Bruce makes some interesting points that I probably agree with in general, but I'd like to add some thoughts.
In the word of bicycles, unlike the world of Monet, the original maker actually may have had precious little to do with the manufacture of the original item in the first place. This is well known for certain makes such as Masi. If a maker employes various individuals to build a frame, and there are numerous stylistic differences (perhaps subtle) among the actual makers, then a reproduction might be more typical of the marques original character than a relatively odd example from the original production.
Right now I have a frame that by all accounts came from the Rene Hese shop, but it is a clear "funny" example. As I understand it, such frames are not uncommon. Yet some Japanese reproductions of Herses (and some bikes from other French makers) look more Herse-like than this one.
I think I do understand why reproductions often cost more than originals. Its the same reason why folks regularly pay the full retail hit for a Waterford frame if they can choose the paint, braze-ons, and assorted personal preference details. At the same time, I struggle to sell "stock" frames that we have for display. People really like to pay to get the details that are important to them. It's hard to do that on an older frame - with a new one the options and variations are almost endless.
Now of course, Bruce is right that many original frames are really great bargains. I see this most often with American custom frames. The resale on many of the great builders finest works are silly low. I see this over and over. I've said this for a number of years, the deals on American custom frames that come onto the market are unbelievable.
Mike Kone
At 11:04 PM 10/5/01 +0100, brucerobbins wrote:
>The recent debate about precisely who is the real Mr Hetchins and Mr Gillot
>is, I would submit maybe a bit controversially, totally irrelevant.
>
>Whoever is building these frames is not making a Hetchins or Gillot. We
>should stop attaching so much importance to these replica frames.
>
>A chair made by the finest carpenter around and in the style of a
>Chippendale or Heppelwhite is not a Chippendale or Heppelwhite.
>
>A copy of a Monet, indistinguishible to anyone other than an expert, is
>still a copy.
>
>A car plant tooled up to produce a very close copy of a Type 35 Bugatti
>would be fooling no one.
>
>The thing that gets me is that these fakes cost more than the originals! Why
>would anyone want a copy when they can have the real thing for a lot less,
>even allowing for the cost of shipping the frame around the world?
>
>Look through the classified ads of just about any UK cycling mag and you
>will find fine examples of these old, original bikes on offer for quite
>reasonable sums.
>
>That's not to say that the replica frames aren't well made. Guys like Clive
>Rodell would not get involved in producing anything other than an excellent
>product.
>
>However, the frames made today by Brian Bayliss and Richard Sachs and many
>other fine American-and European-builders have, in my submission, far more
>integrity than these replicas ever will.
>
>Personally, having checked out the McLean marque following recent
>discussion, I now lust after my first American bike. Got any going cheap,
>Dale?
>
>Cheers,
>Bruce