>> fwiw, the posts are disproportionate to the list
> membership because only a minority here was "there"
> when all this stuff wasn't collectible. it can be
> argued, civilly of course, that except for discussing
> an ebay outing or a rare find like john's 6 masis, all
> the available knowledge is in the archives. i am not saying
> that to be argumentitive. i simply believe it to be true.
> e-RICHIE
> chester, ct
Wow. This is indeed a remarkable site. The fount of all knowledge relating to vintage lightweights is already in the archives?
I shall cancel my subscription to the V-CC and stop asking questions, or researching brochures or old copies of "Cycling" magazine. As an historian, I know when to quit when we know it all. I've never seen that happen in any subject, category or topic in the history of human endeavour.
And even more remarkable that history belongs only to those were "there" when it happened. Most historians know its usually the opposite. I guess, for example, there's no point researching and writing a history of a Reg Harris or a Gino Bartali because they're dead and took all knowledge of their careers and lives with them. Or that some pimply teenager who worked in a cycle shop c. 1969 is an expert on Peugeots because he worked on PX10s and sold them.
But I guess it shows classic lightweights is really a shallow, limited subject after all. Like the history of the paper clip.
All this is wonderful inspiration to me. To spend far less time reading the CR List and more time, cold or not, on my bikes!
Peter Kohler
Washington DC USA