New posts

Reply to thread

Message

So, I have a 1971 Tiger. I was recently offering it for sale on CL. Among the low-ball offers I got one message that was pretty offensive. So, this leads me to a question: Why are the early OIF Triumphs regarded so poorly, but the BSAs aren't?

I am well aware of all the stuff written about the too-tall seat, the awful aesthetics, the conical hub brakes, etc. But all those complaints also apply to the BSAs of the same vintage, and yet in a Google search today I found nothing bad mouthing the 1971 BSA but pages upon pages of opinions and contempt for the 1971 Triumph. Same frame, brakes, looks, but one is deemed OK and the other is judged irredeemably horrible!

Does anyone have an explanation for this apparent inconsistency?

BTW, I took the CL ad down and decided to keep the bike just to spite all the naysayers. My aim in selling it was to partially fund a new Tiger 800, but the response was such that the new Tiger will have to wait.

<blockquote data-quote="Corona850" data-source="post: 272232" data-attributes="member: 938">So, I have a 1971 Tiger. I was recently offering it for sale on CL. Among the low-ball offers I got one message that was pretty offensive. So, this leads me to a question: Why are the early OIF Triumphs regarded so poorly, but the BSAs aren&#039;t?I am well aware of all the stuff written about the too-tall seat, the awful aesthetics, the conical hub brakes, etc. But all those complaints also apply to the BSAs of the same vintage, and yet in a Google search today I found nothing bad mouthing the 1971 BSA but pages upon pages of opinions and contempt for the 1971 Triumph. Same frame, brakes, looks, but one is deemed OK and the other is judged irredeemably horrible!Does anyone have an explanation for this apparent inconsistency?BTW, I took the CL ad down&nbsp; and decided to keep the bike just to spite all the naysayers. My aim in selling it was to partially fund a new Tiger 800, but the response was such that the new Tiger will have to wait.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Corona850, post: 272232, member: 938"] So, I have a 1971 Tiger. I was recently offering it for sale on CL. Among the low-ball offers I got one message that was pretty offensive. So, this leads me to a question: Why are the early OIF Triumphs regarded so poorly, but the BSAs aren't? I am well aware of all the stuff written about the too-tall seat, the awful aesthetics, the conical hub brakes, etc. But all those complaints also apply to the BSAs of the same vintage, and yet in a Google search today I found nothing bad mouthing the 1971 BSA but pages upon pages of opinions and contempt for the 1971 Triumph. Same frame, brakes, looks, but one is deemed OK and the other is judged irredeemably horrible! Does anyone have an explanation for this apparent inconsistency? BTW, I took the CL ad down and decided to keep the bike just to spite all the naysayers. My aim in selling it was to partially fund a new Tiger 800, but the response was such that the new Tiger will have to wait. [/QUOTE]

Verification