frames, make sure no two components are from the same era---it don't matter one iota. I have my own preferences about what I like to look at, and what I like to ride, but I never question anybody else's choices.

There are a few bikes recognized as "grail" by the collector community that should probably be kept original (down to some level of deterioration). Everything else should be open to the owner's delight. Be creative if not original.

Just say "it's not fair!" loud enough, and there WILL be a law.

Pretty much sums it up for me as well.

I have to agree with Big Ring on this one. There's no telling what it looked like before it was painted black. But I think it's ugly.
Like they say, there's no accounting for taste. But I believe some things should be preserved as they are.

While I find the Urago to be quite ugly (never having gone for the black on black on black look)...I agree with others that, when you own something, it is yours to do with as you want. Many in the C&V community almost expect owners to honor the rarity of things, but, many do not even realize that they own something rare...and fall to forms of peer pressure...which, BTW, is what the C&V community does at times as well.

Unfortunately, this bike is simply, IMHO, ugly! And the ad...even uglier! "There ought to be a law..."no one should use the word "sick" to try and describe something as nice...that is where the law should be! :)

Well this has been an eye opener. Am I in the right forum? Odd how everyone shudders when someone wants to paint their Cinelli or Masi. I guess a Urago track bike is just a mutt.

I think a lot of people don't realize that an early 70's track bike of any brand was a rare thing. Paramounts were about the only track bike readily available at the time. There was a spattering of Raleighs and a Gitane or two, but anything else was a rarity or oddity. And the track bikes of any brand were built well and with some interesting features unique to this type of bike. Thats why I object to the type of atrocity that the seller of the Urago has put together. It's built with no respect to what it is. Now its just some black tubed generic.

I've been on both sides of this.

For the most part- if you've got something rare and something durable (likely to outlast you)- you do have sort of a responsibility to take care and preserve it. There's that episode here with the dude who scored a 59 Paramount for $200. He sees a $200 bike to permanently customize, not an exceptionally really rare bike that people would go to great lengths to own.

But there are some that just turn out so unbelievably cool. I love old touring bikes- I like to leave them very stock- I haven't even changed my bikes over to 700C yet. Yesterday, I saw a web page of a Specialized Expedition. The guy stripped the paint, moved the brake braze ons, added braze ons, nickel plated it- it was AWE INSPIRING.

However, there are some that it's just "it's time."

Seems kinda harsh ripping the guy without knowing the shape the bike was in before. Even nice bikes that are 40 years old can come to a really bad condition. Maybe the original colour was black. As for the build it is not what I would have done, but you do realize components easily come off.

Yes, patina.

I've always wondered what the heck an iota was, you know, something beyond the "a unit of measurement of indeterminate amount."
And there it was on Wikipedia, thankfully servicing lazy scholars everywhere.
Ninth letter of the Greek alphabet; in the Greek numeral system a value of ten.

So, one iota is actually ten.
Who knew?

My first reaction is similar to the OP's, and I agree the current treatment of this bike is not attractive. However...

I've never been completely comfortable with the idea that repainting a vintage object automatically, by definition, decreases its value. I am not speaking solely of C&V bicycles here, but any older item whose function was and is utilitarian first in importance, while style and design second or third.

For example, among our antique-y objects at home, my wife has a cast iron doorstop in the shape of a Model T. The top half is painted white, the bottom light green. The paint is chipped and dull. I thought we should remove it and repaint it black, but she objected, repeating the conventional wisdom that repainting it would diminish its value.

But I wonder whether the original owners of these utilitarian objects, whether they were bicycles, automobiles, or doorstops shaped like automobiles, might not have repainted the objects themselves when they were worn. Would we care as much if the current paint job was not original but still 75 years old?

Of course, the bicycle's peculiar nature of being such a personal (and personalized) possession as well as a vehicle, and not merely a machine, makes it far more likely to evoke such passionate response in its aficionados than other machines. Nobody would gets upset about repainting a vintage washing machine, say, or a wheelbarrow.

In the end, then, while I find the Urago's new look off-putting, I agree it's better than going to the scrappers (around my area, nothing metal makes it to the landfill anymore). And it's probably better than a rusty mess.

+ 1/10 of an iota.