Re: [CR]this hetchins 'thing'

(Example: Framebuilding:Norris Lockley)

From: Jerry & Liz Moos <>
To: "peter naiman" <>, <>, <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: [CR]this hetchins 'thing'
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:06:48 -0600

I do agree, Peter, that it is ungracious, at least, for the Omega advertising copy to imply that the Miller effort does not exist, and that no one has made a frame with the Hetchins name for 20 years. If we were talking about economically significant enterprises, the Miller group would respond with their own advertising copy, but it appears there is in fact no budget for such things. I think those strong supporters of Miller should take consolation in the fact that a significant percentage of those persons who might actually purchase either frame are now, thanks to this thread, fairly well acquainted with the origin of each of the two competing "Hetchins" frames and the lineage, or lack thereof, associated with each. Those like yourself, who value the greater continuity of the Miller effort, will purchase the Miller frames without being confused by the Omega product, while those who believe that both are in essence "reproductions' will make an informed choice based on the usual criteria of price, quality, delivery time and aesthetic appeal. I assume that our members also on iBOB have posted some of this there, and some of the UK members have discussed it there outside this list, unless all the collectors in UK were already aware of the situation. So most of the very small pool of potential customers are probably now aware of the key facts, as I doubt there will be many orders from other than UK or North America.

Personally, I would buy either frame at the right price, but as neither is cheap, I'm more likely to purchase British frames that are more attractivley priced, like the Arthur Caygill Artisan model (built by Richard Kent) which I expect to receive shortly, or perhaps a Mercian Vincitore.


Jerry Moos
in Houston, TX

----- Original Message -----
From: peter naiman
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [CR]this hetchins 'thing'

> Richie: You bring up many valid points which I agree with in most ways. In a
> purist sense, the David Miller produced Hetchins cycles may not be true
> Hetchins. But lineage, even though loose, is worth something. David Miller
> and his consortium seem to have kept the Hetchins alive from a passion for
> it's heritage. It just bothers me that an outside entity may come along and
> suddenly state that they have revived the "Hetchins Marque" as the ad states
> without acknowledging the last 20 years of production by Mr. Miller.
> I've realize that my critizism of Omega Cycles has been a little
> overzelous in my last few notes, but this comes out of my passion as a lover
> of Hetchins. I'm sure they are not as I've portrayed in my emails, but they
> haveto be aware of the controversy, and yet they make no response. Maybe
> their production of Hetchins frames comes from a passion, as well. Such a
> response from Omega would at this point be appropriate, to atleast hear
> there point of view and help shed some light on this issue.
> Take Care, Happy New Years, hope to see you at Cirque in May and Larz in
> August.
> Peter Naiman
> Boston, Mass
> >From: Richard M Sachs <>
> >To:
> >Subject: [CR]this hetchins 'thing'
> >Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:38:56 -0500
> >
> >day two...
> >i've absorbed all of yesterday's posts along with 10-15 that were
> >sent off-list directly to me and here are my thoughts.
> >it has been 'proven' that the david miller hetchins frames come
> >as a result of a lineage back to the seven sisters road workshop
> >whereas the omega frames are a 'resurrection' of the marque.
> >people seem vigilant that one is the real deal and one is not. neither
> >of these shops employ the same hand-worked materials, the same
> >tubing, the same fixturing, the same assembly sequences, the same
> >staff (of course), ...and many seem adamant that some contact to the
> >past must be maintained for the benefit of future generations.
> >
> >it is noted that jack denny came back from retirement for consulting
> >purposes, (when was that-10-15 years ago? that's roughly 100 frames
> >ago if my calculator is working properly), and that even alf hetchin came
> >back on board to help, (though he was let go after making a few key
> >mistakes. hey-what were they anyway???). also, the current concern
> >is owned by an entertainment 'mogul' who is more of a patron than
> >an 'investor seeking to maximize his investment'. and lastly, production
> >varies from 10-20 per year.
> >
> >for those concerned that there'll be no hetchins for future generations
> >i say, these are not hetchins-at least these are not hetchins the likes
> >of
> >which would typically be heralded on the CR list in any other thread.
> >both makers are producing frames in the image of the frames that
> >were made up until maybe 20 years ago. if reproducing frames
> >that kinda'-look-like-hetchins-and-have-the-same-latin-model names
> >is good enough to be 'close enough', then it's not my place to judge
> >the merits of these reproductions. i still maintain that in numbers as
> >small
> >as has been stated in the past two days, there is no possible threat that
> >the brand will cease to be in demand. i still maintain that in any
> >economic
> >era a shop with production numbers this small is completely insulated
> >from the fiscal pressures that touch 'real businesses' with 'real
> >overhead'
> >issues to deal with, ESPECIALLY since it has the long time backing
> >of a patron with deep pockets.
> >
> >lastly on this issue, i think there are 600+ listees on the CR list and
> >by
> >my account only 4 people have said they have one of these reproduction
> >hetchins on order. that's nearly 6 months of work right there. hmmm...
> >
> >in Chester
> >apologies in advance if i've misunderstood any facts stated clearly
> >in yesterday's mail