Re: [CR]Re: Claim-to-Hetchins-name controversy.


Example: Production Builders:Peugeot:PX-10LE

To: hilary.stone@blueyonder.co.uk
Cc: Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 14:32:06 -0500
Subject: Re: [CR]Re: Claim-to-Hetchins-name controversy.
From: Richard M Sachs <richardsachs@juno.com>


so that settles it. the omega produced hetchins 'could' be considered a fraud/fake then. it's miller-time! please use coasters. e-RICHIE in Chester

On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 19:16:23 +0000 Hilary Stone <hilary.stone@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> The Hetchins sho, name and stock was bought from Alf Hetchins by a
> consortium of owners in 1985. This same consortium still owns the
> assets it
> bought which includes the name. The freehold of the shop was sold
> after a
> couple of years and production and sales were moved to Bob Jacksons.
> David
> Miller was taken on to manage the Hetchins side of the business.
> When Bob
> Jackson was put into liquidation Hetrchins was not affected as they
> were two
> separate businesses though with common owners. David Miller
> continues to
> manage Hetchins to this day now from Preston. There has never been a
> loss of
> continuity.
>
> Hilary Stone in slightly wintery Bristol
>
> Jerry Moos wrote:
> > I guess I didn't previously note the bit about Millar having been
> shop
> > manager at Jackson. I suppose that does establish a continuity of
> sorts,
> > though a skeptic might argue that any real continuity was lost
> when
> > production was transferred to Bob Jackson, unless of course
> Millar, Jackson
> > himself, or someone in that firm had been involved with building
> the frames
> > at the original Hetchins company. I haven't heard that that is
> the case.
> > Given that possible break in continuity, I'm afraid that I might
> regard the
> > Millar frames as more "authentic", but only just. This would
> change of
> > course, if Millar can prove his claims in a court of law, which he
> so far
> > seems either unable or unwilling to do. Failing that, I think I
> would
> > conclude that the only "real" Hetchins were those made before
> Jackson took
> > over, and that both the modern versions are "reproductions" or
> perhaps
> > "re-creations". Which to buy then (if any)? I'd say the one that
> most
> > accurately matches the pre-Jackson original.
> >
> > Come to think of it, trueness to the original is probably at least
> as
> > important as legal title in establishing the "genuineness" of a
> classic
> > marque. For example, I don't think anyone disputes the right to
> produce
> > Bates, formerly held by Ray Etherton and perhaps still retained by
> him or
> > perhaps sold or perhaps licensed nonexclusively to Classic Cycles
> UK. But
> > suppose Ray had used his undisputed legal rights to have Bates TIG
> welded in
> > Taiwan from aluminum. Would the result have been "genuine"? Not
> in my
> > opinion. What lends the most geniuneness is that Ray had the
> frames built
> > by a craftsman like Ron Cooper, using Diadrant forks and Cantiflex
> tubing.
> > This would have lent significant legitimacy to these frames, even
> if the
> > legal title had been in dispute, as now seems the case with
> Hetchins.
> >
> > I would have originally been reluctant to buy an Omega-built
> Hetchins for
> > fear of abetting copyright infringement, but unless Millar presses
> his case
> > soon, I'd become interested in a good deal on a well made
> Hetchins
> > "re-creation" from Omega. In fact, will not Millar's failure to
> enforce his
> > claimed rights at some point be deemed under British law as having
> waived
> > exclusive rights, as I believe would be the case under US law?