Citoyen du monde
rBotM Winner
Spokesmann":15k308jk said:
I thank you for not ignoring my comment and responding. I am well aware of the fact that the bike is close to original in every way, has an interesting aesthetic value and is in good knick. I see the same thing, in the Gios as well as others. So all things being equal in this way, what is the next criterion upon which a differentiation was made? Was there something unique, trail-blazing or special? Was this bike in some way especially appealing in the day? This is precisely where I get hung up. Perhaps I missed a photo of the bike in "before" state that would have made me marvel at the transformation that was made to arrive at the present state. Please help me understand.
The vote numbers obviously show that your bike is in some way special that escapes me. This is precisely why I have asked for education.
I personally look at older bikes/cars/watches or whatever as educational, the building blocks upon which their modern equivalents have been built, and the zeitgeist of their time or era. They do not need, by any means, to be thoroughbreds or expensive. As proof of this, you might be surprised to know that I completely restored a 1954 Fiat 500C "Topolino", the absolute lowest rung of the Italian car world. It is not high end, luxurious, sporting or exclusive. I likewise own and am extremely proud of a number of rather mundane but important bikes such as a Graziella folding bike and an Itera plastic bike. None of these could ever be mistaken as thoroughbreds or economically valuable, but they are significant and educational nonetheless. I have displayed them on equal footing with far more "prestigious" items and have often stood by them in person, at expos, to explain their historical relevance.
