First Shimano production years - special appeal?

mezzanine

Retro Guru
Posted this elsewhere but got no love as maybe lost on the more modern stuff. I'm genuinely curious about peoples thoughts on years within a model production especially Shimano. This can apply to any Shimano year m900/m950/m960/m970 but as model years are normally 5 years or so I like to look at the codes but is it just me but wouldn't a brand new M950 from 1995/96 be of more historical value than a m950 from the last year of production? Or maybe a better example would be the SL-M952 shifters if you find them NOS they first came out in 1998 but were produced all the way out to 2005/06 so is there an extra appeal to buy the earliest years in production or is that getting into philately related detail like plate numbers First Day Covers etc. If we're lucky to get some NOS decent XTR it doesn't really matter at this point in time anyway?

Thoughts and I know these parts are meant to be used not kept new in the box but can't help but like that time warp feeling until the time is right to mount them and the model years is never really used when I see people selling NOS Shimano stuff.

Thanks Mez.
 

FluffyChicken

Archivist
Retrobike Rider
Feedback
View
Re:

I've never seen anyone search for year of a model.
There was an m900 search once for crank arms, but that was more curiousity etc (as the rings changed) also the M730 cranks as they moved through the ring changes to SG etc. Again, curiosity and getting some historical info. not to buy.

but no, never seen anyone pedant about getting early years of a model. I don't even remeber the Illuminati getting hung up about it way back when.
A model is a model.
 

FluffyChicken

Archivist
Retrobike Rider
Feedback
View
Re:

of course that's not the same as say getting the none SG-X 1992 ring if doing a period correct M900 build.
you would not want the SG-X top ring, not the -I or rivited cassette etc.
 

mezzanine

Retro Guru
Thanks FluffyChicken. There might be someone who's tried to collect all the different date codes but a rather fruitless endeavour which I too haven't seen. I also meant to say matching the frame year with the same given components that would of been used, date codes within 2 years being a preference but yes it's all a bit picky and pointless as what's next - the cables and grease must be from the same year :)
 

FluffyChicken

Archivist
Retrobike Rider
Feedback
View
Re:

people don't mind new grease, though plenty have tins of black gold or tubes of finsihline from way back when to do it properly and keep up the standards.

now finding retro air is the hard thing.
 

Once A Hero

Senior Retro Guru
Feedback
View
Re:

I do try and match components to the correct year where possible - purely to make sure they are designed to be compatible with one another. Easy to do for things like M950 ('96) as it quickly changed to M951, then M952 & M953 and was clearly identifiable as such.

Other than codes such as M735, M900, M950 etc I assume components don't carry other identifiers for year? Do they?

Whilst I know there are changes year on year for components, some are more obvious than others - such as XTR RD-M900 becoming XTR RD-M901 for seemingly little more than a shade of colour change, I have just had a quick look at some other components and spotted subtle changes in coding which had otherwise passed me by unnoticed; such as XTR Chainsets which are coded as follows;

1992 = FC-M900
1993 = FC-M900
1994 = FC-M900-A
1995 = FC-M900-ti

Whether the physical coding changed like that I don't know (don't think I've got anything other than FC-M900) - but now I'll have to check! :roll:

I have a near 'complete' XTR groupset - but it isn't complete in terms of all components being matched to a particular catalogue year. Maybe it should be...
 

FluffyChicken

Archivist
Retrobike Rider
Feedback
View
Re:

actually RD-M900 became M910, but it was the spring mechanism and formed part of the M910 groupset just before M950 was released.

The colours was just variation in the mechs I think.
 

FluffyChicken

Archivist
Retrobike Rider
Feedback
View
Re:

as for FC chainset.

as mentioned before, 1993 had the new SG-X top ring added.

Then the Ti was added in 1995 for the M910 groupset and as an add-on upgrade. it was the bolts that changed.


(+years means model year, not release to market years)
cranks arms all just say M900 and are the same.
 

Once A Hero

Senior Retro Guru
Feedback
View
Re: Re:

FluffyChicken":vgalqddr said:
actually RD-M900 became M910, but it was the spring mechanism and formed part of the M910 groupset just before M950 was released.
The colours was just variation in the mechs I think.

Typo on my part :oops: , should have read M910

FluffyChicken":vgalqddr said:
as for FC chainset.
as mentioned before, 1993 had the new SG-X top ring added.
Then the Ti was added in 1995 for the M910 groupset and as an add-on upgrade. it was the bolts that changed.
(+years means model year, not release to market years)
cranks arms all just say M900 and are the same.

Subtle changes indeed.
Go on then...what does the A stand for on the FC-M900-A?
 

FluffyChicken

Archivist
Retrobike Rider
Feedback
View
"-A" was just to say it wasn't the M900, many of Shimano's seem to have done that.
So 1992 original release, just the SG-X middle ring =M900
1993, SG-X top ring also added, = M900-A
1994 (as 1993)

I should say the Ti was a Ti crank bolts and the quite nice silver gap cover, along with Aluminium chainring bolts (they where not Ti), Both were steel before.
 
Top