Originally Posted by
Kommisar89
Nothing illegal about it and of course it happens all the time and not only in the bicycle business. Still just seems a bit dishonest. I can think of instances when it is appropriate at least in my opinion. The new Schwinn is of course not really Schwinn but the rumor is that the new steel version of the Paramount they are about to bring out is actually going to be made in Richard Schwinn's Waterford plant and so I would consider it a real Paramount if not exactly a real Schwinn. And there was a bike shop back home that had been in business since the 19th century but went under sometime in the 80's. Then one day in the early 90's I happened across a new, small shop by the same name so I went in to check it out. It turned out that the guy running the new shop was a former employee of the original shop who had married the daughter of the owner. His wife legitimately owned the name and he really was a former mechanic, salesman, and the head of the shop sponsored race team so it made sense, to me at least, that he and his wife would decide to reopen the shop under the same name. But the Herse deal seems to be exactly the same thing as Bikesdirect.com - buy a dead name, produce decals, stick them on the side of your bike, and there you go. Might be a good business practice but there is still something ethically slimey about it.
Incorrect.
It just is. A brand carries equity just like capital costs, there is absolutely no difference. Would you be so upset if someone used the torches from the old Herse factory to make new bikes? Because the torches are the same as the brand, it is business, it is not personal.
There are not a lot of choices out there for a semi-custom randoneer out there. If you wanted to start a new business to make randoneers, why wouldn't you want a leg up? It would be simply stupid not to.
You could argue the "new" brand doesn't live up to the "old" brand. It doesn't represent the same values or quality. Again, a stupid arguement. Continuous brands, ones that have been around for a long time, change their meaning to the customer all of the time, again, it is just business.
Or you could argue since there is no Herse is invovled, it is not a Herse. Hate to break this to you but Dr. Porsche has been dead a long time and it makes no difference what the brand stands for. Again, a stupid arguement.
Is a Cinelli still a Cinelli? I have heard it isn't anymore. When did it no longer be a Cinelli then? Giotto started the company in 1946, did it no longer be Cinelli when Cino took over in 1948? Or was it whe Cino retired and Antonio bought it even though the head frame builder stayed on for a while. Or was it when he retired? Or was it when they used modern materials like aluminum and carbon? To say it isn't a Cinelli based on any of those things is just silly.
It seems the whole arguement about a brand not being a brand here and especially in the road forum (BD bikes) is purely based on sentiment. And that is just BS.