[CR]Hobbs v Hetchins

(Example: Books:Ron Kitching)

From: "brucerobbins" <brucerobbins@supanet.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <CATFOODJagXTi8M19VM00000749@catfood.nt.phred.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:36:52 -0000
Subject: [CR]Hobbs v Hetchins

From: "Thomas Rawson" <twrawson@worldnet.att.net>

Hi Bruce, Ive been forwarding Flash comments here. Not sure how I got the honor but wanna make sure no one thinks Ive written his words. Maybe did a not so good job of identifying that on these last.

Second your quote (of Flash' words) refers to archetypal not first. Think there's a distinction to be made.


Sorry to have mixed up the quotes! I'm confused by your second point since archetypal means original, prototype or first.

From: Richard M Sachs <richardsachs@juno.com>

regarding today's Hobb's related thread; perhaps they were first, but Hetchins seems to have been the marque that brought it to the masses. that was the essence of my sentiment.


That's the same arguement you employed in the Masi fluted seatstay debate! We've both been there and have the t-shirts to prove it!! (Just for that, you can buy the first pint...)

From: Brandon Ives <monkeylad@mac.com> Hobbs are great, but Hetchin's brought fancy lugs to the masses.


What do you mean by masses? I'll have to check but I wouldn't have thought there would have been a lot of difference between Hobbs and Hetchins productions levels in the early years. In pre-war years, I doubt the average UK cyclist would have made much of a distinction between Hobbs and Hetchins when considering lugwork. (Of course, pre-war Hobbs were much better made than Hetchins but that's another matter :) If by masses you mean Americans then you're dead right. Hetchins exported a lot of frames but I don't think Hobbs did.