Re: [CR]Re: How the mighty are fallen

(Example: Events:Eroica)

To: kohl57@starpower.net
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 00:13:50 -0500
Subject: Re: [CR]Re: How the mighty are fallen
From: "Richard M Sachs" <richardsachs@juno.com>
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

snipped: "...but so what?!! "

i'm not sure were disagreeing with each other. but let me ask you this: along the way, raleigh "consumed" many other brands; carlton, dunelt, sun, hercules among others, if i'm not mistaken. were there - say - carlton devotees that thought the world had ended when ownership of their beloved brand was taken over by raleigh? was the carlton marque "done" by this, despite still being produced in the empire? why is it different if raleigh moves from nottingham?

masi. haro. raleigh. carlton. it doesn't matter to me. i love the era in which i "came up" but, relevant to <this> thread i see nothing inherently bad about the changes made through the years.

e-RICHIE chester, ct

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 23:47:31 -0500 "P.C. Kohler" <kohl57@starpower.net> writes: >> i'm with you in spirit, but in my mind subcontracting is >> subcontracting. i don't think geographic borders help >> or hurt the quality. the bicycle industry, like most others, >> is market driven. in the raleigh example it wouldn't be >> incorrect to assume that the decision to move manufacturing >> from nottingham to "wherever" was made by englishmen.

Of course Richard.. but there are always devil's advocates on these sites devoted to the classic and the old and the bloody marvelous who delight in saying that whatever is done to ruin what we hold dear is to make money, makes sense etc. Well, no offense intended, but so what?!! I mean this is a hobby and a passion at least for me. If I worshipped and admired what makes quick easy money for a bunch of greedy blokes, I'd be on the Yahoo Group Enron We Loved You.

Peter Kohler
Washington DC USA