Standardized Bicycle Categories

[Buster1]

Hey guys, I always seem to 'classify' or categorize everything and the idea has been floating around in my head for some time...why don't we standardize the means in how we describe or categorize vintage bicycles.

Let me explain.

How do you know if an old car is truly original, or just pieced together? What about correct parts, exactly as would be on the original car, but just from a donor car? Same things with bikes. Some are truly original, others are correct, some are also incorrect with goofy non-matching parts and parts from wrong bikes altogether.

Here is my proposal, feel free to modify it and add or delete from it. My hopes is that we can develop a standardized method for categorizing bikes here on the CABE for 'those in the know.'

Here goes:

1: totally OG, survivor
2: original-correct, some correct parts from donors
3: original-incorrect, some incorrect parts from donors
4: original-repop, some correct repop parts
5: franken-bike

Notice that restorations or condition have no merit on the bicycle "category." One could note that a particular bike was restored, partially restored, or in some other fashion of completeness...however this completeness factor has no merit on the 'category' the bike falls in, just a measure of how clean, rusty, and complete it is. You could have 3/4th of totally barn-fresh Bluebird and it would be a Cat 1, or you could have a complete and ridable Colson, but the rack is wrong and the seat is a repop...it would be cool, but would be a Cat 4 bike. A bike changes category ONLY with addition of incorrect or non-original parts. If you find the perfect barn find, but it's missing a pedal...it will NEVER be a Cat 1. Few bikes would be Cat 1s, and they will drive a price point well above others.

What do you guys think? Maybe we need to add more categories? Maybe some distinctions in-between the above 5? This is tough though. What about a bike that is totally OG, Category 1, but you add tires and re-pop grips to it to make it safe? What is that then? We need to figure out some rules and or limits perhaps.

Let's hear it (if you're still here reading).

 

[2jakes]

Sounds like a good idea. But , can you clarify on the Cat 1 ?

You wrote , quote :
"You could have 3/4th of a totally barn-fresh Bluebird and it would be a Cat 1 ".

but you also wrote, quote :
"If you find the perfect barn find, but it's missing a pedal…it will Never be a Cat 1".

Which is it ?

Also:
I bought a complete unrestored 1954 Western Flyer ( X-53 ). The material on the saddle
is cracked but intact , same with the tires. The paint is faded but original .

Would that be a Cat 1 ?

And if the only way I could ride the bike safely, would be to replace the tires with
similar ones but in better condition …would this bike now be a Cat 2 ?

Thanks for your reply !

 

[MrColumbia]

It's always difficult to quantify antiques into numerical catagories since a lot of opinion is involved. It has been tried with the 1-10 condition rule but two different people can often come to a different conclusion on any particular bike. Most here at the CABE can look at a bike that interests them and conclude how original it is or what they are willing to pay for it. If they do have questions that is what this forum is for, to ask others for their opinion. I think with a numerical system you would end up with endless catagories and sub caatagories and it would just get more confusing. In the end it would still be opinions of various individuals to put each bike into it's proper catagory.
Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[MR D]

Buster, what would be the ultimate goal of this categorizing? For identifying or classifying?

When we find a bike, we can make judgements on the condition of the bike, and decide what will happen with it once we own it. And there are a fair few of you out there that warm up to the saying "It's only original once". While it IS a true statement, does that mean the bike will be devalued once we get our hands on it? Think like this, if a bike were to remain totally OG would it not have to rest in it's original position (in a barn, attic, garage, etc.). The way it was left?

As soon as we move the bike it can never be described as OG. We want to at least get it to a point where it may be useful again...isn't that why we purchase them? Now, I can see the need to have categories for the sake of description on a forum such as this, or maybe a swap meet, but who will remember or even be interested in correctly stating which category we place them in. If it devalues the bike in question, it puts the bike in a bad light. This shouldn't happen, because we want to enjoy the vehicle for what it was, not what it became. If we categorize the bikes, we then would have to make judgements on ourselves as collectors, enthusiasts, riders, tinkerers...BUTCHERS!

WE are the ones that make a difference in how a bike is judged. We decide where the bikes will spend the rest of their time, and what condition they will be either ridden or viewed. It's a hard decision for some to change the future of anything old. What is it that we want to do with it...why do we want to own it so bad?

I thin we are all enthusiasts. We take the older ones and make them viewable. We should all keep them as original as physically or humanly possible. If the bike has been altered at some point, we have a choice to make. Change the direction of it's future? Return it to it's original glory? Donate parts to keep another one on the road (or in the museum)?

For my sake, I don't really like grades. While it classifies and stamps the goodness, it also degrades in the same sense. If someone looks at your collectables, and makes a statement like "OOOO, WOW", would you feel the need to make sure they knew that it is not really what they are seeing? Wouldn't it be a better goal to have our bikes be as best a representative of what they used to be?

Turning back the hands of time, to have a look into the past doesn't mean that we have to see rust. Rust is age/cancer. It means the death of what was. Even if the rust and age is considered "patina" it just shows what CAN happen to anything that's left uncared for. We have the ability to change all that and let people see what potential our bikes have and had at one time.

Fit and finish is how the bikes rolled out of the factories way back then. We have a chance to bring that back. Grease 'em and ride 'em!

All that being said, I invite you to view a bike I owned for a short while. This is a 1962 Schwinn Corvette. I'm quite certain but not convinced that all the parts are original to this bike, all but the headlight and back rack, which were added at some time. This bike is representative of what it could be at that time. A survivor of sorts. I don't see the need to classify it because it is what it is. A very nice bike, which is now part of a huge collection of Schwinn bicycles. I am proud to have had the chance to keep it as original as possible.

 

[Freqman1]

I'm with D on this one--I don't see the point of a classification system. I'm not sure where you would use this? Buying? Selling? Collecting? It would be way too subjective and the bottom line is the buyer is the one who determines if the bikes condition merits the paid price. As for a collector most of us don't care to put a grade on our bikes because it doesn't matter and serves no purpose. Jus my 2c. V/r Shawn

 

[militarymonark]

I would look at what cars are classified in.

 

[Buster1]

Well, it's just an idea I had that came out of another discussion. I seem to categorize things mentally anyway, so it seemed like an okay idea.

To answer a few questions:

2Jakes, you are correct, I misspoke. If you had 3/4 of a barn fresh Bluebird, it would be Cat 1, as is. If you added stuff to complete it (presumably from donor bikes) it would drop to Cat 2.
Ken, it is difficult to do this, and sometimes very subjective. That's why I thought maybe we could discuss and reach some kind of consensus.
MrD, great points. I really don't know why we should do this. Truly. Grades are tough to swallow, but I think they help us as a whole quantify a bike for the masses.

Thanks for the inputs guys, maybe it's too big of an undertaking? But I think that if we agreed on some kind of set system, it might benefit the hobby.

Oh yeah, I was also thinking that 'stuff' that gets worn and needs replacing from time to time (bearings, seats, tires, chains and grips) should have NO effect on a bikes Category.

 

[chitown]

... If you added stuff to complete it (presumably from donor bikes) it would drop to Cat 2.

How do you authenticate an original pedal vs a donated pedal if they are the same make pedal? Unless you document the "barn find" and do a Dust DNA swipe to make sure the dust on the pedal matches the dust on the bike.

The other problem is the debate over what is original. Does it have to be original according to a catalog only? There are many instances of bike dealers adding equipment that wasn't listed in the catalog.

We can try to be objective about proper ID and category of a bike but without a complete history of a bike (like a carfax tm) there is some interpretation used to determine the level of original status. It's hard to verify if a pedal or a saddle or any part wasn't added at any point during it's long life.

 

[2jakes]

To all the people who have contributed to this thread so far….I got to say this…

….it's very refreshing to read all the pro & cons from all of you without the usual
sarcasm or negativeness I read on other forums.

I salute you guys

Thank You !

 

[Buster1]

That's true Chitown. Good points. There is no way to "certify" the bike. But last I checked this is just a fun hobby. It would be your best and honest guess unless you changed something on the bike.

I'm not suggesting DNA swipes and Carfax level authentications here. Just merely suggestions on how to possibly categorize whatever we can in a polite, gentlemanly handshake kinda way.