Calling all Trek experts on mystery
02-14-18, 10:36 AM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
30 to 35 years old - ANYTHING could have happened.
02-14-18, 10:39 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
02-14-18, 06:01 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Berea, KY
Posts: 1,135
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked 323 Times
in
186 Posts
I am stubbornly sticking by my prediction of 83 640. I will up the ante and say that it looks like a 22 to me and it will have a serial number between 49650 and
49699, 55300 and 55399, 62471 and 62520, 66929 and 67028, 75988 and 76037, 87655 and 87804, 88880 and 88929, or, 89755 and 89804.
Bring it on.
49699, 55300 and 55399, 62471 and 62520, 66929 and 67028, 75988 and 76037, 87655 and 87804, 88880 and 88929, or, 89755 and 89804.
Bring it on.
__________________
Andy
Andy
02-14-18, 06:13 PM
#29
Still learning
Thirty hours have elapsed. Not like Dan to not report back quickly! Must be out scoring more great deals, almost stealing them. lol
02-14-18, 10:19 PM
#31
Cycling addiction
Thread Starter
sorry guys it took me a while to get back to you on the S/N and it 19013
02-14-18, 10:20 PM
#32
Cycling addiction
Thread Starter
02-15-18, 04:07 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Berea, KY
Posts: 1,135
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked 323 Times
in
186 Posts
I can't find any mention of a 5 digit serial number that starts with a 1 anywhere on the Vintage Trek Website. 82 had serial numbers that started with 0 then a 1. But, if we drop the 0, and just use the last five digits, then it is supposed to be an 82 25" 610.
__________________
Andy
Andy
Last edited by beicster; 02-15-18 at 07:43 PM. Reason: It was quitting time and I did not finish my thought.
02-21-18, 09:30 PM
#34
Cycling addiction
Thread Starter
It is not an 82 61x because they had the rear derailleur cable housing stop on the top of the chainstay. I am going with 83 640 which came with a Tange Levin headset, 531 CS frame and it came in black. The only thing off is that the 640 came with a red head tube. Is that usually a decal or paint?
So I think that this is really 640
02-21-18, 09:31 PM
#35
Cycling addiction
Thread Starter
02-22-18, 08:03 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Berea, KY
Posts: 1,135
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked 323 Times
in
186 Posts
Somebody worked awfully hard to cover that beautiful red paint. I hope you are able to get all of it back to red.
__________________
Andy
Andy
02-22-18, 08:17 AM
#37
Full Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Retired to Penang Malaysia originally from UK
Posts: 346
Bikes: My 1978 Raleigh from new, 1995 Trek, & constant changing & rebuilding of other bike projects.
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
All awaiting the # think someone in the recent past has added / changed / altered decals including head badge
07-28-18, 10:34 PM
#38
Cycling addiction
Thread Starter
Here the trek 620 finally restored back to it former glory
Last edited by Danbianchi881; 07-28-18 at 11:20 PM.
07-29-18, 09:56 AM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
Hi, Dan, nice looking!
It looks like Beicster was correct about it being a 1983 640 if the black (sparkle?) and the red head panel are original, but my interpretation of the S/N is that the 6-digit number started with "0" so it should be 019013, but as he pointed out that means it's a 1982 25" 610. 610 frames seem to be designated for bike models 600, 620, 630, and 640 in 1983 model year. The frame size certainly looks like a 22.5" rather than a 25". Frame numbers are stamped in the year they are made, so it is possible it was made in the later part of 1982, then built up and sold in 1983 with the equipment of a 640 bicycle.
The nearest range of numbers for 22.5" is 019688 through 019987. Assuming an error in the fourth digit only, I'd propose that the correct number is 019813 or 019913. But we don't have a photo of the BB to see the actual stamping. So either the number in the fourth digit is stamped wrong, is distorted, or was read in error, I'd go with Beicster's assessment. But a lot of assumptions are made.
It's also possible it was sold in 1982 as a 610, 613, or 614, and later repainted and rebuilt with other parts. Really, a firm determination is impossible if the S/N is wrong. The only things that are clear is that the S/N as reported does not match the physical dimensions of the frame.
It looks like Beicster was correct about it being a 1983 640 if the black (sparkle?) and the red head panel are original, but my interpretation of the S/N is that the 6-digit number started with "0" so it should be 019013, but as he pointed out that means it's a 1982 25" 610. 610 frames seem to be designated for bike models 600, 620, 630, and 640 in 1983 model year. The frame size certainly looks like a 22.5" rather than a 25". Frame numbers are stamped in the year they are made, so it is possible it was made in the later part of 1982, then built up and sold in 1983 with the equipment of a 640 bicycle.
The nearest range of numbers for 22.5" is 019688 through 019987. Assuming an error in the fourth digit only, I'd propose that the correct number is 019813 or 019913. But we don't have a photo of the BB to see the actual stamping. So either the number in the fourth digit is stamped wrong, is distorted, or was read in error, I'd go with Beicster's assessment. But a lot of assumptions are made.
It's also possible it was sold in 1982 as a 610, 613, or 614, and later repainted and rebuilt with other parts. Really, a firm determination is impossible if the S/N is wrong. The only things that are clear is that the S/N as reported does not match the physical dimensions of the frame.
Last edited by Road Fan; 07-29-18 at 10:09 AM.
07-29-18, 10:33 AM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Baton Rouge La
Posts: 1,214
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Liked 346 Times
in
230 Posts
Hi, Dan, nice looking!
It looks like Beicster was correct about it being a 1983 640 if the black (sparkle?) and the red head panel are original, but my interpretation of the S/N is that the 6-digit number started with "0" so it should be 019013, but as he pointed out that means it's a 1982 25" 610. 610 frames seem to be designated for bike models 600, 620, 630, and 640 in 1983 model year. The frame size certainly looks like a 22.5" rather than a 25". Frame numbers are stamped in the year they are made, so it is possible it was made in the later part of 1982, then built up and sold in 1983 with the equipment of a 640 bicycle.
The nearest range of numbers for 22.5" is 019688 through 019987. Assuming an error in the fourth digit only, I'd propose that the correct number is 019813 or 019913. But we don't have a photo of the BB to see the actual stamping. So either the number in the fourth digit is stamped wrong, is distorted, or was read in error, I'd go with Beicster's assessment. But a lot of assumptions are made.
It's also possible it was sold in 1982 as a 610, 613, or 614, and later repainted and rebuilt with other parts. Really, a firm determination is impossible if the S/N is wrong. The only things that are clear is that the S/N as reported does not match the physical dimensions of the frame.
It looks like Beicster was correct about it being a 1983 640 if the black (sparkle?) and the red head panel are original, but my interpretation of the S/N is that the 6-digit number started with "0" so it should be 019013, but as he pointed out that means it's a 1982 25" 610. 610 frames seem to be designated for bike models 600, 620, 630, and 640 in 1983 model year. The frame size certainly looks like a 22.5" rather than a 25". Frame numbers are stamped in the year they are made, so it is possible it was made in the later part of 1982, then built up and sold in 1983 with the equipment of a 640 bicycle.
The nearest range of numbers for 22.5" is 019688 through 019987. Assuming an error in the fourth digit only, I'd propose that the correct number is 019813 or 019913. But we don't have a photo of the BB to see the actual stamping. So either the number in the fourth digit is stamped wrong, is distorted, or was read in error, I'd go with Beicster's assessment. But a lot of assumptions are made.
It's also possible it was sold in 1982 as a 610, 613, or 614, and later repainted and rebuilt with other parts. Really, a firm determination is impossible if the S/N is wrong. The only things that are clear is that the S/N as reported does not match the physical dimensions of the frame.
07-29-18, 10:37 AM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Madison, WI USA
Posts: 6,154
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2363 Post(s)
Liked 1,749 Times
in
1,191 Posts
I wonder if the leftmost digit of the serial number is filled in with paint. Could it be 119013, thus an '84?
07-29-18, 11:23 PM
#42
Cycling addiction
Thread Starter
07-29-18, 11:53 PM
#43
Cycling addiction
Thread Starter
Hi, Dan, nice looking!
It looks like Beicster was correct about it being a 1983 640 if the black (sparkle?) and the red head panel are original, but my interpretation of the S/N is that the 6-digit number started with "0" so it should be 019013, but as he pointed out that means it's a 1982 25" 610. 610 frames seem to be designated for bike models 600, 620, 630, and 640 in 1983 model year. The frame size certainly looks like a 22.5" rather than a 25". Frame numbers are stamped in the year they are made, so it is possible it was made in the later part of 1982, then built up and sold in 1983 with the equipment of a 640 bicycle.
The nearest range of numbers for 22.5" is 019688 through 019987. Assuming an error in the fourth digit only, I'd propose that the correct number is 019813 or 019913. But we don't have a photo of the BB to see the actual stamping. So either the number in the fourth digit is stamped wrong, is distorted, or was read in error, I'd go with Beicster's assessment. But a lot of assumptions are made.
It's also possible it was sold in 1982 as a 610, 613, or 614, and later repainted and rebuilt with other parts. Really, a firm determination is impossible if the S/N is wrong. The only things that are clear is that the S/N as reported does not match the physical dimensions of the frame.
It looks like Beicster was correct about it being a 1983 640 if the black (sparkle?) and the red head panel are original, but my interpretation of the S/N is that the 6-digit number started with "0" so it should be 019013, but as he pointed out that means it's a 1982 25" 610. 610 frames seem to be designated for bike models 600, 620, 630, and 640 in 1983 model year. The frame size certainly looks like a 22.5" rather than a 25". Frame numbers are stamped in the year they are made, so it is possible it was made in the later part of 1982, then built up and sold in 1983 with the equipment of a 640 bicycle.
The nearest range of numbers for 22.5" is 019688 through 019987. Assuming an error in the fourth digit only, I'd propose that the correct number is 019813 or 019913. But we don't have a photo of the BB to see the actual stamping. So either the number in the fourth digit is stamped wrong, is distorted, or was read in error, I'd go with Beicster's assessment. But a lot of assumptions are made.
It's also possible it was sold in 1982 as a 610, 613, or 614, and later repainted and rebuilt with other parts. Really, a firm determination is impossible if the S/N is wrong. The only things that are clear is that the S/N as reported does not match the physical dimensions of the frame.
07-30-18, 12:19 AM
#44
Senior Member
The assumptions people come up with.
I was wrong about a Bianchi that had a fork that looked completely wrong for the bike, but it was the correct fork.
The damage crowd that pull problems out of thin air, or the characters in the mechanic forum....
To lazy to turn the bike over and look at the Serial No.?
07-30-18, 07:27 AM
#45
Extraordinary Magnitude
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Waukesha WI
Posts: 13,646
Bikes: 1978 Trek TX700; 1978/79 Trek 736; 1984 Specialized Stumpjumper Sport; 1984 Schwinn Voyageur SP; 1985 Trek 620; 1985 Trek 720; 1986 Trek 400 Elance; 1987 Schwinn High Sierra; 1990 Miyata 1000LT
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2608 Post(s)
Liked 1,699 Times
in
935 Posts
The assumptions people come up with.
I was wrong about a Bianchi that had a fork that looked completely wrong for the bike, but it was the correct fork.
The damage crowd that pull problems out of thin air, or the characters in the mechanic forum....
To lazy to turn the bike over and look at the Serial No.?
__________________
*Recipient of the 2006 Time Magazine "Person Of The Year" Award*
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
07-30-18, 07:35 AM
#46
Senior Member
I get annoyed by the bent fork crowd on here. No evidence the fork is bent, or the head tube is damaged but knuckleheads on here will say somebodies fork is bent because the pic offsets the fork.
I would never us the mechanic forum on this site. To many dick heads!
07-30-18, 10:04 AM
#47
Extraordinary Magnitude
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Waukesha WI
Posts: 13,646
Bikes: 1978 Trek TX700; 1978/79 Trek 736; 1984 Specialized Stumpjumper Sport; 1984 Schwinn Voyageur SP; 1985 Trek 620; 1985 Trek 720; 1986 Trek 400 Elance; 1987 Schwinn High Sierra; 1990 Miyata 1000LT
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2608 Post(s)
Liked 1,699 Times
in
935 Posts
I know. But as said it doesn't mean the frame is damaged.
I get annoyed by the bent fork crowd on here. No evidence the fork is bent, or the head tube is damaged but knuckleheads on here will say somebodies fork is bent because the pic offsets the fork.
I would never us the mechanic forum on this site. To many dick heads!
I get annoyed by the bent fork crowd on here. No evidence the fork is bent, or the head tube is damaged but knuckleheads on here will say somebodies fork is bent because the pic offsets the fork.
I would never us the mechanic forum on this site. To many dick heads!
Occam’s Razor.
__________________
*Recipient of the 2006 Time Magazine "Person Of The Year" Award*
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
07-30-18, 10:17 AM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Madison, WI USA
Posts: 6,154
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2363 Post(s)
Liked 1,749 Times
in
1,191 Posts
Actually, Occam's Razor would direct you first to determine whether it's a computer that needs to be plugged in for power.....
07-30-18, 10:24 AM
#49
Senior Member
It's just how people make dumb comments based off of pure laziness, combined with that they could care less. And sadly some will listen to these fools!
End of my rant!.
For now. 
End of my rant!.
For now.
Last edited by StarBiker; 07-30-18 at 11:08 AM.
07-30-18, 11:16 AM
#50
Senior Member
I like the black and red. attractive bike.
And I wouldn't change anything.
I am a fan of understated bikes. Guy did a really nice job with one that the brand name escapes me at the moment. He completely overhauled the bike and removed the yellow lettering in the process because of condition. It had a nice head badge and this really dark blue finish when he was done. It looked great. He was located in Australia IIRC. It wasn't the kind of bike where he was hurting the value by doing this either. As it was it needed a lot more help than this bike.
You have to pay for a clean looking bike without all the graphics that's a quality.
And I wouldn't change anything.
I am a fan of understated bikes. Guy did a really nice job with one that the brand name escapes me at the moment. He completely overhauled the bike and removed the yellow lettering in the process because of condition. It had a nice head badge and this really dark blue finish when he was done. It looked great. He was located in Australia IIRC. It wasn't the kind of bike where he was hurting the value by doing this either. As it was it needed a lot more help than this bike.
You have to pay for a clean looking bike without all the graphics that's a quality.
Last edited by StarBiker; 07-31-18 at 04:08 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
xiev
Classic and Vintage Bicycles: Whats it Worth? Appraisals.
24
07-23-17 07:10 PM
imbikecurious
Southern California
3
01-06-16 09:54 AM
