Difference Between An Original Bike And Original As Built Bike ?????

[SirMike1983]

The world being what it is online, "original" = bike has random, rusty parts on it.

 

[AS-1]

Mike,

I'm glad you made it. I'm sorry you have had a bad time. Get well!

Best regards,

Kit Thomas (AS-1)

 

[Porkchop & Applesauce]

I’ve been asked on many occasions if I restore old bikes. My answer is no. I resurrect them. I love using factory parts on them but none are original. I must agree with AS-1….the story of the bike IS the best part! Seldom do you come across a bike 50+years and older that you get to know that!

 

[AS-1]

.....................Str8's Aerocycle notwithstanding.


(hubba, hubba, hubba)

 

[Goldenrod1]

Old smart-asses are needed today more than ever. Keep your spirt up and get active as soon as you can. We CABE buddies will keep your seat warm. Your bikes will stand patiently and don't need to be fed or watered. Their dad will be back soon.

 

[joliet schwinn]

I am still on the mend from my surgery. One of the cuts in my stomach from by belly button down to my private parts became infected and is taking so long to heal, and not being able to lift anything over 5 pounds per doctors orders. Hard to walk, have to pack wound twice a day myself. I guess we don't heal up like we did when we were younger. Anyway with all this downtime I started to wonder what people on here consider to be an original bike. I see ads that state all original except new paint, recovered, seat, new wheels and tires etc...I see a lot of ads that state bike is all original except a list of things that have been changed or even updated through the years. My thoughts on this are if someone wants to state a bike is all original except new paint, new seat new tires, new rims, etc.... It is kind of silly in a way especially when most of the bike is not original. However if a person wants to do this it is OK as they are giving a good description of the bike. In my mind this is better than the person who lists the bike and does not say anything about what they know is original and what is not. What I feel is tricky is when someone states a bike is all original, yet they know that some of the parts have been replaced with the correct original parts for the bike such as replacing on a nice original bike with the only flaw being the original seat with a tear on it, replacing it with an original nice seat they have found that would be the correct same seat as the one removed but in nice shape with no tear. When that is done is that bike still an original bike, do you think the owner has an obligation to disclose this when selling the bike? Besides just replacing a seat, how about a nice all original bike that besides the seat being replaced has had many other parts replaced with the correct original parts even with correct dating on dated parts to upgrade the original parts. What about if you have a beautiful frame set with great original paint, correct dated original forks, crank within a month, and then the bike is built up with all the correct nice original correct for that bike parts even dated correctly tires, is that an original bike even though it has been pieced together from a frame set. Maybe there should be 2 types of original bikes being original as was built, nothing changed, and all original, not as built, having some parts replaced with the original parts that were replaced on the bike. Be nice in that case to also have the original parts that were taken off and replaced on the bike. I always have a sly smile on my face when someone tells me a bike they are selling is 100% original, and they got it from the original owner that never replaced a thing. Unless you are the original owner, how do you know this is true. I have bought bikes from people in this situation such as a beautiful original 1968 Orange Krate from an original owner with everything correct except a RWL slik on the back. When asked bout the rear tire the owner stating they got the bike new and never replaced the tire, they swear the RWL tire was on the bike when he got the bike new from the dealer. I think in most cases they might have just forgot about a bad tire being replaced on the bike. I would never sell a bike as being all original with nothing being replaced unless I was the original owner and had control over the bike the whole time I owned it. When someone sells me a bike stating they are the original owner and it is all original, nothing replaced or changed, I would never tell a a prospective subsequent purchaser of the bike from me that I know for sure nothing on the bike has ever been changed. I do not care how good the provenance on the bike is with photos, letters, receipts. If I did not own the bike or had a close connection to the bike since it was new, I can not say this. I would say that I purchased it from the original owner and they told me that noting was changed, and that after I bought it I found all the parts to be correctly dated and that I found no evidence of anything being changed or repaired, but since I did not own the bike from new I can not say that anything might have been replaced with a correct part. I see bikes for sale that state that everything on the bike is all original, maybe going as far to say not a nut or screw has been turned on the bike, but unless you were the original owner how do you know for sure a tire may have been replaced with a used correct dated tire, used correct chainguard or seat being installed. I feel it is okay to give an opinion on what may or may not be the case, but to state it as a fact is tough to do unless you knew the bike since new. It always amuses me when I have a bike for sale that I said to the prospective buyer the forks or perhaps the gooseneck or some other item are dated up to 3 months difference from the frame date and the prospective buyer is telling me they can not be original to the bike then. I just smile and say they could be right about that. They end up buying the bike, yet when they go to sell it the next month or years after buying it they state the dates on all these items and how this shows the bike has to an all original bike, and a 3 month window on these parts is fine. I guess that window is different when you are buying a bike and trying to get a good price, then when you now own the bike and trying to sell the bike. Like when I sold a bike to someone who swore it had been repainted but still bought the bike, then a few months later I saw him selling it with a tag on the bike stating all original paint. Funny how ones opinions can change depending if you are the buyer or seller of the bike. Sorry got off track here with this last bit, but all this did keep me busy for almost an hour. Now this is just my opinion, but again should a bike be described as all original if a part has been replaced even with the correct part, bike would still be correct, but is it original if a part has been replaced. All of this is just my opinion and would like to hear what others think about this.

I agree!
There is only one such thing as a 100% original bike and that is 100% percent original no ifs, ands or buts....
Hard to document and most likely in terrible shape.....

 

[SirMike1983]

It's a bit crass to compare trying to save an old bike to trying to save a person from the holocaust, and with a sale plug thrown in to boot. It's a very nice bike, and maybe it was not meant to be crass, but it came across that way.

Edit: From what I can see, the earlier post that led to the response I wrote above was removed.

 

[JFJ1978]

I am still on the mend from my surgery. One of the cuts in my stomach from by belly button down to my private parts became infected and is taking so long to heal, and not being able to lift anything over 5 pounds per doctors orders. Hard to walk, have to pack wound twice a day myself. I guess we don't heal up like we did when we were younger. Anyway with all this downtime I started to wonder what people on here consider to be an original bike. I see ads that state all original except new paint, recovered, seat, new wheels and tires etc...I see a lot of ads that state bike is all original except a list of things that have been changed or even updated through the years. My thoughts on this are if someone wants to state a bike is all original except new paint, new seat new tires, new rims, etc.... It is kind of silly in a way especially when most of the bike is not original. However if a person wants to do this it is OK as they are giving a good description of the bike. In my mind this is better than the person who lists the bike and does not say anything about what they know is original and what is not. What I feel is tricky is when someone states a bike is all original, yet they know that some of the parts have been replaced with the correct original parts for the bike such as replacing on a nice original bike with the only flaw being the original seat with a tear on it, replacing it with an original nice seat they have found that would be the correct same seat as the one removed but in nice shape with no tear. When that is done is that bike still an original bike, do you think the owner has an obligation to disclose this when selling the bike? Besides just replacing a seat, how about a nice all original bike that besides the seat being replaced has had many other parts replaced with the correct original parts even with correct dating on dated parts to upgrade the original parts. What about if you have a beautiful frame set with great original paint, correct dated original forks, crank within a month, and then the bike is built up with all the correct nice original correct for that bike parts even dated correctly tires, is that an original bike even though it has been pieced together from a frame set. Maybe there should be 2 types of original bikes being original as was built, nothing changed, and all original, not as built, having some parts replaced with the original parts that were replaced on the bike. Be nice in that case to also have the original parts that were taken off and replaced on the bike. I always have a sly smile on my face when someone tells me a bike they are selling is 100% original, and they got it from the original owner that never replaced a thing. Unless you are the original owner, how do you know this is true. I have bought bikes from people in this situation such as a beautiful original 1968 Orange Krate from an original owner with everything correct except a RWL slik on the back. When asked bout the rear tire the owner stating they got the bike new and never replaced the tire, they swear the RWL tire was on the bike when he got the bike new from the dealer. I think in most cases they might have just forgot about a bad tire being replaced on the bike. I would never sell a bike as being all original with nothing being replaced unless I was the original owner and had control over the bike the whole time I owned it. When someone sells me a bike stating they are the original owner and it is all original, nothing replaced or changed, I would never tell a a prospective subsequent purchaser of the bike from me that I know for sure nothing on the bike has ever been changed. I do not care how good the provenance on the bike is with photos, letters, receipts. If I did not own the bike or had a close connection to the bike since it was new, I can not say this. I would say that I purchased it from the original owner and they told me that noting was changed, and that after I bought it I found all the parts to be correctly dated and that I found no evidence of anything being changed or repaired, but since I did not own the bike from new I can not say that anything might have been replaced with a correct part. I see bikes for sale that state that everything on the bike is all original, maybe going as far to say not a nut or screw has been turned on the bike, but unless you were the original owner how do you know for sure a tire may have been replaced with a used correct dated tire, used correct chainguard or seat being installed. I feel it is okay to give an opinion on what may or may not be the case, but to state it as a fact is tough to do unless you knew the bike since new. It always amuses me when I have a bike for sale that I said to the prospective buyer the forks or perhaps the gooseneck or some other item are dated up to 3 months difference from the frame date and the prospective buyer is telling me they can not be original to the bike then. I just smile and say they could be right about that. They end up buying the bike, yet when they go to sell it the next month or years after buying it they state the dates on all these items and how this shows the bike has to an all original bike, and a 3 month window on these parts is fine. I guess that window is different when you are buying a bike and trying to get a good price, then when you now own the bike and trying to sell the bike. Like when I sold a bike to someone who swore it had been repainted but still bought the bike, then a few months later I saw him selling it with a tag on the bike stating all original paint. Funny how ones opinions can change depending if you are the buyer or seller of the bike. Sorry got off track here with this last bit, but all this did keep me busy for almost an hour. Now this is just my opinion, but again should a bike be described as all original if a part has been replaced even with the correct part, bike would still be correct, but is it original if a part has been replaced. All of this is just my opinion and would like to hear what others think about this.

I agree with your mindset and opinion. I’m from nor cal as well. I’m looking for some Schwinn parts for my 1968 schwinn stingray MD serial number 20”. Anything that’s for that December month specifically?

 

[mike1117]

Main thing that comes to mind off the top of my head is that a Dec 1968 bike like yours was most likely built as a 1969 model, however there is a very slight chance it could be one of the last 1968 style Stingray bikes. If we are talking about your bike being a Coaster Brake bike model, not a Krate or Fastback then the sprocket most likely is a smaller type mag sprocket, and the chainguard is the hockey stick style. If your bike has the 7 hole sprocket and guard is the "wingtip 57 Chevy style" guard then it was built as a 1968 model which is unlikely but could be possible. November is the most common month for the change over when they started with the next model year, but I have seen some nice original bikes that do not fit that statement. I have forgot more about these bikes than I ever knew about them at one time so confirm anything you hear from me. I get confused now days even when typing this down. Also think the seat is a silver glitter seat, it may have been 1969 they started the colored seats, thinking it was 1970 though. Most of my bikes are in storage or I would just be looking at those. You also can look at the Schwinn catalogs for each year, but they also can be different than what they ended up doing on some of their bikes. Probably not much help here, maybe someone else can step in.

 

[GTs58]

Main thing that comes to mind off the top of my head is that a Dec 1968 bike like yours was most likely built as a 1969 model, however there is a very slight chance it could be one of the last 1968 style Stingray bikes. If we are talking about your bike being a Coaster Brake bike model, not a Krate or Fastback then the sprocket most likely is a smaller type mag sprocket, and the chainguard is the hockey stick style. If your bike has the 7 hole sprocket and guard is the "wingtip 57 Chevy style" guard then it was built as a 1968 model which is unlikely but could be possible. November is the most common month for the change over when they started with the next model year, but I have seen some nice original bikes that do not fit that statement. I have forgot more about these bikes than I ever knew about them at one time so confirm anything you hear from me. I get confused now days even when typing this down. Also think the seat is a silver glitter seat, it may have been 1969 they started the colored seats, thinking it was 1970 though. Most of my bikes are in storage or I would just be looking at those. You also can look at the Schwinn catalogs for each year, but they also can be different than what they ended up doing on some of their bikes. Probably not much help here, maybe someone else can step in.

There is no doubt that a Schwinn with a December serial number was built in and for the next year. If someone claims it was built as that year, it for sure was "rebuilt" to match the serial year. I've seen my share of bikes that have been transformed into the previous year simple because those people believe the serial number stamping date is the actual build date.