What's it Worth?

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 20 Feb 2007 20:13:09
From: chrismhaney
Subject: What's it Worth?

I have a 1986 Eddy Merck tour frame with CO Record group Canella etc. on
it. Some local shop guys are interested but I have no idea what it's worth
these days. Originally over $3,500 invested.

Chris

Date: 22 Feb 2007 19:57:14
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: What's it Worth?

On Feb 22, 9:34 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172109576.981416.163120@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > In short, don't worry about Kunich being pissed off. I don't.
>
> Of course that's why you remain anonymous.

That is a really weak swipe, typically mendacious ("his posting under
a p-n makes it impossible to identify him").

Why don't you just agree with the substance of what I posted here IRT
your earlier "what's this Merckx worth", how I corrected you at least
as concerns the ebay ket, and then see how you feel about it? --D-
y

Date: 22 Feb 2007 10:21:36
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: What's it Worth?

On Feb 22, 10:34 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172109576.981416.163120@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > In short, don't worry about Kunich being pissed off. I don't.
>
> Of course that's why you remain anonymous.

It's not like it's anymore of a secret who DY is than who I am.
Bill C

Date: 21 Feb 2007 17:59:37
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: What's it Worth?

On Feb 21, 12:07 pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 21, 7:46 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 8:29 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > It is worth a small portion of what you paid for it originally. However,
> > > Eddy Merckx's retain more of their original worth than most bikes from that
> > > time. If it is in good condition you might get as much as a grand for it
> > > mostly for the frame and fork. The components are pretty much between the
> > > classic and the modern.
>
> > Very good, TK. You did everything except give me credit for teaching
> > you about the ket value of Merckx steel frames, which you were so
> > wrong about the last time this subject came up. Remember? You spouted
> > off and shot some low, low value from the hip, based on only one bike
> > that sat unsold for a while in a local shop.
>
> > Well, you're doing better on at least one tiny, relatively unimportant
> > area of life. (You're welcome... )
>
> > Who's your daddy, Tom? Or should I google? --D-y
>
> Man, I'm probably gonna regret this, but here goes anyway:
>
> If you don't want Kunich emailing you and generally don't want
> anything to do with his posts online, then don't jump into threads
> with nasty reks that you know he's going to take offense at. Your
> post in this thread did nothing to add to the discussion, but I'd bet
> it's pissed Kunich off. If he emails you directly, or starts an
> online tirade against you, you should know right up front that YOU
> started this one. Don't start arguments with people you say you don't
> want to argue with. You should just let sleeping dogs lie.

I appreciate what you say, Fred.

Kunich is junkmail, and I never said I didn't want to have anything to
do with his posts online. To the contrary, I read some of his posts
and reply as suits me. The objection is, I don't want him in my
mailbox, for obvious reasons.

The background here is: someone asked a similar question some time
ago. I answered similarly to my response in this thread ("get comps");
Kunich estimated far, far lower, directly or in effect said old
Merckxs weren't worth much, similar to another post in this thread. We
wrangled, as usual, and I posted three or so Merckx frame auctions
from ebay that showed a much higher value than Kunich or "FasTac" I
believe it was, in this thread, said a used Merckx is worth.

I know we're comparing ebay (national/international exposure) to
"local" or even unadvertised, word of mouth sale prices. And so
forth... The point is, my tweaking of Kunich on this matter is in
response to his changing his tune completely, without even a line
about "look on ebay" or some such, which he obviously didn't do before
he gave the benefit of his non-existent expertise on "used Eddy
Merckx" bikes or frames previously. He never admits error, never backs
down, is almost always rude in the extreme, which rudeness takes the
form of being deliberately insulting on a personal level, even when he
is wrong.

If it comes down to it, I schooled him on Merckx values and I'm happy
to remind him of the occasion.

More important: It takes maybe 10 minutes maximum to get "comps" on
most anything on ebay. If one is going to pose as an authority, in
response to a question from a poster who obviously has not gone and
got his comps for any one or number of reasons, then one should at
least know what one is talking about. Where does "service to the
group" lie?

This also comes down to "please don't complain" when my number of
posts v. the Kunich output is what, 1:100? Also, I'm not going to be
intimidated (not talking about your objections, here) into remaining
silent after a typically abusive Kunichian response; moreover, why
should I play nice when he doesn't-- again invoking the ratio of
output, mine compared to his, this time in "attitude", if you will.

In short, don't worry about Kunich being pissed off. I don't. Thank
you. --D-y

Date: 22 Feb 2007 15:34:48
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What's it Worth?

<dustoyevsky@mac.com > wrote in message
news:1172109576.981416.163120@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> In short, don't worry about Kunich being pissed off. I don't.

Of course that's why you remain anonymous.

Date: 22 Feb 2007 18:01:06
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What's it Worth?

In article <sKiDh.2826$PL.2086@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> <dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:1172109576.981416.163120@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> > In short, don't worry about Kunich being pissed off. I don't.
>
> Of course that's why you remain anonymous.

He isn't anonymous, Tom. He consistently posts under that name. So when you see it,
you should recognize it. You'll also have a good idea what kinds of positions can be
associated with that name, just like you would be able to do for a person who uses
their "real" name. A person posting anonymously would constantly change their "name"
so you couldn't do that. He has a well established persona that goes by the name
"Dustoyevsky." That's the difference between posting "psuedononymously" and
"anonymously."

Beyond that, over the years, there has been signatures of "real" names on his posts
many times. If you can't keep it straight, that's *your* problem, not his. Yes, I know
that the list of people you hate is large (and ever expanding), so it can't be easy to
keep track of all of them, especially with the early advent of senile dementia.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 23 Feb 2007 03:01:10
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: What's it Worth?

Howard Kveck wrote:
> Beyond that, over the years, there has been signatures of "real" names on his posts
> many times. If you can't keep it straight, that's *your* problem, not his. Yes, I know
> that the list of people you hate is large (and ever expanding), so it can't be easy to
> keep track of all of them, especially with the early advent of senile dementia.

He forgets nothing. Disk is cheap.

Bob Schwartz

Date: 23 Feb 2007 08:41:21
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: What's it Worth?

Howard Kveck wrote:
>> Beyond that, over the years, there has been signatures of "real" names on his posts
>> many times. If you can't keep it straight, that's *your* problem, not his. Yes, I know
>> that the list of people you hate is large (and ever expanding), so it can't be easy to
>> keep track of all of them, especially with the early advent of senile dementia.

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> He forgets nothing. Disk is cheap.

You need to consider RAID though, for when his disk overheats and crashes.

Date: 21 Feb 2007 10:07:19
From:
Subject: Re: What's it Worth?

On Feb 21, 7:46 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 8:29 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > It is worth a small portion of what you paid for it originally. However,
> > Eddy Merckx's retain more of their original worth than most bikes from that
> > time. If it is in good condition you might get as much as a grand for it
> > mostly for the frame and fork. The components are pretty much between the
> > classic and the modern.
>
> Very good, TK. You did everything except give me credit for teaching
> you about the ket value of Merckx steel frames, which you were so
> wrong about the last time this subject came up. Remember? You spouted
> off and shot some low, low value from the hip, based on only one bike
> that sat unsold for a while in a local shop.
>
> Well, you're doing better on at least one tiny, relatively unimportant
> area of life. (You're welcome... )
>
> Who's your daddy, Tom? Or should I google? --D-y

Man, I'm probably gonna regret this, but here goes anyway:

If you don't want Kunich emailing you and generally don't want
anything to do with his posts online, then don't jump into threads
with nasty reks that you know he's going to take offense at. Your
post in this thread did nothing to add to the discussion, but I'd bet
it's pissed Kunich off. If he emails you directly, or starts an
online tirade against you, you should know right up front that YOU
started this one. Don't start arguments with people you say you don't
want to argue with. You should just let sleeping dogs lie.

Fred

Date: 21 Feb 2007 06:46:33
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: What's it Worth?

On Feb 21, 8:29 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> It is worth a small portion of what you paid for it originally. However,
> Eddy Merckx's retain more of their original worth than most bikes from that
> time. If it is in good condition you might get as much as a grand for it
> mostly for the frame and fork. The components are pretty much between the
> classic and the modern.

Very good, TK. You did everything except give me credit for teaching
you about the ket value of Merckx steel frames, which you were so
wrong about the last time this subject came up. Remember? You spouted
off and shot some low, low value from the hip, based on only one bike
that sat unsold for a while in a local shop.

Well, you're doing better on at least one tiny, relatively unimportant
area of life. (You're welcome... )

Who's your daddy, Tom? Or should I google? --D-y

Date: 21 Feb 2007 14:29:55
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What's it Worth?

Date: 21 Feb 2007 09:12:27
From: Steve Freides
Subject: Re: What's it Worth?

"chrismhaney" <chrismhaney@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:r0NCh.13558$O8.6455@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>I have a 1986 Eddy Merck tour frame with CO Record group Canella etc.
>on it. Some local shop guys are interested but I have no idea what it's
>worth these days. Originally over $3,500 invested.
>
> Chris

I have very limited experience with this, but what I know suggests that
the premium people are willing to pay for older racing bikes ends at
bikes made in about 1980. I doubt you'll find much interest in
something from 1986, at least not now - maybe in another few decades.
Try a Google on

classic lightweight racing bike

Some of the links are junk but there are a few good ones in there, too,
including the "classic rendezvous" - here's a link to that one:

http://www.classicrendezvous.com

You'll see they mention 1983 at their "cut-off" date.

I happen to be the proud owner of a Raleigh Team frame from 1980
equipped w/ Campy Super Record - a wonderful bike and a delight to ride.

Hope that's of some help to you.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Date: 20 Feb 2007 20:46:45
From: FasTrack
Subject: Re: What's it Worth?

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:13:09 -0500, "chrismhaney"
<chrismhaney@bellsouth.net > wrote:

>I have a 1986 Eddy Merck tour frame with CO Record group Canella etc. on
>it. Some local shop guys are interested but I have no idea what it's worth
>these days. Originally over $3,500 invested.
>
>Chris
>
$200 20 years old, downtube shifters..

Date: 20 Feb 2007 20:21:38
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: What's it Worth?

On Feb 20, 7:13 pm, "chrismhaney" <chrismha...@bellsouth.net > wrote:
> I have a 1986 Eddy Merck tour frame with CO Record group Canella etc. on
> it. Some local shop guys are interested but I have no idea what it's worth
> these days. Originally over $3,500 invested.

You can search ebay for comparable items. Include "completed items".

Depends on condition, model, size, color scheme, even location.

You might check to see what the individual components on the bike have
sold for recently, also.

Usually (not always) the way to maximize return is to piece it out in
an auction situation.

The way to minimize return might be to sell it to "local shop guys".
<g > --D-y

Date: 20 Feb 2007 17:24:56
From: ilan
Subject: Re: What's it Worth?

On Feb 21, 2:13 am, "chrismhaney" <chrismha...@bellsouth.net > wrote:
> I have a 1986 Eddy Merck tour frame with CO Record group Canella etc. on
> it. Some local shop guys are interested but I have no idea what it's worth
> these days. Originally over $3,500 invested.
>
> Chris

It seems about $65 http://www.merckbooks.com/mmanual/index.html

-ilan