Re: [CR]Yes, (shudder!) more Masi input.....


From: RALEIGH531@aol.com
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:30:08 EST
Subject: Re: [CR]Yes, (shudder!) more Masi input.....
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org


In a message dated 2/28/01 2:21:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, richardsachs@juno.com writes: > ...so if ted built these bikes, are they ted's
> OR are they masi's???
> and after so many iterations occuring since
> first appearing in california via milano, what
> exactly was the 'draw' of any of these bikes,
> particularly the post mid '70s versions, when
> the cord that connected it all was already beginning
> to fray. does owning the rights to the name
> justify the 'buzz' that seems connected to this
> thread?
> i am a long time masi-watcher, ever since i read
> the review in 'bicycling' in june 1971. despite all
> the people, builders, locations, post -gran criterium
> frame models, (milano built prestige and 3V models
> notwithstanding), involved in this saga, i don't get
> all this infatuation with the stuff. once it was clear
> that the initial italian inspired/california built masi's
> were not as intended, everything else was made 'under
> license' by various people that had no connection to
> the vigorelli velodrome family of artisans.
> i understand having lunch at 'subway', etc.: the same
> sandwiches in 50 states because the business is franchised.
> but framebuilding under the same 'made under license
> since we own the name (now) type-of-mentality' !!
> why is this stuff special?
>

I was wondering the same thing but could never have worded it so well. Maybe the intrigue is the big draw?

Pete Geurds
Douglassville, Pa