tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: NOS vs REPRO

To: marrone@wco.com, CMeinel464@aol.com
Subject: Re: NOS vs REPRO
From: LeBrun@hii.hitachi.com
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 96 09:52:33 PST
     All;
     
     -One of my first concerns on being interested in repro-ing the air 
     cleaner assembly was the trademark/copyright concerns because of the 
     "AC" on the top piece. Any Patent/Trademark attorney's please advise.
     
     -I also felt by not worrying about the "AC" and making them without it 
     I could skip all the hassle of para. #1 above & also reduce both my 
     proto. & mfg. costs considerably. What scrap rate would be acceptable 
     if "some" of the letters didn't come out properly?5%, 10%, ?
     
     -In my current company, we constantly have to "re-engineer" the dwgs. 
     we get from Japan to match U.S. specs., material & finish callouts, 
     etc. A few I worked on making better during the development stages 
     here were Mercury-based paints & Black Chrome as finishes.
     Try getting these done in an EPA-approved paint or plating facility!
     Additionally, we have to worry about UL requirements. Our products
     mfg. by our parent for Asia & Europe don't need this. I correlate this 
     to the amber vs. red TIGER tail light lense requirements, depending on 
     market destination.
     
     -So, we don't make a lot of the parts "exactly" like our Japanese 
     parent.Are they better or worse? No, form & fit are slightly 
     different, function is identical...and that's what our customer's
     really care about.
     
                              Phil


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: NOS vs REPRO
Author:  CMeinel464@aol.com at ~INTERNET
Date:    7/18/96 7:28 AM


Frank,
I don't know if you had the oppurtunity to read my posting NOS vs. REPRO, if 
you haven't, please take a look.  I have been reproducing parts for years and 
as you well know, by law I can not put original logo's, trademarks etc. on 
these parts. My lenses do not say Lucas, but have a few of the original 
numbers on them. In regards to the Tiger air cleaner assembly, I welcome the 
reproduction effort and I'm sending orignal drawings of the item to help out 
the cause.  I do not know if A.C. England still exists, but that might cause 
of probelm in regards to the trademark, that is something that MUST be 
checked into.
     
Now, I must admit, that some of the parts we reproduce DO NOT have any 
markings on them to tell them from the originals.  Mostly rubber parts that 
we make such as: headlight to body, tailight to body, Tiger wheel cylinder 
dust covers etc.  What would be the point?  On all the parts we make, we try 
to improve the original if possible and thus sometimes although the part 
looks original when installed, they are slightly different than original 
physically.
     
Running parts are another problem, how many cars have they factory ball 
joints, tie rod ends, coil spings and the like.  When all the OEM running 
parts are gone, most people will beg for the reproductions.  
     
I do however feel that it's important to maintain the Tigers as close to 
original as possible. Again if you want to spend $600 or so for an orignal 
air cleaner or $75 for an original tail light lense, that is your right.
     
Baseball cards, art and other collectables, reproductions of all those items 
exist !  Does that lower the value of the originals? I know that the repro 
Mickey Mantle card has markings to let me know it's different from my 
originals.                                     I would have no problem with 
an internal repro marking of some sort on any part that would come on the 
market. 
     
Best regards,
Curt
Classic Sunbeam Inc.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>