I'm thinking that there a lot of people out there that don't want "dead people's stuff!" They'd rather have a brand spanking new chingadero!
Chuck Schmidt SoPas, SoCal
GPVB1@cs.com wrote:
>
> Chuck:
>
> Shhhh! Fine old watches are undervalued. Let's not "out" them! ;-)
>
> Greg "stealth" Parker
> Ann Arbor, MI USA
>
> > Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:03:41 -0700
> > From: Chuck Schmidt <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>
> > To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> > Subject: Re: [CR]reissues. reproductions. etcetera
> > Message-ID: <3E56B02C.729A4024@earthlink.net>
> > References: <A5E72E8AE73AD311954A009027887CFFC391C3@SLSERVER>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Precedence: list
> > Reply-To: chuckschmidt@earthlink.net
> > Message: 3
> >
> > 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