E-Richie,
I couldn't agree more! Your view never crossed my mind when I looked at the Gillott on the site, and the lightbulb popped on when I read your post.
What's that line? "Die young and leave a good lookin' corpse." Call it the "James Dean" effect.
As someone who enjoys trying to capture classic details in my modern bikes, although I do "pine" as you say for some of the classic elements of the golden age, I also appreciate the positive evolutionary aspects too.
In my "dream garage", hanging beside my '71 colnago super and '73 De Rosa, would be an '01 C40 and '03 dual. If I had a classic '73 De Rosa, I wouldn't feel compelled to own a modern version of the same bike in an '03 Neo Primato, although it would be nice display, having the two "versions" side by side. The "collector" in me says a modern model that "speaks to it's time" makes more sense.
I know that I've bought several brands of current steel lugged bikes because I haven't found the old ones I really want.
Grant McLean Toronto.Ca
E-Richie wrote
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. < ...and ....> 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.