>>1765048>Low end 90s mtbs are trash, no question.Exactly my point? As I said, but that is basically 99% of bikes from that time on offer. Getting something good can be easy or hard depending on where you live, but sometimes, you live somewhere, where 'good' doesn't exist at all. So telling anons to just get a 90's MTB is pretty shit advice if you don't take the location and used market into consideration. Why I said, road-frames might be a better choice all around, since with all the hype for 90's MTB lately, someone who is not knowledgeable of the local market, history etc, will be better off with that, since these aren't shilled left and right as the ultimate retro rig and just by looking at the brand name, you can get the idea if it's any good and even bottom tier is acceptable if you exclude local shit like Romet (they had like 3 or 4 decent frames, but the average bike from 80's or 90's is made of gas-pipes - I have one sitting in my attic and at one point I wanted to restore it and make it a single-speed or fixie, but closer examination of the frame just made me realize this is wasted money).
I accept that I'm biased in this argument, since my experience with old MTBs is rather sketchy, but at the same time, the bike I currently ride is basically a 'what if I could get my childhood bike, only actually good' and despite it being overpriced, I can say that it at least it ticks all the boxes for me. Coming from where I live, I'd say the average cheap MTB is the ugliest and shittiest bike you can get, no matter new or vintage, only surpassed in shiftiness by your dad's cross bike. If I was on a budget or hard pressed for vintage I'd either get an Ukraina frame and make something of it, or just buy a pic related and never worry about having to visit a bike shop. A local-sourced 90's MTB? No thanks.
