United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

By 1979, even the Paramount had been passed, technologically speaking, by a new generation of American as well as foreign custom bicycle manufacturers. A growing number of US teens and young adults were purchasing imported European sport racing or sport touring bicycles, many fitted with multiple derailleur-shifted gears. Schwinn decided to meet the challenge by… Continue reading United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

In Taiwan, Schwinn was able to conclude a new production agreement with Giant Bicycles, transferring Schwinn’s frame design and manufacturing expertise to Giant in the process. With this partnership, Schwinn increased their bicycle sales to 500,000 per year by 1985. Schwinn’s annual sales soon neared the million mark, and the company turned a profit in… Continue reading United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Dorel intends to announce specific details regarding the use of the net proceeds from the sale at the time of closing. Martin Schwartz, Dorel’s President and CEO, made the following observations about the sale of its bicycle division. Schwinn’s Chicago handbuild shop was closed in 1979 and production of the Paramount came to a halt… Continue reading United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

W. Schwinn, grandson Frank Valentine Schwinn took over management of the company. The company also joined with other United States bicycle manufacturers in a campaign to raise import tariffs across the board on all imported bicycles. In August 1955, the Eisenhower administration implemented a 22.5% tariff rate for three out of four categories of bicycles.… Continue reading United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

The serial number appears in different places on the bike depending on the year and the place the bike was made. Not all vintage Schwinns have serial numbers or follow a set convention for placement and numbering. If there is a serial number, it will always appear on the actual frame of the bike, rather… Continue reading United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Arnold, Schwinn & Co , Est 1895

The Captain himself was enlisted to regularly hawk Schwinn-brand bicycles to the show’s audience, typically six years old and under. As these children matured, it was believed they would ask for huffy mountain bike from their parents. By 1971, United States government councils had objected to Schwinn’s marketing practices. The Captain no longer insisted that… Continue reading Arnold, Schwinn & Co , Est 1895

Arnold, Schwinn & Co , Est 1895

Schwinn never played it conservative with their ad budget, but their best sales agents were always their customers. Popular mid-century models like the Streamline Aerocycle, the AutoCycle, the Continental, Panther, Jaguar, Hornet, Black Phantom, and Sting-Ray mongoose bmx bike all generated word-of-mouth buzz at bike shops, playgrounds, offices, etc. The Chicago factory was basically producing… Continue reading Arnold, Schwinn & Co , Est 1895

Arnold, Schwinn & Company

This feature, attractive to older riders, soon found its way to other huffy beach cruiser models, especially those intended for senior citizens. In July 1964, Schwinn announced the arrival of the Super Deluxe Sting-Ray. This model included a front spring-fork, a new sleeker Sting-Ray banana seat, and a Person’s Hi-loop Sissy bar. The Super Deluxe… Continue reading Arnold, Schwinn & Company