[HeadDown]

Would be very grateful for recommendations for website selling replica classical cycling jerseys. I’m not willing to pay Prendas prices. Have come across  retro-cycling-jerseys.com, and and various other sites, but they all seem to carry the same photos of the same shirts, so probably source from the same place? Some are £30 odd. Any experiences, of these or others?
thanks. 

Topic

[Paul J]

I have a La Vie Claire

I have a La Vie Claire tribute jersey, in wool – each colour its own panel, no logos – from CimaCoppi.cc. They used to make it years ago – not advertised on their site in a long while, but if you email them I think they will be happy to make one for you.

Absolutely gorgous jersey, and I get head turns and compliments from other cyclists pretty much every time I wear it.

[Paul J]

As an aside, the old style,

As an aside, the old style, 60s and earlier jerseys with 2 pockets on the front are _great_. I felt a bit apprehensive initially wearing them, they look so different. However, the 2 front pockets are _super_ useful for food.

The old 2-front + 3-rear jerseys are actually great for longer, unsupported rides.

[Paul J]

2velo.com “make” very good

2velo.com “make” very good quality reproductions of classic, woollen jerseys. They are based in Serbia, so you may end up import duties – but even then, they’re still good value.

Magliamo.be also “make” similar reproductions – better quality again (mostly in just the quality of detailling, and they still do flocking of lettering – where period appropriate – while 2velo is all chain stitched; chain stitching is actually more robust, and will last, where flocking can wear off – so it comes down to what you prefer).

I did see some retro, woollen classic-reproduction jerseys on aliexpress at amazing prices, and bought one (something like €60). While it looked good in the photos, when I got it the lettering was machine woven into the material and blocky and the cut was poor, so the fit was a bit baggy. OK for wearing on my commute, but I wouldn’t wear it on a weekend ride.

[Shades]

There’s a vintage/retro

There’s a vintage/retro clothing shop in Bath called The Yellow Shop that has a small rack of vintage cycling jerseys (haven’t been in there recently tbh).  They aren’t on-line but are on social media.

[Freddy56]

I have the ‘real’ jersey from

I have the ‘real’ jersey from prendas https://www.prendas.co.uk/collections/retro-cycling-jerseys/products/santini-la-vie-claire-wonder-look-retro-cycling-jersey

I wear it alot and don’t understand people with 5K bikes and wont buy a jersey from a local British shop for £60

[TheBillder]

Four years on, and I can

Four years on, and I can report that the zip lasted only a few weeks after that post. Commentator’s curse…

[Dnnnnnn]

OmuGuy wrote:

OmuGuy wrote:

… because I’m reluctant to pay to have the zip replaced … It’s likely to become part of the mountain of plastic (polyester) waste I’ve generated this year. 

If there’s a repair cafe near you, some kind soul may replace the zip (if you provide a new one) out of the kindness of their hearts. You could unpick the old one and make a donation to the running of the cafe though.

[David9694]

As advertised (frequently) on

As advertised (frequently) on Road.cc 

https://www.temu.com/uk/mens-mtb-road-bike-jersey-long-sleeve-non-slip-zipper-design-quick-dry-breathable-cycling-top-with-italian-flag-mountain-bike-graphics-ideal-for–cycling-apparel-zipper-jacket-breathable-fabric-cycling-accessories-sweat-resistant-g-601100544129163.html?

 

[Michaelco]

yo i’ve seen that too. most

yo i’ve seen that too. most of those sites prob use the same supplier. haven’t tried retro-cycling-jerseys.com myself but if you’re cool with reps, might be worth checking out hypereptime. they’ve got a random mix sometimes, but the quality’s usually decent for the price.

[fukawitribe]

hawkinspeter wrote:

‘Theft’ is the wrong word though:

Theft is defined as the physical removal of an object that is capable of being stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently

It’s the correct word in the UK, outside of Britannica 😉
Try

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft

In particular the definitions in 4 (1) (‘intangible property’) and 5 (1) (‘rights’ and ‘interests’)

..but as Rich_cb says, semantics aside, it’s effecting someones right to benefit from something they own.

[Rich_cb]

Semantics aside you are
Semantics aside you are denying somebody else the ability to make money from something they own.

Maybe it’s more akin to squatting?

Without IP protection innovation will wither as the risk/return on R&D worsens significantly.

[hawkinspeter]

Captain Badger wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Personally, I’m not a fan of intellectual ‘property’ (and technically, you cannot ‘steal’ it as the originater still has it) as it tends to be massively abused e.g. Disney’s never-ending copyright battle to prevent Mickey Mouse from ever entering the public domain. I’m also not a fan of having public police resources used to protect private, corporate interests but that boat sailed a long time ago.

Depends on what it is and how long the patent lasts. eg Pharmaceutical companies do need to be able to recoup research costs to make it worthwhile, and I think most folk would say that’s only fair within limits, however that needs to be able to be balanced with  public interest. Once that cost has been recouped there is no reason to preserve a price artificially high over a reasonable return over the costs of production. An example of it going really badly was Martin Shkrelli’s profiteering price hikes on patents of vital drugs he’d bought, but had no input in researching.

I do agree with the principles behind copyrights/patents – an incentive to create and/or license new technologies. However, patents are granted for nonsensical ‘inventions’ and often the court battle costs are ridiulously high which means that large corporates have a huge advantage over small businesses and individuals. I don’t think that the length of copyrights is reasonable – life of creator plus 70 years doesn’t fit with the modern world and pace of innovation (I think a flat 10 years would be more reasonable). If the term of copyrights keeps getting extended (see Mickey Mouse) then certain properties will never enter the public domain which is an essential part of the copyright deal.

[hawkinspeter]

‘Theft’ is the wrong word

‘Theft’ is the wrong word though:

Theft is defined as the physical removal of an object that is capable of being stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently

[Captain Badger]

hawkinspeter wrote:

Personally, I’m not a fan of intellectual ‘property’ (and technically, you cannot ‘steal’ it as the originater still has it) as it tends to be massively abused e.g. Disney’s never-ending copyright battle to prevent Mickey Mouse from ever entering the public domain. I’m also not a fan of having public police resources used to protect private, corporate interests but that boat sailed a long time ago.

Depends on what it is and how long the patent lasts. eg Pharmaceutical companies do need to be able to recoup research costs to make it worthwhile, and I think most folk would say that’s only fair within limits, however that needs to be able to be balanced with  public interest. Once that cost has been recouped there is no reason to preserve a price artificially high over a reasonable return over the costs of production. An example of it going really badly was Martin Shkrelli’s profiteering price hikes on patents of vital drugs he’d bought, but had no input in researching.

 

 

 

[fukawitribe]

hawkinspeter wrote:

Personally, I’m not a fan of intellectual ‘property’ (and technically, you cannot ‘steal’ it as the originater still has it) as it tends to be massively abused e.g. Disney’s never-ending copyright battle to prevent Mickey Mouse from ever entering the public domain.  

I’m very much against the abuse of IP and patents in business, but technically there is a ‘theft’ in that what is stolen is intellectual property rights (e.g. exclusivity, design patterns) – the infringing party has take the right for their own use without sign of return or redress – the phrase IP is perhaps not useful in that case, it’s IPR that’s the point. God that’s dull, isn’t it ?….

[Author]

Replies