Chicago from Arnold, Schwinn &Co.

[cyclingday]

@dnc1
Thread 'Searching out the soul behind the badge.'
https://thecabe.com/forum/threads/searching-out-the-soul-behind-the-badge.105691/

 

[dnc1]

Many thanks @cyclingday ,
That's your old thread that was in my head yesterday.
Great story and research.

 

[cyclingday]

After looking at the 1896 model no.1, that Jesse found, and then comparing it to the image of the Chicago model in the 1898 catalog, it appears to be very similar.
So, possibly, when the Model 22 Roadster was introduced in 1898, they created the Chicago model, to use up the remaining stock of 1896/97 models no.1 & 2.
So, if you’re wondering what an 1898 Chicago model 31 looked like, then look no further than Jesse’s 1896 model no.1 as an example.
I’d be willing to bet, that the Chicago model in 1898 was a surplus model to use up the remaining stock from the 96/97 production run.

 

[New Mexico Brant]

I’d be willing to bet, that the Chicago model in 1898 was a surplus model to use up the remaining stock from the 96/97 production run.

I respectfully disagree Marty. While Schwinn may have used some leftover parts on the Chicago, at that time the "value priced" models generally were well conceived very different bikes. The intention was not to undermine their flagship model(s) but to compete for the price conscious buyers. Similar to Colonel Pope creating Hartford as his value priced line so not to undermine the status of Columbia. The Hartford were not last year's Columbia models. With the Chicago model, the tubing was a lesser gauge, the fit out was with cheaper rims, saddles, pedals, tires, and other parts, and the paint and brightwork would not be as grand. If you had the two side by side, although to a layman's eye a bike is a bike, to our eye they would look very different.

 

[cyclingday]

Yep, you’re right, Brant.
I just took a closer look at the catalog page, and the 1898 Chicago model 31 had an external lugged frame.
The seat stay cluster looked the same at a glance, but you can clearly see, that the Chicago model was a distinctly different model of its own.
Thanks, for the debate.