Chuck,
I'm not taking shots and saying 'newer is better', I'm saying that if a bike has been ridden for 50 or 60 years, it's going to be worn out. If you ride your bike 10 miles a day for 60 years, that's about 220,000 miles.
I have a couple of Rolex watches from my Grandfather, neither of which keep time worth a damn, crystals are all scratched, and cost $200 each time to service.
I have a 60's repro. Heuer Carrera chronograph that runs like a dream, and looks brand new, because it is. And it's only been worn 150 times, not 21,900.
Grant McLean toronto, canada
-----Original Message----- From: Chuck Schmidt [mailto:chuckschmidt@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:03 PM To: Grant McLean Subject: Re: [CR]reissues. reproductions. etcetera
Grant McLean wrote:
>
> Chuck
>
> There is a practical reason to owning something "brand new" vs a 60 year
> old item. Old mechanical things break often, and require lots of
> service. New ones can be much more reliable, especially in watches.
I'd disagree about watches. Any watch after the mid-forties has shock resistance, a good main spring, 17 jewels etc. and is perfectly reliable in my experience. And CHEAP too!!!
And bikes from the 1950s? Equally as reliable.
Chuck Schmidt SoPas, SoCal
.