I've been reading everything i can find on Schwinn Paramounts. While they were well made bikes, it seems they were quite heavy for a road/racing bike at 26lbs. The Paramount is frequently touted as the top American racing bike of its time, but does that really say much? Bike racing in America during the 60s and 70s was not exactly world class. I even read somewhere that in 1979, the new head of Schwinn ordered the paramount program shut down because the bike was so antiquated. any thoughts?

having owned a 1964 paramount i would say that they are difinently over rated! but you have to understand that the usa did not have a racing bike mentality in the 60's& early 70's. this was the best bike the usa had to offer. think about huffy's and columbia's. i give schwinn credit for their noble effort. i am sure this was done by their love of bikes and not by a bottom line mentality. i think it is tradgic that the auto workers union destoryed schwinn. this was an old line company that contributed a lasting legesity to america bicyling history. at least we can be thankful that waterford survived. but it just isn't the same!!!!! schwinn was a great company. shame on america!!!

Paramounts were at the top in the 60s and early 70s. Not just of american bikes, but of bikes from anywhere. 26lbs at that time was quite respectable. There were no 16 lb CF or titanium bikes then. As far as the demise of the Paramounts, Schwinn didn't really update the bike much in the mid 70s, so by 79 it was pretty outdated. Schwinn also made the same mistake on every line of their bicycles and as a company was having trouble by the late 70s. Shutting down the Paramount program made sense to them. I don't see it. You probably won't ever see Chevy dump the Corvette even though it's barely on their gross profit radar.

SS

P13 Road Racing Paramounts of the 1970s weighed 23 pounds, not 26 pounds. The P14 track bikes weighed 18 pounds, and the P15 Deluxe Paramounts (triple chainrings) weighed 25 pounds.

When Edward Schwinn took over as president of the company in 1979, he shut down the Paramount "cage" in the Chicago factory because the Paramounts had become non-competitive. Marc Muller was tasked with redesigning the Paramount with newer tubesets and componentry, and with building a new facility in Waterford, WI, for Paramount production. The new facility opened in 1981, and new Paramounts were built there until after the bankruptcy in 1993. After the bankruptcy, Marc Muller and Richard Schwinn (Edward's younger brother) bought the Waterford facility and have continued to build world class bicycles there under the Waterford and Gunnar brands (the use of Paramount name went to Zell-Chilmark as part of the bankruptcy).

Are Paramounts overrated? Some folks think so, but I do not.

The Schwinn history book helps explain. Paramounts were not that antiquated, but probably not a money maker, New technology, investment cast lugs and such had not been adopted, but for a struggling company, a loss leader, or break-even product was more stuff to manage than was useful.

Overrated? depends on what you lusted over as a kid. Don't forget they came in road race and touring geometries, and one could custom order the design within reason for no upcharge. Could not do that easily from Europe in general.

Actually, I think they're UNDERrated. Typically they sell too cheap. Remember, Paramounts started in 1939 with their own Schwinn made parts. Originally track bikes, they evolved into road bikes as well, but much later. Certainly in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s they were comparable to anything else available in the world, handmade using the finest materials and components available. Plus they could be built to order, for little extra cost, purchased through the local dealer.

I think the better know Italian names receive more respect and awe, but honestly, I've owned 3-4 vintage Cinellis and didn't find them especially superior in anyway except the WOW factor.

Paramounts were riden to numerous Olympic wins over the years. I thnk they're fine bikes, and deserve more appreciation.

If they only came with bottom shelf components, boring lugs, and crappy steel...then yes. But they don't.

Chrome Nevex lugs...steel frame...Campy and other high-end components. Certainly doesn't sound over-rated to me!

The Paramounts built from around 1960 to 1970 were among the best bikes ever made in America. During the "bike boom" of 1971 to 1975, Schwinn doubled and tripled production by hiring new staff, running extra shifts, and by "out-sourcing" much of the Paramount program. Top components were in short supply, and some Paramounts were sold with less than "Pro" level components. The result was that most of the 1971 to 1975 Paramounts were superb, but some might had some minor issues relating to the "boom" in production. And, they were very traditional road bikes.

The Paramount of 1978 was very similar to the Paramount of 1968. And that was a GOOD thing for the folks who buy and ride traditional road bikes. But, almost "criminal" behavior, according to "marketing" types, who claim that each year's model should be "new and improved"...or at least have a speckled purple paint job.

Ed Schwinn was a guy who knew little about bikes, and less about building bikes. He was a "marketing" guy who wanted flashier bikes that could be built cheaper, and sold for larger profit margins. The "clue" to Ed's ethical judgment was his decision to buy some upper/mid-level Panasonics, some equipped with mid-level components, and sell them as "Paramounts". Because of Ed's decisions, from 1984 to 1991, the "Paramount" line included some fine "Made In USA" bikes, some rather nice Japanese bikes, and some very mediocre Japanese bikes. By 1991, this business "genius" had driven the largest bike maker in America into bankruptcy. Today, the company that PRETENDS to be Schwinn does not make even one single bike in the USA...just slaps a Schwinn decal on bikes Pacific imports from Asia. Thanks much, Ed!

If you ever saw the automated frame brazing carousel at the Colnago factory in the '70s ('80s?) you'd wonder how they kept their mojo. Give me the ladies in the Paramount cage (or Don Mainland in Wisconsin) anytime. In the '70s the Paramounts didn't have to overcome any quality issues (they were Schwinns of course). It was getting past that image that a Schwinn was a 40 or 50 pound kid's bike that was hard to do for a generation that had grown up on Schwinn marketing. The lure of exotic French and Italian marques was hard to resist. Especially then with my friends "experimenting" with them. What was a boy to do -- I gave in and bought a Peugeot PX-10.

With the price freeze of the early '70s, Paramounts were incredible bargains. I should have listened to my heart. I'm older and wiser and now ride a Paramount.

Bob Hufford
Springfield, MO

That is 100% false. Schwinn workers in Chicago had never had a union between 1900 and 1980. By 1980, some of the folks building Schwinns in Chicago had been building bikes for twenty, thirty, and forty years. Many of them had parents and grand-parents who built bikes for Schwinn.

Then, the "Boy Wonder", Edward Schwinn took control of the company. He made it known that Schwinn wanted to move production to a "low cost" third world country, or a southern "slave labor" zone in the USA. The company looked at Arkansas, and paid for plans for an Arkansas plant. But, it then bought land in Mississippi, with the goal of moving Chicago production there. Ed also bought a bike plant in what was then communist Hungary and also bought a large share of a bike plant in communist China. Ed thought that using "cheap" communist slave labor was going to be a "bargain" for the Schwinn family.

Ed then refused to discuss any agreement with the workers in Chicago that would assure them of a future with Schwinn. He was disrespectful to the folks who had worked for Schwinn long before he was born. In 1980, Schwinn sold over ten million bikes, in large part due to the high quality Chicago workforce.

After it was clear that Edward intended to move production out of Chicago, the workers turned to the UAW for help. By the time that the contract with the UAW came into effect, Schwinn had already begun building the plant in Mississippi, and was planning to begin phasing out the Chicago factories.

The factories in Mississippi and Hungary were major money losers. Cheap workers are cheap for a reason. The 2,000 workers in Chicago had about 40,000 years of bike building experience. Ed threw that all of that ability and experence away. At that exact same time, both Trek and Cannondale were using American workers to go from being small "custom" shops, to becoming the two largest bike makers in the USA.

Within seven years after the final bike was built in Chicago, the Schwinn family lost the company in bankrupcy court. The Mississippi plant and the plant in Hungary were gone. The Schwinn name was just a decal on a communist-Chinese bike.

It continues to stun me and amaze me that when the owners of American companies run the company into the ground, that SOMEONE will take a slap at the workers and at unions. I guess when a plane crashes, it could never be the pilot's fault. Gotta be the fault of the union guy who vacuums the carpets.

I understand what you are saying and concur with most of your comments, but the workmanship of my Schwinn, built in June 1988 in Greenville MS, rivals that of any Chicago Schwinn I have seen.

In the glory days of the Paramounts, I was a teenager and not able to afford one. I probably saw one or two and that is about it. I worked in a Gitane shop, and had some contact with Super Corsas.

As an adult, I have acquired a Raleigh International and a Pro, as well as a Paramount.

Looking at the frames today, the workmanship on the Paramount is far superior. Brazing is neat and finishing is superb. Not so on the Raleighs, which were being built with the same quality of an MG made in the same era.

It may not be the best, the lightest or whatever. Today I see the Paramount as a symbol of Schwinn quality at its best and a beautiful reminder of an era that has sadly passed. Is it as good as a Masi, a Colnago, etc.? I don't know and don't care. My lust for the Paramount is still as strong as it ever was.

To answer the question which launched the thread, I do NOT agree that Paramounts are overrated, but I place a higher value on design, beauty, and craftsmanship than on a frame's precise weight. I just finished reassembling the 1959 Capo with Campag. Veloce cranks and sealed BB (db Reynolds 531 main triangle; about 24lbs/12kg, total), and it is an absolute joy to ride, smooth, resilient, stable, and responsive to smoothly applied torque at the pedals. I can sprint and climb faster and more efficiently on the Bianchi, which is a nice-looking, fast bike, but the Capo is one class act, with its ornate lugwork. Older Paramounts fall into the same category.

Good points. I would add that the Schwinn Paramount is one of the most durable high-end road frames, an important trait for those of us who actually RIDE our vintage bikes. One of my gripes with today's road bikes is that durability has been sacrificed on the altar of weight minimization.

Depends on what your rating compares it to. If you had a Peugeot, Raleigh and Paramount from 1972, all Campy NR, and in equal condition and put them all on eBay the Paramount might sell for slightly higher mostly because there are more people who lusted after Paramounts as a kid in the US then other the other bike brands. I don't think it's because anyone thinks they were superior to the other high end bikes of the time, it's just their preference.

If you were to buy a Paramount in pristine condition off eBay today for, let's say an inflated price of $1,500, and wheel that baby into a high end bike shop today and start comparing it to new name-brand $1,500 bicycles, then $2,000 bicycles, then $5,000 bicycles then the Paramount is going to look terribly underrated and underpriced.

Fact is, everything bicycle on eBay right now is overrated. Driven by speculators and the astronomical purchases of a few very lofty Japanese collectors, the prices for a lot stuff are becoming way more than the market will sustain, I think. That is just the way things go, I think, and it'll be good in the long run, because the inflation will lead a few more people to restore and actually ride vintage bicycles (btw, my 1973 Paramount was moderately hotrodded by the original owner, and the weight is around 21 lb. Just about what equivalent Italian steel would weigh.)

If its the top of the market now... Its time to sell. Then buy that and more back after the collapse. Feeling lucky toiday?

My view is to buy with a strategy, mistitled items, overlooked sizes, such as a 24" Paramount, while we are on the subject, a '68 with the Prugnaut lugs that are less popular, upon inspection it had all great condition 1963 parts including the wheels with Weinmann Weltmeister rims... I guessed a warranty replacement frame, a great component donor for my friend's recreation of his 1963 Paramount race bike. Saved him lots over buying a la carte, or even an example same condition correctly described.

The market is healthy at the moment, as it is with vintage cars, check the Barrett Jackson auction take!

To the original poster - since you brought up the weight, are you suggesting/saying that a bike that weighs more is automatically overrated? I'm just wondering, not attacking.

Weight has NEVER meant anything to me. I'm 6'4", 220-230#. A few pounds on a bike? C'mon, that ain't nothing!

"Fact is, everything bicycle on eBay right now is overrated. Driven by speculators and the astronomical purchases of a few very lofty Japanese collectors, the prices for a lot stuff are becoming way more than the market will sustain, I think. That is just the way things go, I think, and it'll be good in the long run, because the inflation will lead a few more people to restore and actually ride vintage bicycles (btw, my 1973 Paramount was moderately hotrodded by the original owner, and the weight is around 21 lb. Just about what equivalent Italian steel would weigh.)"

Methinks once the speculators truly move in, the prices will become truly warped. You'll start seeing printed price guides, probably based on ebay sales, and giving info about spotting the good stuff. I'm still able to find nice bikes relatively cheaply.That's because the auctions I attend, while full of ebay sellers and speculators, are attended by no one who knows the first thing about bikes. So they leave them alone, or bid on the bling, leaving me with a rustbucket paramount or whatever... once the price guides move in, these guys will start picking up on what I've been doing. Right now they treat me like a mildly retarted relation. I think if the speculators really move in, prices will move up.

To some extent, I think we're seeing some of this already. Some pedestrian older bikes (UO8s and other low end Pugs) are ebaying for more than they were a year ago, and though I haven't bought much in the last six months (edit: on ebuy. I by plenty locally), it seems like some of the higher end vintage stuff has gone upwards too.

Also, once you get a more formal guide, the folks will start to think they have something special and be less likely to part with it unless they score some cash in return.

I've had a couple of P-monts in my hands the last couple years, later waterford models, and had they been a bit bigger, I might have kept 'em. Very nice bikes.

The first part of a reasonable price guide is here, note the disclaimer about current prices.

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/vrbn-a-f.html

the whole article provides a reasonable overview of the vintage makers.

I think ebay represents a world price. Understand, in some areas these things are just not available. Someone who has no access to something they want might be willing to pay a price higher than you might. Sometimes I find things cheap, sometimes I pay the price its worth on ebay.

There is no price guide. If someone is willing to pay more than you, that's the value, not your bid!

Sales are driven by lots of factors, some of them emotional, for whatever reason.

I've at times paid too much, but in that moment, I was happy to get the item.

Ebay is the ultimate price guide.

I think the Schwinns of all levels are underrated. If your criteria is weight and weight alone, you end up with a very skewed sense of a bike's value. Once durability and versatility, along with overall price, enter the calculations, older Schwinns, I think, stand out as one of the best overall values around. I don't want to restart the CF issue over here in Classic and Vintage, but I really wonder about the durability of these very light weight bikes. We're talking about schwinns that are 30-40-50 years old and her and there even older being restored and still useful and fun to ride day in and day out...will you be able to say that about some of the newer bikes?

Overated? Definitely not!

Overpriced? Maybe.

Quite a few willing knowledgable buyers chasing too few nice examples of a fine vintage bicycle. Add the desire by many Americans to own one of these bikes from the most well known American manufacturer, and you see the problem.

Tyson
Cushing, Oklahoma

I don't see how a 26lbs racing bike was top of the line even 35 years ago considering the Peugeot PX10 weighed 21 lbs. A paramount is only 3 lbs lighter than my dad's bottom of the line Peugeot UO8. And of course you have to consider that when Nixon was president, a Paramount cost around $800 while a PX10 could be gotten for 1/4 of that price. Both had Reynolds 531 with Nervex lugs. I can't see how Schwinn could justify the price premium- even with Campagnolo.

Generally speaking, I am not a fan of Schwinn's, but Paramounts are very nicely made. Up until the bike boom, they were an excellent value too. Peugeot and Raleigh were both able to offer lighter, top quality bicycles (PX-10 and Professional), in quantity, and for less than the Paramount - starting in earnest in the early '70's. This changed the marketplace, and spelled trouble for Schwinn. Obviously, this didn't make the Paramount any less nice of a bicycle, but it's relative value was somewhat diminished.

Today, I think it is fair to say that a Paramount is a very fine bicycle - arguably the best mass-produced, lugged steel bicycle ever made in America. However, I think that people who insist on saying that it is more than that are guilty of overrating it.