RE: [CR]reissues. reproductions. etcetera

(Example: Events:BVVW)

Content-return: allowed
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:12:26 -0500
From: "Grant McLean" <Grant.McLean@SportingLife.ca>
Subject: RE: [CR]reissues. reproductions. etcetera
To: "'chuckschmidt@earthlink.net'" <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>


Chuck,

I'm not taking shots and saying 'newer is better', I'm saying that if a bike has been ridden for 50 or 60 years, it's going to be worn out. If you ride your bike 10 miles a day for 60 years, that's about 220,000 miles.

I have a couple of Rolex watches from my Grandfather, neither of which keep time worth a damn, crystals are all scratched, and cost $200 each time to service.

I have a 60's repro. Heuer Carrera chronograph that runs like a dream, and looks brand new, because it is. And it's only been worn 150 times, not 21,900.

Grant McLean toronto, canada

-----Original Message----- From: Chuck Schmidt [mailto:chuckschmidt@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:03 PM To: Grant McLean Subject: Re: [CR]reissues. reproductions. etcetera

Grant McLean wrote:
>
> Chuck
>
> There is a practical reason to owning something "brand new" vs a 60 year
> old item. Old mechanical things break often, and require lots of
> service. New ones can be much more reliable, especially in watches.

I'd disagree about watches. Any watch after the mid-forties has shock resistance, a good main spring, 17 jewels etc. and is perfectly reliable in my experience. And CHEAP too!!!

And bikes from the 1950s? Equally as reliable.

Chuck Schmidt SoPas, SoCal

.