Does this qualify for retro?

i have had a few bikes over the years (GT LTS and a 93' Orange Clockwork) and i didnt see the harm in it but i was getting ribbed a bit from my mates for having old skinny steel bikes.
Anyway it seems most of you suffer the same condition so i've joined ya'
and i was wondering if the is retro?

Ohhh that's really nice, very cool.
Retro... well I'd say so...

looks around the turn of the century? 2001ish
its cool. that back brake i havent seen before

i think that rear calliper mount came with the bike as standard..

loved these bikes back in in the day, awesome retro coolness..

cyfa2809":1w3oaju8 said:

looks around the turn of the century? 2001ish
its cool. that back brake i havent seen before

Click to expand...

Then to new for retro?

The frame design is retro but many of the parts are definately not,the frame was first used in pro circles in 1996 so I think it is retro in a way,throw your disc brakes away and get some v's or canti's and welcome

It was made in 1998 and the adapter on the back is to convert it from post mount to the modern type to allow fitment of the Hope C2's
Was it a good buy for £230 do you think?

spot on for the price

Nice one
although i think the forks are felling a bit tired and the rear shock feels too firm and the seals in the brake levers are looking a bit perished but i can replace them for £6.99

all i need now is some time to thrash it..

Although the 98 Wildcat Trail is featured in BikePedia, I can't find any evidence that it was listed for sale in the UK, so your example may be a special import of some kind. The Bikepedia entry says it cost $2,099 in the US, so it would have been around £1,700 in the UK if it had been listed. The price you have paid seems quite cheap to me, although it obviously depends on the condition of the parts.

I think the Hope C2s are contemporary with the rest of the bike, so they don't in themselves stop it being 'retro'. Whether you call it retro is up to you. Retrobike management hasn't adopted a definition of retro, I think out of a general spirit of liberal-mindedness. But it has split the readers' MTBs section at December 1997, perhaps as some kind of subtle hint of where a date definition might fall if there was one (but there isn't).

http://www.bikepedia.com/QuickBike/Bike ... &Type=bike