[CR]Omega/Gillott. what if

e-CHUCKIE and others... do you think that if gillott, or anyone for that matter, still made the same frame that they did in the mid 50s (see snipped below...) that they'd have much of a commercial venture? anyone who was in business then would likely have made to same concessions to modernizing along the way as any normal concern would. i don't want my comment to encompass the omega/miller 'rights to the name' issue, though it's related. i don't under- stand why so many people so zealously expect things to be as they were. there is no business to be made in this. the typical cr listee pines/wants for something from the past rather than a current version of a 50 year old bicycle. who's to say that a gillott, or even a confente would desire to produce frames as they did so many years ago. i think they'd prefer to be at the vanguard of framebuilding rather than the 'where are they now' column. i think the jpg of the 'gillott' combines classic elements with modern touches. in 2002, this likely could be the frame that gillotts would be producing. e-RICHIE Richard Sachs Cycles No.9, North Main Street Chester, CT 06412 USA http://www.richardsachs.com Tel. 860.526.2059 ****************** snipped: Chuck Schmidt writes: Mark, the _only_ thing I see that your modern "Gillott" has in common with the real thing is the downtube and badge decal. < http://www.omegacycleworks.com/G2large.jpg> And a _straight_ bladed fork? Heresy! Quoting from the mid-50s brochure, "GILLOTT'S FAMOUS FORK BLADES. We illustrate two examples of fork blades... On the right is shown the GRADUAL rake, which we consider to be the best... It will be observed that the rake starts high and continues to the fork end in a gradual curve."

Mark Reilly wrote:
> We have been toying with the idea of bringing back the gillott marque, but
> not sure of the demand. I've posted a picture on the omega site so you can
> see the latest version http://www.omegacycleworks.com/gillott.htm &
> http://www.omegacycleworks.com/G2large.jpg