I: [CR]Steven Masslands Cynical opinion on the production of Bates Frames

(Example: Framebuilding:Brazing Technique)

From: "The Maaslands" <TheMaaslands@comcast.net>
Subject: I: [CR]Steven Masslands Cynical opinion on the production of Bates Frames
To: Classic Rendezvous <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:17:44 -0500

Martin wrote:
> I read with interest Steven Maaslands comments on what he believes to be the
> cynical manipulation of the "Bates" cycle name.
>
> Perhaps Steven would care to elaborate on the recent, or even complete
> history of Bates Cantiflex frames. When he has done that he can then explain
> where the cynicism comes in to the equation.
>
> I do not know Steven and to my knowledge he does not know any one who is
> involved currently with the production of Bates frames.
>
> The frames we are building are Bates frames, no cynisism, just frames.

I think that the person who is best placed to discuss the history of the Bates Cantiflex frames is Martin himself. I am certain it would be interesting reading for all list members, as it one of the many parallel design tangents that were experimented during the development of today's bicycle standard. As such, the novelty of thought that went into the initial Cantiflex bikes (I believe in the 30's) was quite remarkable. It is this novelty that would lead me to be pleased to add one of these 'original' Cantiflex bikes to my personal collection, if personal finances and availability were ever to permit. Indeed, I would be very proud to own one, even if only temporarily. Just like the Campagnolo Corsa, Campagnolo Paris-Roubaix and Vittoria Margherita geared bikes that I have owned, I believe bikes like the Bates must be experienced to be able to understand the course of development that today's bikes have gone through.

Martin is also perfectly placed to explain the reason why he got involved with the Bates name and exactly what conditions the use of the name entail. My personal business background has involved a considerable amount of 'selling' of licensing rights of well-known and well-respected brands (One of the best-known pure tennis brands in the world, with multi-million dollar license income, being just one of the brands that I handled in my last position) In the licensing deals that I signed off on, there was always a give and take. Both licensor and licensee ultimately gained out of the deal. The same can be said when a brand is sold outright. It is rare indeed that a license or name is sold without restrictions; and in the few cases that I know where this occurred, it happened when the goodwill associated with the name had reached a low ebb. So I do not begrudge Martin in the least for his valiant Rebirth (with capital 'R'!!) of Bates. He has now been involved in their production for a reasonable amount of time, but I believe it only fair to state that he got involved with the Bates name because of the historical 'value' of the brand(s) alone, whether we are speaking of Bates, Cantiflex or Diadrant. Were this not the case, and the interest was solely in the Cantiflex or other 'design' features, it is my understanding that the design protection has long since expired and is therefore available to anybody to copy freely (I welcome Martin to correct me if I am wrong in this or any other point).

As I concluded my last post, I would like to repeat that I prefer that people like Martin revive old bike names for road bikes, rather than elevate other less deserving names. I am also happiest when a degree of authenticity is retained when tradition-rich brands like Bates are involved. My sole slight reservation being that I don't feel that it is correct for today's customers to need to pay a supplement to market prices when replicas are involved. As such, I was wrong to use the word cynical in relation to Bates.

Steven Maasland Moorestown, NJ

---