Chuck:
Shhhh! Fine old watches are undervalued. Let's not "out" them! ;-)
Greg "stealth" Parker
Ann Arbor, MI USA
> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:03:41 -0700
> From: Chuck Schmidt <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Subject: Re: [CR]reissues. reproductions. etcetera
> Message-ID: <3E56B02C.729A4024@earthlink.net>
> References: <A5E72E8AE73AD311954A009027887CFFC391C3@SLSERVER>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Precedence: list
> Reply-To: chuckschmidt@earthlink.net
> Message: 3
>
> 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