[CR]Re: Classicrendezvous Digest, Vol 2, Issue 101

(Example: Production Builders:Teledyne)

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:40:50 -0800
From: "Dennis Young" <mail@woodworkingboy.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
In-Reply-To: <CATFOOD8Uiz6Bgc4QYP00002a1b@catfood.nt.phred.org>
Subject: [CR]Re: Classicrendezvous Digest, Vol 2, Issue 101

Lets get that Angel! Splitting hairs there pretty thin perhaps?. Aren't some variations allowed and still it be a reproduction? Perhaps some finite line can be made, but if the looks are basicly the same, and the cosmetics, along with the 'spirit' of the thing, isn't it a repro? Probably the maker is in the best position to say if it is a reproduction. The thought processes of a 'reproducer' are different frorm that of someone doing a original work. Weren't some of the 'originals', reproductions? How much time between is required before the duplicated bike is called a reproduction, and doesn't there need to be a gap when the item was no longer being made. Ones made continuously over a period of time, Martin Copland says something about this in his post on the Bates. How about a period of ten years before the ideas are recycled, then it's a reproduction. Just asking....

Dennis Young Hotaka, Japan
> Therefore, for an item to be a reproduction it seems to me that ALL =
> aspects of the original would have to me imitated. Where there are =
> variations it ceases to be a reproduction in the true sense. My opinion. =
> Don't kill me.
>
> Angel Garcia
> Long Valley, NJ