espresso":1jyyqw2k said:
Beautiful bike! Nice story too! Although I don't want to spoil the party, but the Bike is not NOS (rim surface, cassette, chain rings ...)! Sorry.
You are not spoiling the party, and I appreciate the feedback. I have updated the post to remove all references to NOS, as the term has some subjectivity, and I want everyone to know what is, or is not, being represented about this lovely bike.
So that everyone understands, my original use of the phrase "new old stock" was done in good faith, but upon further research here on the forums, I think it's fair that the consensus seems to be a more strict use of the term that I was aware of. To me, I thought NOS meant, "new, unused by a customer, virtually pristine." When I worked in a bike shop, even new bikes would of course need to occasionally have test rides, and their chains and cassettes would not look clean and pristine, even for new bikes. I have also tried to be completely up-front about the bike, by noting that it is not flawless...but nearly so. It's never been sold and has barely ever been ridden, and only by the shop owner.
Still, the consensus seems to be that to people who care most about "NOS," they would expect out-of-the box, absolute flawless condition, with zero signs of use...as if shrink wrap on the entire bike had just been removed.
This bike is not quite that. So, in the interest of being clear with everyone, I have removed the terms "NOS" and "new old stock". Thank you for educating me about how strict the usage of the terms is to some folks (and that's fine -- we simply don't want misunderstandings, and the most important thing is that we want any buyer to be happy with the bike).
My removal of these terms changes nothing else about the description of the bike, or its history...it remains virtually new and is barely ridden, it is a rare bike and a rare find, and it is lovely to look at.
Thanks again.