Hello all,
Chiming in. Please don't assume that most people on this list are in agreement on your thoughts below without a real vote. Some people are quite, polite, just don't want a squabble or simply think this discussion area is trivial.
I personally don't agree or disagree with the controversy. As Einstein once said after being asked "What is the truth? The answer; depends."
Suppose on the Mercier and Motobecane question. Is there a connection to the original builders (lets call them owners)? I'd say absolutely yes! They were and/or are paid money for the use of the name in a certain market. This is a direct connection though certainly not as altruistic as one might hope for. Bicycles are products and business is business. These companies built product to sell and one product; reputation is hopefully worth something as well. If the name has value and the owners want to sell it to a market that they cannot service and perhaps collect current or future income, why not. It is property.
If you own a business that say fixes clocks. You can at retirement or sooner sell franchises to Aldo's Clock Shop (I love the name Aldo), sell just the clock shop inventory, parts and tools or maybe even sell the whole hopefully fully functional business to a willing party. Aldo may be counting on this income for his retirement. What Aldo can do with his clock shop is Aldo's business, the market place will narrow his options but it's Aldo's to sink or swim with.
Motobecane has probably been sold a few times in it's history (wasn't Derby an owner) and is pretty removed from it's founders history I suspect anyway.
The Peugeot bicycle company was sold off from the family's name sake car business years ago. The passion may still be there as I was told by Gilles Berthoud years a go he was building a bike for Mr. Peugeot's personal use. I'll bet it had a checkerboard decal or two though.
Bianchi is a large firm with significant heritage but how close is it to the founder or their family, not very I would imagine.
What about Raleigh. They haven't built bikes in England or the USA for years but proudly have USA and British flags on their respective products.
With these broad and general observations (not trying to be unkind, just make a point) of these makers where do you draw the line?
I have a Rene Herse I bought from Cycles Rene Herse, ordered in the shop from Lille Herse (Rene's daughter and former road racing champion of France) in a cackle of broken French. It was built for me by her husband and Rene's long term apprentice and delivered 8 months or so later. The builders work is noted by some as finer than the master builder Rene himself. Rene Herse himself had passed away a few years before I was able to place my order. I have had so called knowledgeable people claim the bike is a reproduction because of these stated origins.
Nearby in Paris, Ernest Souka (sic) gets up every morning and goes to work. He has one of the best reputations in the world for building high quality touring bikes, legendary. He reportedly builds no frames. His brother did build until his death a few decades back. His old boss did until his death even longer ago. His brand is known as Alex Singer. How close he is really connected it is reported to subcontract most construction?
Condor Cycles in London has an amazing reputation for building high performance lightweights. Eric Clapton owns one. Promotional photos often show the owners holding a torch. Condor Cycles reportedly has never built any frame. All subcontracted. Are they fakes?
What about our friends at Rivendell? What would our little world be like without the vision of Grant Peterson at Rivendell? What would it be without the folks mentioned above? Better or worse. Are these people really frauds and impostors, hucksters trying to dupe a willing public?
I talked to an owner of an ancient Bates (1939?) and a modern Bates (new built 2000 or so) this morning. He owns both sides of this sticky coin and loves both.
I think it is absolutely wonderful that enthusiast cyclists have adopted and reintroduced these classic marques like Bates and Hetchins. They are certainly riding on the coattails of the originals perhaps but they must be doing it for the joy of continuing to offer these fine products to the world. Small bike builders are smart and talented people and can do almost anything for more money (most of them did) than building elaborate bicycle frames (A simple job welding could probably give most a 500% annual salary increase). To assume that somehow on the numbers that these classics are produced in, at the prices charged that someone is reaping enormous profits is I suspect very unlikely. After all they had to also buy the name or licensing fees (many are quite low I also suspect because ROI is scant). One thing the buying public might now enjoy is better quality of these so called reproductions of the classics and the ability to utilize modern (and available) very finely functional parts.
I think we need to ask ourselves, is our world a better place with new Bates or Hetchins being (and others) produced or not. Aside from who makes the real Hetchins side story I have to say it is a better place with these products than without them.
Our opinions are our own, mine included.
On the Chinese/Tiawanese Mericier's/Motobecane; if you are considering a modern ride like a Giant why not pick up the non French alternate if it suits your needs and budget. I think these mass produced bands have little in common with the small volume hand builts some dedicated folks are trying to keep alive.
Regards,
Gilbert "The more the merrier as far as bikes and bikes are concerned" Anderson Raleigh, NC USA
In a message dated 10/24/02 9:56:11 AM, classicrendezvous-request@bikelist.org writes:
<< From: Michael Murphy <murphy@io.com>
Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:09:11 PM US/Central
To: "Jerry & Liz Moos" <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]RE: Taiwan Motobecanes et al
On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 08:35 PM, Jerry & Liz Moos wrote:
> I think I know what I am saying, namely that in my view, to be a "real"
> example of a marque, a product must either be (A) produced by a person
> or
> firm with some significant link to the original producer, like Bianchi
> or
> Peugeot or (B) be produced per designs and/or methods as near as
> practical
> to the original like Bates or Hetchins. The current Mercier and
> Motobecane
> do neither, and are therefore, in my opinion fakes and frauds. People
> who
> buy based on image unsubstantiated by substance or tradition are in my
> opinion gullible fools. Unfortunately our current society is full of
> such
> people. Of course those who think image is everything are entitled to
> their
> opinion. I am obliged to tolerate their opinion, but not to respect
> it.
> Least anyone feel insulted, I don't think anyone on this list fits that
> description.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Houston, TX
>
>
>
I agree completely with Jerry. I think that the intellectual basis for
the community of this list joins in this agreement.
I bear no grudge toward those who purchase these old badges and then
turn profit if they never claim to be continuing the history of the
badge. Furthermore, I cannot believe that anyone who purchases a
current badged version of a previously historically significant line
expects their purchase to be traditionally significant. I might have
been so naive as a child in the sixties: I think that all contemporary
buyers are much more aware.
Michael Murphy
Paige, Texas
>>