QUOTE (currio @ Apr 25 2009, 01:45 AM)

Wow, after trawling through 43 pages, I think I have earned the right to offer my 2 pennies worth.
I read with interest when this subject first came up, as I have Hutch items myself, and like most collectors, still have pieces not yet obtained.
From experience, there have been only one or two instances of repop products, were all considerations from the old school fraternity have been met, and all parties were content with the outcome.
To expand on this, these items have been 'soft' repops, for example decals.
Unfortunately, and I mean no offence here, but this 'franchise' of Hutch products does not sit well with me.
I dont know how much effort was put in to obtaining original casting patterns, original jigs and tooling, and maybe they weren't available, but from reading through this thread it feels as though this wasn't the main goal of the project.
No disrespect meant again, but with todays technology, it is easy replicate old school original equipment, be it from billet or casting. (i.e Stems or pedals)
There are many examples of repop Hutch items already out there.
The feature that should make your products credible for some people, is the purchase of the original manufacturer's trading name. For me, that's not enough. Certainly not for a frame and fork for example.
Full marks for the idea and initiative, but I would like to see reference to original drawings, and the level of detail used to retain the original product.
For me, these products would carry more credit if they were made using the original factory tooling, or even some insight to how these products came about.
I don't like doing this, but I quote from a JDB response on this thread.
My opinion is if you have "that amount of money tied up into this stuff" maybe you've lost sight of what this stuff is.
I don't collect vintage because it's vintage. I collect vintage because it's BMX. And in my collection there's room for more than just vintage BMX.
This sentiment doesn't inspire me to go out and buy any of this new 'Hutch' stuff.
When I posted this reply, I wasn't looking to knock John's venture, in fact, I applauded his initiative, he saw a market, and went for it.
Since then, I have observed this thread.
The reason for my post was to say, that without prior history of product, proven method's of manufacture, material knowledge, Non Destructive Testing procedures etc, that simple copy manufacturing methods from an old example was an unknown, and risky path to take, for a new venture.
From the quality issues with the pedal spindles, it seems I had a reason for concern.
I am not here to prove a point, but would like to know if since this incident, John has put any thought into preventing future quality failures.
I have heard about the companies new machining abilities etc, but these mean nothing unless the integrity of the components have since been assured through prior knowledge, specs, or product assurance through qualified metalogists etc.
Just my observations.
Shaun