Jerry wrote:
> The current Bates bikes or current Hetchins bikes lack
> the continuity of personnel or organization, but replicate the traditional
> construction about as closely as can reasonably be done with currently
> available materials. They have continuity of design... (snip)
continued:
> To buy one (Motobucket or Mercier) would be, for me, to become one of the
gullible
> people easily manipulated by a popular culture in which spin, image and
> advertising have become all-important, and quality, substance and
tradition
> of no value.
Are you sure about what you are saying here? There can be no gullibility question here whatsoever with regards to Motobécane and Mercier. The new offerings from both are being offered at price points where their quality and substance are on a par with anything else in the market at that same price. They are therefore not riding on the coattails of others to personal gain. They will necessarily be paying somebody for use of the name. This choice is therefore strictly a business decision, hopefully based on sound economics. As they haven't raised their prices to cover the additional costs of the usage of the name, the consumer is not being duped, the licensees must have calculated that the goodwill associated with the name was a sufficiently large marketing lever to be beneficial to their bottom line. As Motobécane and Mercier both offered a full range of bikes, there have never been any 'defining features' of the brand, and as such the new offerings can no more be considered abominations of the brand that could new models being offered by Bianchi, Raleigh, Peugeot and all other bicycle companies who have remained in mass-market existence for over 30 years... All now sell bikes similar to those of Motobécane and Mercier. Technology has evolved and so have their bikes. One could take the position that evolution in the bike field has not always been positive, but that has nothing to do with duping gullible people.
In my personal view, the modern builders of Hetchins and Bates are the ones who are cynical. They are leveraging the reputation of others to their own personal gain at the expense of the general public. It is unlikely that they have paid any more for the use of the brand name than was paid for the use of Motobécane or Mercier, but they are attempting to sell a product that has neither additional quality, substance or any earned tradition for prices that are far superior to their market counterparts. That, in my opinion is spin!
In my books, I would far prefer to spend my hard-earned money on true 'original' works of art such as the top-prize winning Art Stump from Velo Rendezvous, a Dave Bohm masterpiece, or better yet, any vintage 1930's-50's lightweight race machine. Back then, because of the limited numbers of these bikes made, they were all 'original' and groundbreaking in one way or another. Back then, the minor changes usually came about when true advancements became available. Today, most changes are being dictated by other, somewhat less pure, considerations. Changes in cosmetics, or call outs about changes in tubing and such were never used to sell the new. Often, nothing was even made of major improvements in performance. As an example take the Vittoria Margherita gears of the 30's. With the first iteration you had to move the chain from one cog to the next with your finger tips. In the second iteration, an ingenuous system of chainstay clappers was used to prevent the rider from risking dirtying or worse yet loss of their finger tips. No bike maker that I know of ever made any ado about this change. When the third iteration came out whereby the gear could now handle 5 cogs, there was again no big marketing campaign, just a simple marking 'Tour de France' on the ratchet case.
Yes, I am happy that somebody is attempting to revive old bike names for road bikes instead of trying to elevate BMX (Haro as one example) or mountain bike (Scott for one) brands for the same purposes.
Steven Maasland Moorestown, NJ
---