e-CHUCKIE and others...
do you think that if gillott, or anyone for that matter,
still made the same frame that they did in the mid 50s
(see snipped below...)
that they'd have much of a commercial venture? anyone
who was in business then would likely have made to same
concessions to modernizing along the way as any normal
concern would.
i don't want my comment to encompass the omega/miller
'rights to the name' issue, though it's related. i don't under-
stand why so many people so zealously expect things to
be as they were. there is no business to be made in this.
the typical cr listee pines/wants for something from the past
rather than a current version of a 50 year old bicycle.
who's to say that a gillott, or even a confente would desire
to produce frames as they did so many years ago. i think
they'd prefer to be at the vanguard of framebuilding rather
than the 'where are they now' column.
i think the jpg of the 'gillott' combines classic elements with
modern touches. in 2002, this likely could be the frame that
gillotts would be producing.
e-RICHIE
Richard Sachs Cycles
No.9, North Main Street
Chester, CT 06412 USA
http://www.richardsachs.com
Tel. 860.526.2059
******************
snipped:
Chuck Schmidt writes:
Mark, the _only_ thing I see that your modern "Gillott" has
in common with the real thing is the downtube and badge decal.
< http://www.omegacycleworks.com/
Mark Reilly wrote:
> We have been toying with the idea of bringing back the gillott marque,
but
> not sure of the demand. I've posted a picture on the omega site so you
can
> see the latest version http://www.omegacycleworks.com/
> http://www.omegacycleworks.com/