Hello, I agree with your thread of thought . however,
Expand your thinking just a bit and, except for the very highest tier of custom, lovingly hand made, exotic bikes, factory made bikes ARE just a commodity to be SOLD for trade, I insist that on a business level that the CEO's of Raleigh, Schwinn, Peugeot, ect. could not care less what the product's end use will be. If they are sold to someone who will ride and enjoy them, or if the boat sink's on the way here with 10,000 bikes on board, As long as they are paid the end use is irrelevant on a business level. All right , they might tip an extra pint in sorrow, Heck now they have to make 10,000 more to replace them, shucks. If you think this is callous, boy are you a victim of marketing.
What about the enjoyment of having a collection of NOS or mint bikes that MANY people can appreciate? Who is to say which enjoyment is the "correct" type?
By the way, If you minted coins and supposedly backed their value with something, what could be better than to have a group of "defective" people, collect, hoard,or otherwise keep them from circulation. It is like writing checks that no one cashes.(those inane 50 state quarters come to mind)
Let's not try to pick apart analogy's but try to get the relevance that is offered. Any argument can be dissected to death. Here is one , ripe for an autopsy;
I guess the correct use of a bike is like the correct pinkie posture while having a cup of tea.
David Cowie Sutherlin Oregon Pinkie out, NOS in box's, users on the road
Stephen Barner wrote:
> The logic of this argument totally escapes me. Coins are minted to be used
> in trade, but some people choose to hang on to them instead. Bikes and
> parts are manufactured to be ridden, but some people choose to hang on to
> them instead. In neither case is there any incentive for the manufacturer
> to make the product intending for it not to be used, unless it is created
> specifically for collection, in which case the cost is typically higher and
> there is a profit motive. I imagine truly rare coins are not manufactured
> that way, but are recognized as such later. The same appears to be true of
> most NOS bike stuff.
>
> The more I think of it, the more I have to believe that the desire to
> collect coins and keep them out of circulation and my desire to not use
> these NOS NR brake levers stem from the same character defect.
>
> Steve Barner, totally defective in Bolton, Vermont
>
> >
> > As one who used to be heavily involved in another form of collecting, =
> > and having literally 'written the book' on at least one ascpect of the =
> > rare coin hobby (see the Pattern section of the "COIN WORLD ENCYCLOPEDIA =
> > OF AMERICAN COINS") may I sugggest that the anaolgy to uncirculated =
> > (actually, Mint State or Proof State) coins vs. NOS bikes falls down on =
> > one important point:
> >
> > Collecter coinage is meant to be carefully stored and maintained in =
> > as-new condition. Handling is not required to enjoy the beauty of the =
> > coins. Bikes however, at least for some of us, are meant to be ridden =
> > as part of their enjoyment is the way they respond to us as their =
> > riders. Of course, that is simply my opinion, and no more or less valid =
> > than that of any one else.
> >
> > Dave Novoselsky
> > Chicago, Illinois