# What makes a paramount a Paramount (long read)



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

A while ago I asked on this forum for thoughts on how much difference the actual material in a steel bike frame made. Everything else being equal the only differences being one built from say Reynolds 531, one of Columbus tubing, and one of Tange steel. The general consensus was that material mattered very little, it was more a matter of geometry. 
To reinforce this opinion an article was mentioned http://www.habcycles.com/m7.html about 7 different steels and making an identical bike out of them, with the only difference being the materials used. (worth reading BTW) The author (I think) kind of chickened out in his evaluations only stating that he “thought” he could tell a difference but that he wasn't sure. This was a great opportunity to be totally anal and analytical about the test and rally highlight the differences but (IMO) the author didn't do it. Regardless, it's the only article about this I have ever seen and if you read between the lines, you can get some good information.

So this gets me to my question.
I am only talking about the older steel Schwinn Paramounts here. I am not including the Aluminum or mountain bike Paramounts here.
Schwinn had several different people making Paramounts over the years for them. Schwinn of course, Panasonic, the Waterford plant, and other Asian factories also. 
So....on to the question: 
What makes a Paramount a Paramount. Geometry only? I am basically interested in ride feel. Every bike feels differently and I am thinking about this and how it handles.
I am leaning towards “Must be geometry”, because Paramounts were made out of Reynolds 531, Columbus tubing and Tange steel. 

If it's not geometry, (meaning that the frame design was not similar), what was the binding factor aside from the name? I am really hoping that it's not just the name.

To take this a step further, assuming that the geometry is what makes a Paramount, I think it's safe to say that a same sized frame of Reynolds 531 should feel the same as one (similar) of Columbus tubing or Tange steel, regardless of build location. An Asian built Paramount “should” feel the same as a Waterford built Paramount assuming that geometry is the deciding factor. I will allow that there may be obvious differences in finish quality but I'm thinking that these would be mostly cosmetic only. All Paramounts of similar size should have a similar ride to them I would think. 

I can accept that the Paramounts using OS(over sized) tubing should only be compared to another using OS tubing though.
Thoughts please;
Do you think the deciding factor in what made a Paramount "a Paramount"was the same frame geometry within any given size?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

would it still be a Colnago if it was made in the same factory in Taiwan as other brands?

wait... nevermind


----------



## george kraushaar (Jan 15, 2007)

What would make a Paramount ride or feel any different than any other steel bike with similar geometry and a different maker or badge? I think a real Paramount is one made in a factory owned by a guy named Schwinn. I think the Panasonics are good bikes but they're not real Paramounts. Just like Santa Cruz or Collings guitars are real good guitars but they're not Martins.


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

george kraushaar said:


> What would make a Paramount ride or feel any different than any other steel bike with similar geometry and a different maker or badge? I think a real Paramount is one made in a factory owned by a guy named Schwinn. I think the Panasonics are good bikes but they're not real Paramounts. Just like Santa Cruz or Collings guitars are real good guitars but they're not Martins.


Looks like one vote for "name" (not to put words in your mouth)


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

george kraushaar said:


> What would make a Paramount ride or feel any different than any other steel bike with similar geometry and a different maker or badge? I think a real Paramount is one made in a factory owned by a guy named Schwinn. I think the Panasonics are good bikes but they're not real Paramounts. Just like Santa Cruz or *Collings guitars* are real good guitars but they're not Martins.



Collings are better. At least the ones today. I won't compare pre war Martins to modern Bill's.. That wouldn't be right.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

"Real" Paramounts were made in Chicago, and Waterford Wisconsin. "Other" bikes with the Paramount name range from complete junk to pretty good bikes.


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

*2*



MR_GRUMPY said:


> "Real" Paramounts were made in Chicago, and Waterford Wisconsin. "Other" bikes with the Paramount name range from complete junk to pretty good bikes.


looks like 2 votes for name. it's not looking good, but confirms what I (deep down) was thinking


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

All else being equal it will always go down to the differences, in this case the name. Doh!


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

*...*



Creakyknees said:


> would it still be a Colnago if it was made in the same factory in Taiwan as other brands?
> 
> wait... nevermind


I sense a rhetorical question.....


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

My dad spent thirty years with Schwinn in the fifties, sixties and seventies as a regional sales manager in the southeast U.S,, and I've been a big Paramount fan all of my life. I rode Dad's early fifties P32 (model before the P14) track bike in high school, and currently have a '71 P13-9, a '72 P15-9 (both 531), an '87 Waterford built "Standard" (Columbus SL/SP mix), and a 1994 Road Paramount (Reynolds 753 OS), which was one of the last Waterford built Paramounts. I also have a 2007 Waterford RS-22 (Reynolds 953).

Schwinn made significant changes in Paramount frame geometry over the years, but I don't believe that the geometry differed significantly from that of quality designs of other high end builders at any given time. Schwinn (Paramount Design Group headed by Marc Muller) pioneered the use of OS tubesets (True Temper in 1989, then Tange for the "Series" Paramounts, and finally 753 OS in 1993) in the late eighties, and that made for stiffer, lighter bikes that ride differently than the earlier bikes with standard size tubes, but other builders saw the benefits of OS and quickly adopted it, so it wasn't a Schwinn advantage for very long.

I guess I'd have to say IMHO it's the name that makes a Paramount a Paramount. Schwinn always built them by hand to exacting tolerances, and used only very skilled and experienced brazers, but there were lots of other very talented American and foreign builders who made bikes of similar quality.

For me, the brand conjures up a time when the Paramount was the only American made bike that could compete head to head with the best bicycles in the world in international competition.

Here's Dad (crouching, far left) at the 1954 introduction of the new "middleweight" Corvette:


----------



## GH-Mike (Jan 20, 2007)

Scooper said:


> My dad spent thirty years with Schwinn in the fifties, sixties and seventies as a regional sales manager in the southeast U.S,, and I've been a big Paramount fan all of my life. I rode Dad's early fifties P32 (model before the P14) track bike in high school, and currently have a '71 P13-9, a '72 P15-9 (both 531), an '87 Waterford built "Standard" (Columbus SL/SP mix), and a 1994 Road Paramount (Reynolds 753 OS), which was one of the last Waterford built Paramounts. I also have a 2007 Waterford RS-22 (Reynolds 953).
> 
> Schwinn made significant changes in Paramount frame geometry over the years, but I don't believe that the geometry differed significantly from that of quality designs of other high end builders at any given time. Schwinn (Paramount Design Group headed by Marc Muller) pioneered the use of OS tubesets (True Temper in 1989, then Tange for the "Series" Paramounts, and finally 753 OS in 1993) in the late eighties, and that made for stiffer, lighter bikes that ride differently than the earlier bikes with standard size tubes, but other builders saw the benefits of OS and quickly adopted it, so it wasn't a Schwinn advantage for very long.
> 
> ...



Classic post - thanks for sharing. Regards - Mike


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

Scooper said:


> My dad spent thirty years with Schwinn in the fifties, sixties and seventies as a regional sales manager in the southeast U.S,, and I've been a big Paramount fan all of my life. I rode Dad's early fifties P32 (model before the P14) track bike in high school, and currently have a '71 P13-9, a '72 P15-9 (both 531), an '87 Waterford built "Standard" (Columbus SL/SP mix), and a 1994 Road Paramount (Reynolds 753 OS), which was one of the last Waterford built Paramounts. I also have a 2007 Waterford RS-22 (Reynolds 953).
> 
> Schwinn made significant changes in Paramount frame geometry over the years, but I don't believe that the geometry differed significantly from that of quality designs of other high end builders at any given time. Schwinn (Paramount Design Group headed by Marc Muller) pioneered the use of OS tubesets (True Temper in 1989, then Tange for the "Series" Paramounts, and finally 753 OS in 1993) in the late eighties, and that made for stiffer, lighter bikes that ride differently than the earlier bikes with standard size tubes, but other builders saw the benefits of OS and quickly adopted it, so it wasn't a Schwinn advantage for very long.
> 
> ...


Excellent, thanks


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

From what I've read about steel, is if that the geometry and thickness of the tubes is the same; you won't feel a difference. Some steels are stronger and lighter, that's for sure. I'd probably say it was the craftsmanship, styling, and being innovative in the industry is what made their name. 
I'd love to have a 953 framed bike, a lot for the exclusivity of it, and to tease the CF owners who are sure their bike would be lighter than mine.


----------



## lancezneighbor (May 4, 2002)

Scooper said:


> .
> 
> Here's Dad (crouching, far left) at the 1954 introduction of the new "middleweight" Corvette:


Love this photo! It is unfortunate that an introduction like this would never occur again. The money men in the same room as the designers and the sales reps. The money men are off in a corporation that owns a corportaion that owns another company. They have no concern about the product, just the bottom line at the end of the quarter. Ahhhh, the good old days when executives cared.


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

It's not the geometry because you could have purchased a CUSTOM Paramount back then and specified a variety of geometries. Schwinn had no proprietary rights on some sort of geometry.

What makes a Paramount a Paramount is really the fact that Schwinn was/is behind it, allowing the distinctive decals and lugs, that's it.


----------



## joelh (Jul 20, 2008)

Can't speak to Paramount per se, but I am currently riding a 99 Peloton which is supposed to be built to the same geometry as Paramount. This bike is nothing special to look at, but for whatever reason, is the most comfortable bike I have ever been on. It is reynolds 853 and is super smooth and stable. If the ride translates up to the Paramount, it is no wonder they are so sought after.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

joelh said:


> Can't speak to Paramount per se, but I am currently riding a 99 Peloton which is supposed to be built to the same geometry as Paramount. This bike is nothing special to look at, but for whatever reason, is the most comfortable bike I have ever been on. It is reynolds 853 and is super smooth and stable. If the ride translates up to the Paramount, it is no wonder they are so sought after.


Yes; in 1999 (six years after the bankruptcy) the Paramount, Peloton, and Circuit models shared the same geometry. The Paramounts that year came in an 853 lugged steel version built by Match Cycles (Tim Isaac) as well as a TIG'd titanium version built by Ben Serotta. The Peloton shared the same geometry, but was TIG'd 853.

It's a shame nobody proofreading the '99 catalog could spell Paramount. :blush2:


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

lancezneighbor said:


> Love this photo! It is unfortunate that an introduction like this would never occur again. The money men in the same room as the designers and the sales reps. The money men are off in a corporation that owns a corporation that owns another company. They have no concern about the product, just the bottom line at the end of the quarter. Ahhhh, the good old days when executives cared.


Truer words were never spoken.

Obviously, the "one man" operations (e.g. Richard Sachs, Sasha White, Curt Goodrich) and I think most very small multiple employee companies (e.g. Waterford) still have the money men, designers, builders and salesmen all talking to each other, but that kind of connectedness no longer exists in the big corporations. It's a shame.


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

I rode some kinda re-painted green Schwinn in college when my Concorde broke. MUCH nicer ride than the Concorde. Fit? Geo? I didn't know then, and still don't to this day why my 'fancy' PDM Concorde didn't ride as nice as that Schwinn.

M


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

Hey Scooper! A friend of mine has a Tim Isaac built lugged 853 Paramount. Pristine condition and drop dead gorgeous. And he rides it regularly.


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

*cool*



Scooper said:


> Yes; in 1999 (six years after the bankruptcy) the Paramount, Peloton, and Circuit models shared the same geometry. The Paramounts that year came in an 853 lugged steel version built by Match Cycles (Tim Isaac) as well as a TIG'd titanium version built by Ben Serotta. The Peloton shared the same geometry, but was TIG'd 853.
> 
> It's a shame nobody proofreading the '99 catalog could spell Paramount. :blush2:


now I want a 99 Peloton. (that's funny about the spelling of Paramount.)


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

ClassicSteel71 said:


> Collings are better. At least the ones today. I won't compare pre war Martins to modern Bill's.. That wouldn't be right.


How 'bout some thread drift? The workmanship on Collings guitars is almost thrillingly precise & virtuosic, but they tend to feel sharp & uncomfortable on the hands and heavy on the knee. Though I've played several Collings that were otherwise, most of the Collings I've played have had a blaring, simplistic tone. Lots of projection, but not a lot of subtlety.

New Martins aren't nearly as fanatically built as a Collings, and they often don't project as well, but there's a complexity and character to the tone that can carry you straight to heaven. They manage to combine a plaintive country twang with big city weight and sophistication. While a Martin doesn't have quite the luxuriously rounded edges of say, a Goodall or a Froggy Bottom, they still feel more friendly on the arms and hands than the Collings.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

Richard said:


> Hey Scooper! A friend of mine has a Tim Isaac built lugged 853 Paramount. Pristine condition and drop dead gorgeous. And he rides it regularly.


While I can sympathize with folks who think the last "real Schwinns" were built before the 1993 bankruptcy, I believe there were some really great bikes built during the Scott Sports ownership. These include the Homegrown MTBs (designed and built with a lot of the technology acquired as a result of the Yeti acquisition), and the Tim Isaac and Ben Serotta built Paramounts. Those late nineties 853 and Ti Paramounts are every bit as worthy of the name as those built in the Chicago factory "cage" and at the Waterford plant. The current Dorel/Pacific owners decided to have the new 2009 70th anniversary lugged 953 Paramounts built by Waterford, and they are awesome!


----------



## joelh (Jul 20, 2008)

martinrjensen said:


> now I want a 99 Peloton. (that's funny about the spelling of Paramount.)


Got my frame for $150 off ebay with a carbon fork. I took the 105 group off my felt and it is now my everyday rider. The paint is a 7 out of 10. Since the frame is nothing special, I think when it gets to a 5, I will try my hand at frame painting.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

george kraushaar said:


> What would make a Paramount ride or feel any different than any other steel bike with similar geometry and a different maker or badge? I think a real Paramount is one made in a factory owned by a guy named Schwinn. I think the Panasonics are good bikes but they're not real Paramounts. Just like Santa Cruz or Collings guitars are real good guitars but they're not Martins.


Well, I get your point about being real Martins (or Paramounts), but many or most times a typical Collings or Santa Cruz is better than a typical Martin (depending on taste of course). Is that true of the non-Schwinn factory paramounts?

How about a comparison between "real" Martins and some of the new-ish low end price point models, some of which, I believe, aren't even solid wood? Is that like the difference between "real" paramounts and the pretenders?


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

Camilo said:


> Well, I get your point about being real Martins (or Paramounts), but many or most times a typical Collings or Santa Cruz is better than a typical Martin (depending on taste of course). Is that true of the non-Schwinn factory paramounts?


I would say not. The "Series" Paramounts were designed to leverage the Paramount brand, offering a "Paramount" at a lower price point than the U.S. built bikes. That's not to say the Series Paramounts weren't very nice bikes, but IMHO they weren't intended to compete with the Waterford built Paramounts. The Series Paramount road bikes (Series 2, Series 3, Series 5, and Series 7) all had unicrown forks, while Waterford Paramounts had investment cast fork crowns with brazed-in fork blades.

Here's what Marc Muller had to say about the Series Paramounts:

_"National/Panasonic were willing and eager partners in this project. I spent a lot of time in their plant, and they at our corporate headquarters, overseeing the smallest details to assure the bikes were worthy of the name. While some of us had reservations about the use of the name, after spending the 80's building up the Schwinn/Paramount/PDG brand, once the decision was made to use the name everyone was on board to make the finest possible bikes at their price point. Are they Waterford Paramounts? No. Are they excellent bicycles? You bet! Don't listen to the bashers, you'll drive yourself crazy!"_

Since the Waterford website refers to the Series Paramounts as being imported from "Asian factories" (not specifically Panasonic in Japan), Richard Schwinn discussed the origin of the different Series Paramount models in an e-mail to Bob Hufford:

_"The 'Series' Paramounts mostly came from Japan, but the Series 2, 20, 3 and 30 came from Taiwan and eventually China by 1992."_

Basically, the Series 7 and Series 5 were built by Panasonic in Japan, while the Series 3 and Series 2 were initially built on Taiwan and later in mainland China.


----------



## abarth (Aug 12, 2008)

That is such a beautiful frame. The black components are so out of place.


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

Scooper said:


> While I can sympathize with folks who think the last "real Schwinns" were built before the 1993 bankruptcy, I believe there were some really great bikes built during the Scott Sports ownership. These include the Homegrown MTBs (designed and built with a lot of the technology acquired as a result of the Yeti acquisition), and the Tim Isaac and Ben Serotta built Paramounts. Those late nineties 853 and Ti Paramounts are every bit as worthy of the name as those built in the Chicago factory "cage" and at the Waterford plant. The current Dorel/Pacific owners decided to have the new 2009 70th anniversary lugged 953 Paramounts built by Waterford, and they are awesome!


Holy modern bike porn batman!!
/drool
I think I'm in love with that frame


----------



## JaeP (Mar 12, 2002)

*I love Schwinns, but . . . .*



Peanya said:


> Holy modern bike porn batman!!
> /drool
> I think I'm in love with that frame


I'm not a big fan of the new steel Paramounts. For example, the front end (fork and stem) looks disproportional from the rest of the bike. I hate the semi-semi sloping top tube design as well. It's like they wanted to make it a modern looking bike but didn't want to offend the Paramount "purists". The polished stainless steel lugs are cherry, though. 

FWIW, I have a custom made Schwinn Wheaties Paramount (custom made for someone else) and a "Capt. America" Schwinn OS (made in Japan). Both bikes are the same size but the Wheaties has a shorter TT and a little steeper HT angle than the OS. Surprisingly both bikes are great "all day riding" bikes but the OS is a little less twitchy.

Here's a picture of a real Paramount.


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

I'll agree the fork doesn't fit in perfectly, but the sloping top tube does appeal to me. But the detail of that frame, and the lugs.... And, it's 953 steel too!
Yes, they could have put on a carbon fork that'd look more fitting. But what I'd really change is the seatpost and stem. Chrome is way better looking on that frame than black.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

The 70th Anniversary Paramount is nice and it's a "custom" build so you can have a classic or sloping design. But when I saw the price - even wholesale - I about had a coronary.

For probably a lot less money, one could go directly to Waterford and have a custom 953.

And avoid the possible ignominy when somebody pulls up next to you on a Wal-Mart Schwinn and says "Hey! I have one of those too!"

It happened to my buddy with the 60th Anniversary model.


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

*My summation on this uestion*

I'm the OP to this post and have been watching to comments. Strangely enough, this thread stayed pretty much on topic all the way through with only one attempt to derail it to a thread about guitars. (Nice try BTW)
I think have a good enough understanding now to form an opinion of what exactly makes a Paramount. It's not geometry, and it's not the name. It's more like an idea and a belief, maybe in part an engineering standard. I think it started with an idea to design a bike to certain standards regardless of material or geometry. These standards can move to different manufacturers so it's still OK to say that regardless of who makes it, it's still a Paramount. 
There is a lot of argument about the Asian bikes being true Paramounts. I can't help but think that some of this feeling is due to a still lingering (and I'm sure totally incorrect) belief that Asian bikes are somehow inferior in construction to American and European built bikes. Everything I have read about Asian bikes say that their construction is the equal of anywhere in the world.
I do think that during the end of Schwinn, they probably relied a bit more on “just the name” to sell these than previously though.
So to sum up, if it says Paramount, it's a Paramount. Whether it's desirable or collectible or not, is not my focus here.
Like anything, if you want the best representation of something, pick it at it's zenith. This would be in the middle of the Paramount production and it does seem to play out that these appear to be the most collectible models. Whether or not they are technically any better than any other model depends , I guess, on your definition of better. 

“So long and thanks for all the fish”


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

I think it's fair to say that the American made Paramounts, including the 60th and 70th Anniversary models, are "collectibles." The various Asian sourced models, while in many instances very nice framesets and desireable from a "riding" standpoint, simply will never command the price a Chicago/Isaac/Waterford example will fetch.


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

*it's what's collectable*

yup, you're 100% right on that. Collecting is just about what people want, it's that simple.


Richard said:


> I think it's fair to say that the American made Paramounts, including the 60th and 70th Anniversary models, are "collectibles." The various Asian sourced models, while in many instances very nice framesets and desireable from a "riding" standpoint, simply will never command the price a Chicago/Isaac/Waterford example will fetch.


----------



## dannyg1 (Sep 26, 2005)

On P'mount's: The Japan made, series bikes are excellent and undervalued, without question. Look to the prices people pay for Schwinn Circuits and Premis's, which are built in the same factories at the same time, just lower down the line-up, for proof. I've never understood the perpetuation of the myth that these 'Japanamount's' are 'lesser' bikes when all of the other production at the time is extraordinarily well revered (Voyageur SP anyone?).

On guitars: Collings have bolt-on necks and that's why they have that quiet, weighty, muffled sound. Most new Martin's save money with this design as well. Santa Cruz T. Rice Pro's are the equal of most any Martin, prewar or newer: These ring out, shimmer with complex harmonics and hold together when played loudly. I love mine!


----------



## george kraushaar (Jan 15, 2007)

I would think an Asian Paramount would probably be every bit as good as an American made frame, but for the same money I would certainly prefer an American Paramount. I no longer have any Martins (I've had over 20) or Santa Cruz (I've had two) but am now playing Asian made Eastmans (I have 4) which are not only sensitively made with nitro, real wood binding, and dovetails, but also use hide glue. My audiences don't seem to notice any difference unless they look at the headstock.

I just found an old steel Fuji with complete Campy on Craigslist for $400. Better go check it out.


----------



## systemBuilder22 (Jun 5, 2021)

As a kid growing up in the 1960's and throughout the 1970's, I feel qualified to comment on Schwinn Bicycles. They were extremely high quality, very rugged albeit very heavy, and they had the most beautiful candy paint jobs in the world, a warm light glows in the back of my brain whenever I see an "apple-krate" red paramount, a "cool-lemon" yellow paramount, a "sky-blue" blue one, or an orange-krate-color paramount (most of these are the stingray color names). I bought my first used Schwinn Paramount (1974 model, silver-mist color) in 1980, at a low-low price of only $300. The paint on ALL schwinn bicycles was EXCELLENT.

A paramount sat at the apex of the Schwinn bicycle line, #1 in American Quality among American bike manufacturers. For a long time the gulf between the #2 bicycle (Schwinn Superior) and #1 bicycle (Paramount) was ENORMOUS because the chromoly Schwinn Superior still weighed 30 lbs vs. a Paramount at 23-26 lbs depending upon the model (P10 - P15). The #2 bike was brazed but not double-butted and still used too much tech from the electro-forged models. Schwinns sold at a price-premium over other factory-made American bicycles (Huffy, AMF) of about 20% - 30%. While not pantographed, almost every part on every Schwinn bicycle said "Schwinn Approved" and was a high-quality rebranded overseas part, whereas 90% of other American bikes used cheap stamped domestic parts of low quality.

The paramount frames had 5 things going for them, (a) They were silver soldered at low temperature, which requires much better brazing skills as the silver is much thinner and runs easily and is VERY expensive (2x+) compared to brass solder, (b) The rear bridge was completely silver-soldered with a beautiful, smooth transition, and it's practically the only road racing frameset EVER with this feature, (c) The nervex lugs and fork crown came extremely rough from France and required a lot of workmanship (shaping the shorelines, polishing the surfaces) to be chromed and they also offered an all-chrome paramount which was available ... from no other bike maker - none - nil - nada ... and (d) Schwinn had a reputation for sturdiness and durability matched by ... none, nil, nada. Now most of that reputation was from sturdy parts selection - not frame workmanship - but this built an aura around Schwinn bicycles that was not present in other brands in the 1960s and 1970s when I was growing up. Schwinn sponsored an American bicycle team and a lot of racing in the USA from 1930-1980 and were in it for the long haul. A lot of national titles in track racing were won on Schwinn bicycles. Other bike brands arose - like TREK in 1978 - but they were very bland-looking and had a reputation as "Having no Soul" until they began sponsoring Lance Armstrong in the early 2000's. The Paramount had an air of understated elegance, imho, a stealth nuke (because of the contrast with the rest of the bicycle line), if you will ... And finally, (e) The colors on the Schwinn Bicycles were the very best and most beautiful available, certainly schwinn put much more money and attention into the paint tones and layered finishes of their bicycles than any other makers.

You could get a Raleigh International which was similar in many ways but they put HALF the workmanship into the lugs vs. Schwinn (ask me how I know I have restored many of them there's a reason they sell cheaply). You could buy a Peugeot PX-10 which was slapped together in france with the maker's eyes closed, some american frame builders (Brian Baylis) dedicated their lives to building the OPPOSITE of a peugeot PX-10 which they lusted after until they discovered - up-close - that the brazing and workmanship was just so bad, bad, bad. When you drop a month's take-home pay on a bicycle you want it to look as good from 10 inches as from 10 feet; a Schwinn Paramount delivered on that dream but a Raleigh International or Peugeot PX-10 certainly did not. I compare paramounts to these two other high-end models which also had Nervex lugs highlighted in chrome or in black.

One last thing that was unusual about "PARAMOUNT" is that it was almost its own brand. They offered:

 tourist P11
 road racing bike P10, P13
 touring bikes P15
 sport bikes P13
 tandems bikes T19, T22
 track bikes P12
 ladies version (step-through frame) of the sport bike P60, P65 10/15 speeds.
And they weren't afraid to customize or use non-campagnolo parts (Shimano Crane ; Suntour Barcons; Suntour Pro-Compe freewheels; HKK Blue Sky chains) - whatever was best, that's what you got, and except for Campagnolo, it said "Schwinn Approved" on it no matter how good the reputation of the part.


----------



## No Time Toulouse (Sep 7, 2016)

Well, thank you for resurrecting a thread from back when Bush was president! You'll find that there are a lot of us from that period here (certainly Kerry Irons and Mr. Grumpy), so none of this is news to us. Schwinn was a retail colossus in the bike business back in those days, and although they sponsored a racing team, very few of the bikes they sold were in any way "raceable". A Paramount was miles better than the next best road bike in the Schwinn lineup. The comparable Peugeot and Raleigh models at least had lesser versions which were affordable and not nearly as pedestrian. Schwinn got big, then they became intractable. The market changed and they didn't, which is why today Schwinn is just a name that's slapped on cheap Chinese bikes and sold in department stores. Of course, the same is true about Raleigh and Peugeot; today Trek probably holds the same position that Schwinn used to hold, although their 'halo models' aren't really much to look at.


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

What a well-written recollection.

I can remember the first time I saw a Schwinn Paramount, as a newb teenage cyclist in the mid-70's; my opinion of the brand wasn't very high at the time. I just didn't know the history and the effort put in to make them. For some reason I held more respect for the Raleigh Professional.

But I grew to like them, especially when they pioneered the OS tubing, and came out with the PDG series Paramounts.

I do now have a greater appreciation for the older, Chicago built, Nervex lugged frames.


----------

