Re: [CR]Fake Hetchins controversy.

(Example: Framebuilding:Brazing Technique)

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 12:49:36 -0500
Subject: Re: [CR]Fake Hetchins controversy.
From: "Richard M Sachs" <>

jerry is on the mark here. i think this was covered last year. all these guys are producing frames 'in the image of' hetchins using reproduced decals, pre-fabbed ornate lugs, and all the accoutrements of modern day production framebuilding. quite a world apart from the tottenham atelier and its inhabitants. who cares which party produces the reproduction? is coca-cola the official soft drink of the olympic team? where are the lawyers? e-RICHIE in Chester

On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 11:19:36 -0600 "Jerry & Liz Moos" <> writes:
> I know we've discussed this topic before, but what was the
> conclusive
> evidence that David Millar is making the "real" Hetchins, while the
> others
> are "fakes"? As far a I've heard, neither Millar nor his
> competitors have
> any direct link to the original Hetchins company. If that is true,
> then the
> whole matter comes down to whether in fact Millar purchased
> exclusive rights
> to the Hetchins name and other intellectual property or whether he
> did not.
> Perhaps I'm a bit naive about the British legal system, but if
> Millar's
> rights are clear, shouldn't a lawsuit or even a threatened lawsuit
> resolve
> the matter? Could the other party possibly be so bold as to
> virtually
> invite a lawsuit which they would surely lose? Would not the losing
> party
> have to pay the prevailing party's costs as in the US? It would
> seem that
> either there is more to the story than we have heard, or the
> effectiveness
> of the UK legal system (after which much of the US system was
> modeled) is
> less than we naive ex-colonials have been led to believe.
> Of course, I have seen neither the Millar frames nor the "fakes" "in
> the
> flesh, so perhaps those of you who, unlike myself, are qualified to
> express
> an opinion consider the Millar frames accurate and well made, while
> the
> others are crap by comparison. That would certainly be a valid
> reason to
> refuse to buy the non-Millar frames and to advise others to do
> likewise, but
> avoiding a product because it is crap is quite different than
> avoiding it
> because it is a fake.
> Regards,
> Jerry Moos
> Houston, TX
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "peter naiman" <>
> To: <>; <>;
> <>
> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 2:24 PM
> Subject: [CR]Fake Hetchins controversy.
> all Hetchins lovers and lightweight enthusiasts in the CR Group.
> This
> letter comes to me from a fellow cycling friend in the UK with
> regard to
> "Fake" Hetchins. Included in the ad is the email address of these
> "fake"
> makers as well as their phone number in the UK. I can only ask that
> we all
> support David Miller in his efforts to get clear title to Hetchins
> production and to put pressure on the other maker to cease
> production.
> Please write by email or contact by any means these fake makers
> about your
> opinions. Hopefully as a group we can help spread the word as far
> and wide
> as possible. The address by email to contact the fakers is
> >< . To contact Andrew Moore about this issue,
> please
> email
> Peter(Hetchinspete)Naiman
> Boston, Mass
> >Attached is an advert from Omega Cycles with regards to what best
> can be
> >discribed as a copy of the original and at worst a FAKE. The
> advert seemes
> >to be mistaken with regards to it's comment about being back, "to
> be back
> >you first have to go" As we all know the geniune Hetchins has
> never
> >stopped trading.
> >
> >I've passed the details to both David Millar and Flash
> >
> >Happy new year to you all
> >regards
> >Andrew Moore
> >Wiltshire England