Re: [CR]Vintage Bike Collectibility - Phil 101 Meltdown..........

(Example: Production Builders:Tonard)

From: <hersefan@comcast.net>
To: gholl@optonline.net, Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR]Vintage Bike Collectibility - Phil 101 Meltdown..........
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 04:10:09 +0000


But by the inherent "logic in your system", I suspect it is impossible for you to refute any argument to the contrary (that was your challenge?) since everything related to the theoretical construct is based on man-made concepts that you've defined as arbitrary.

I can't even follow the above paragraph that I just wrote. Can we get back on topic and talk about chainring bolts or something?

Mike Kone in Boulder CO


-------------- Original message --------------
From: gholl@optonline.net

> Collectibility is an idea-a concept created by men. No bike, part, or groups of

\r?\n> parts are intrinsically more or less collectible than any other. I challenge any

\r?\n> member to make out a rational argument that refutes this.

\r?\n> In fact I feel that some bikes and parts were made to be collected and others

\r?\n> were designed as disposable. The idea could be made that it's more rational to

\r?\n> collect those things designed for permanence than for purely temporary use. Most

\r?\n> racers had no interest in collecting their bikes-they wanted newer models to

\r?\n> facilitate winning races. With the passage of time some of these bikes, meant as

\r?\n> disposable racing tools, are now regarded as collectible-and various rationales

\r?\n> are created for collecting them.

\r?\n> In any event, most of the well known makers made bikes and parts for racing and

\r?\n> for collecting.

\r?\n> The beauty of this hobby is that one can collect bikes or parts originally meant

\r?\n> for racing or for collecting, or both. No bike collector, or collection, has an

\r?\n> inherent right of superiority over any other.

\r?\n> George

\r?\n>

\r?\n> George Hollenberg MD

\r?\n> CT, USA