Grant McLean wrote:
>
> 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.
In my experience, probably 1% of bikes get ridden much at all and virtually none of them get ridden for 50 or 60 years!
I have a Heuer Carrera (black dial, two register with matching stainless band) my wife gave me in 1966 before we were married ($90 new then). Looks new, I polish the crystal once in a while, needed a mainspring once (no big deal and cheap), keeps time (accuracy is no longer an issue with Swatches passing chronometer standards). How many times have I worn it? I couldn't even count that high!
New? I'd rather have used.
Chuck Schmidt SoPas, SoCal
.