jamabikes":5hl3urja said:
highlandsflyer":5hl3urja said:
So are we at the point of understanding you would want old bikes to cost less to buy now than they did new?
If that is the case, it surely does not apply to all of them? Some of them must be worth more in light of their significance, and if that is not relevant to you you can surely appreciate it might be to others and be somewhat less sad about it?
Personally if I came into the kind of money necessary to start throwing together an MTB collection that Breezer would be right up there on my list of desirable acquisitions, and given its rarity and significance 25k would be a bargain.
Not entirely. It's the fact that any bike can be worth so much money when it cant be ridden. Cos let's face it if you bought it you couldnt ride it.
I drive my car, and it is certainly depreciating much more for being driven.
You are right in part though; if I bought it it would most likely be hung on a wall all but a day or two a year.
Like a painting, its primary purpose would be as a beautiful piece of art.
As art, I still see it is a total bargain.
Are we pretending that anyone would want to retain cycling as the primary purpose of such a bike? No.
However, it is perfectly possible someone might use it regularly in that role, as well as appreciating its significance in another role.
I really don't begrudge anyone that honour.
Certainly doesn't make by butt tighten in the way some of the obvious garage queens seen here and other places do, relatively common and recent bikes that have been retired from active service because their new owners have some form of O.C.D.
I will be interested to see where this bike ends up.