USAZorro

What it is being represented as matters. If the seller says, it's really "B", but painted up to look like "A", then there isn't any ethical problem. When the seller does not make this known up-front... huge ethical issue, regardless of "what you get for what you spent".

Kevindale

This gets at some of what's tricky and frustrating about collecting vintage anything. In some realms, like furniture, it must be totally and absolutely original to be really valuable, which means the original varnish has turned from transparent to opaque black. Pieces with subtle uses of various woods and surface carving, which were absolutely beautiful, now look like they've been smeared with a thick coating of dark brown goo. Refinish the piece, and it will look gorgeous, but will have lost 90% of it's value to a collector.

In addition to the example T-Mar gave above (which I agree is a head-scratcher), there's the fact that many great bike builders just sold frames and forks, or else built up bikes to the buyer's specs. And many of those builders were happy to have the extra business of repainting frames, or adding braze-ons, or whatever mods they were paid to make. And many of those wonderful small-volume builders appeared to be pretty loose about having specific models, or being consistent about how they built the bikes. What is 'original' in those cases?

Add in that many builders outsourced some work to smaller builders, and still put their decals on the bike. Sometimes the smaller builder was probably the better builder, and the suspicion that one has one of these bikes adds value, even though the bike is technically misrepresented to the public. Sometimes the outsourced builder is unknown, and so even though the quality may be great, the value is diminished, because it's not a real example of that marque.

Kevindale

There's the issue of what the seller knows, and what the buyer can discern. If the seller thinks the modified bike is really "A", perhaps because they didn't want to dig too deeply, or simply because they just don't know much, are they being unethical? How much is on the buyer to do their due diligence?

What I'm trying to get at is this - if the seller's state of mind determines if the sale is OK or not, then most bike sales are problematic. Most vintage bike sellers overrate the rarity, quality, originality, and condition of what they sell.

Or is it the state of mind of the original modifier that's crucial, and the actual crime committed at the time of the modification? I think that's an equally problematic formulation. In the case of the Bottechia above, there's no intent to deceive by the modifier. But at an estate sale, who will know that intent? Someone buys that bike, sees it's missing a decal, and puts a 'Professional' decal on. Are they evil, or stupid, or just doing what they want with their own bike?

And if the crime is in the state of mind and knowledge of the buyer, doesn't that also apply to the buyer? Is a seller who misrepresents a no-name bike as a Pogliaghi more wrong than a buyer who buys a dusty Pogliaghi from an addled old widow for $20?

I think we all absolutely agree that deception (intentional or unintentional) is wrong and should be aggressively called out. That's one thing this forum is good at - helping people avoid getting taken by unscrupulous or ignorant sellers. But some degree of nonsense is going on at some level in a huge percentage of bike and component sales. These bikes were sold and used as tools and equipment for the owner/rider's goals, and not bought like baseball cards, to be preserved and traded based on rarity. They get changed, they get modified, they get repainted. At the money level of my collecting, I'm much more concerned with getting taken by people claiming components and frames are more functional/less damaged than they turn out to be.

Wileyone 

Thanks for the reply. But you really didn't answer my question. I wasn't referring to Mfg's. The Bike in my "hypothetical" question was not altered by the Mfg. But by a second party retailer.

USAZorro

It isn't the only scenario where ethics are involved, and yes, there are situations where there is no knowledge or intent, yet there is effectively misrepresentation. As for your change through normal use - it's the difference between selling a "Super Course" and selling an "all original Super Course".

Was mostly a bit surprised to see the argument that it shouldn't matter because the value received was proportionate to what it was. It's almost like saying that it would be ok to sell someone a Lamborgini for $5,000, but have it be a kit car that has a $5,200 blue book value. Common sense should cue an informed buyer that $5,000 is too good to be true for a real, not-stolen Lamborgini, but the point is that truth became a victim.

Robert C

Sorry guys, my vote is for "it's your bike, do what you want" but, don't try to sell it for something it isn't.

As an example, Several years ago I had a bike with no head badge or logo. In fact it was a specialized something and it had very little branding on it at all. For all intents and purposes, it was just a matte black bike.

I put a Volkswagen sticker on the head tube because I liked the way it looked (of course, with a fresh VW sticker, the bike promptly broke down; but that is another story). It was my bike, I did what I wanted with it.

That being said, if I had tried to sell it as a Volkswagen bicycle I would have been being dishonest; but I wasn't selling it as a Volkswagen bike.

If you are building it up with an intent to sell; yes, only use branding appropriate to the bike. However, if it is just for you, do what you like; just be honest when asked. For that matter, being honest and telling the story, when asked, is a great conversation starter.

Rollfast

I don't even understand that one, the Worksman is a better bike and probably worth more. To me at least.


And you know I'm a Schwinnaholic.

non-fixie 

Interesting thread.

If I were to take a no-name frame and put "Reus" decals on it and sell it as a "Jan de Reus" (the famous framebuilder from Zwanenburg), I'd probably be drawn and quartered.

But what if Jan de Reus did it himself and sold them from his own shop? He did:

SJX426 

Interesting view points! As I think about them, there is the issues of intent, both of the buy and the seller.

If I were to sell the Bott, it would clearly be an upgrade from the original factory configuration, as long as the buyer agreed that an all Campagnolo is worth more. True, the stem and HB are not original either, along with the HS. But if you want to ride it as opposed to hanging it on the wall, it is a good deal and who cares if it is a Giro or Pro? For the intent of experiencing the top of the line Bott from 1973 as a rider, you can't get much closer unless you think the HS, stem, HB and saddle would make a difference. Well the saddle would.

For a wall hanger, it failed when offered for sale! Wrong stem, HB, FD, and FD. Not to mention the decals having been removed, rust and paint condition.

Thanks to this forums members, I now have the discerning eye, to a much better degree, so I typically know what I am looking at. i agree that there are a fair number of CL or other FS places that over value what is for sale. Just because it is a Colnago, it isn't worth $2K with 105 10 speed drive train and Tektro brake set!

randyjawa 

And there-in lies the problem.

Sooner or later, almost all of our/their bikes get sold, and then resold and so on.

Sooner or later, you or I will be the ones buying the Fake Bike, even though no ill intent was intended. That is what happened with the Cyclops. The seller of the fake Cyclops had no idea that it was not a Cyclops(I know because I know the fellow). The guy who bought the bike, a fellow collector who lives in the same city that I do, had no idea that it was not a Cyclops. He was sad when he showed it to me and I had to tell him he got fooled.

Sure, it is your bike and I have no business telling you what to do with it. But there is a problem with rebranding a bicycle, or a violin(my mon has a fake Stradivarius violin and, believe it or not, it is worth a bundle, but not a million dollar bundle). Sadly, the fellow who gave it to my grandmother believed he had purchased a real Stradivarius. How would you like to be him

Rollfast

That dude died like nearly 300 years ago, so I wouldn't.

styggno1

Funny thing - here in Sweden a Monark Super Continental was considered a high quality race bike. The Swedish elite cyclists rode them and the Swedish maker made a big point of it. Then some guys went to Italy and got fakes made and brought them back to Sweden. Bummer. I was fooled and got one of these fakes. I just have to live with it.

Kevindale

So these were fakes made back in the 1960s-1970s? That looks like a pretty high-quality bike, with beautiful components. How much of a premium is the Monark name, versus a vintage no-name Italian bike? And is anyone able to determine who built the fake Monarks?

randyjawa 

Replace the word Monark with Cinelli, or Alex Singer, or Mariposa, or Hetchins. Then the answer is a little easier to figure out.

randyjawa 

In all fairness, to me, I guess, I do have a back-up Stronglight 93 French threaded crank set tucked away, just in case. And a 49D, come to think of it. The 49D is one of my all time favorite crank sets and, to this day, I still have one fitted to my Atala Professional...

satbuilder 

I think his post was tongue in cheek...I think.

styggno1

Very much so.

When an object poses as something it is not - and it poses as something "better" or "finer" it is a bad thing.

When it is done the other way around - and something is labeled "downwards" it gets interesting.

When competing as amateurs the Pettersson brothers won the worlds TT (three times) and when they placed top three in the olympics they rode real Monarks and Crescents made in Sweden (Sture and Erik rode Crescent and Thomas and Gösta rode Monark - same bikes all of them but for the paint and decals. Nervex lugs and Reynolds 531. Strong bikes but nothing special).

When turning pro they rode Masi:s. Their prior sponsor deal had them still riding "Monark" and "Crescent" bikes in the Tour and the Giro. Riding for Ferretti (Gösta placing third in the Tour 1970 and won the 1971 Giro) if you look at publicity pictures they are on Ferretti labeled bikes but if you look at race photography they are on "Monark" and "Crescent".

These pro bikes were all built by Masi, Milano. Mine is a 1971 "Monark", "Ferretti", Masi.

A fake Monark Super Continental...

And as I wrote I just have to live with it. I find it quite easy.

Oh... and PS - I knew exactly what I was buying. I had been searching for decades.

Bikerider007

A little off topic of actual fake, but there are a lot of repaints out there. On FB bikes for sale rarely mention repainted or original and no one seems to question. Has that become less of a concern or is it only of concern for very high end bikes?


There seem to be bikes coming out of Europe and you can tell they are restored (and many say restored but that's it). 10 years from now the paint will be worn again. An uneducated buyer may not even ask and so it is "original". Work now can be so accurately replicated who can tell? It's kind of mind boggling as I am sure it already happens with bikes repainted twenty years ago.

Kevindale

That's a great story on your bike. Reminds me of the Serotta-built "Huffys" of LeMonde fame.


Fortunately, I'm not too caught up in the "all original" thing, mostly because I'm not at a place where I want great old bikes that I'm afraid to ride. I appreciate it though, as objects of art/design, but I think there are a fairly small percentage of bikes that warrant a really strict approach to originality. For my (tight-fisted) money, if a bike is restored so well that 10-20 years later I can't tell that it was restored, then I'm probably going to be happy.

Of course, sometimes things are altered in those restorations. I've seen some Tommasini 'Racers' from the early '80s that are now Prestiges, with graphics from the mid-to-late 1980s. There's really no meaningful difference I can see between a Racer from 1982 and a Prestige from few years later (same geometry, both SL tubing, both lovingly hand crafting), though I'd prefer they had their original decals. Some of these probably weren't done with the intent to deceive, just that someone wanted a different color, and the old decals weren't readily available. From reading old threads here, it's apparent Tommasini used to do a lot of repainting of their own frames (as well as adding braze-ons), and I gather that sometimes it was the factory putting the newer decals on.

At the end of the day, the bike is what it is, regardless of what we project onto it.

mapleleafs-13 

For the Toronto crowd I'm sure you'll remember this guy I'm about to describe. He used to sell really low end bikes on Craigslist like ccm's and supercycles and other POS gas pipe tubed bikes. On all of them that he sold, he make fake decals that wrapped around the down tube and seat tubes to cover the old name with his own creation called "jaguar" or "condor" or other various names he came up with. The stickers were atrocious and the whole process was brutal. I'm pretty sure he did this to catch an unsuspecting buying and to confuse them cause they'd never be able to find information on the bike.

mapleleafs-13 

And as far as rebranding bikes, I agree with randy and would say don't do it. Yes it's your bike and blah blah blah, but it's pretty cheesy to put another name on it or trying to make that poor mans Colnago. Reminds of people who used to sew Lacoste symbols on golf shirts, or how guess clothing uses similar G patterns on their clothing to make it look like Gucci.

You can try to fake the funk but people will always figure it out, so save yourself the embarrassment