I think you may have missed my earlier point. I can see why someone who spent the 90s drooling over the mags over an unaffordable handbuilt frame like a Chas Roberts might get misty eyed about them - even now.
Less so over a mass market brand that has obviously lost its way that even their 90s fans don't buy them anymore. I still liked their bikes (I've got a Kona frame sitting in the shed waiting to be built some day).
But I appreciated your spirited defence of Kona, and drubbing of brands like Marin, Trek and Raleigh. It was a fun read.
To answer, there wasn’t any missunderstanding. Your view was a brand like Kona (or any manufacturer of it's ilk) didn't deserve to be as revered as much as a boutique frame builder due large scale fabrication with reference to clever marketing tactics.
But the success of a brand’s legacy is ultimately down to the sentiment and impact it garners through it’s various chapters of its existence; Kona’s high-point being the early-to-mid late 90s.
Kona, like Marin and Specialized (and of course GT as earlier pointed out) had similar entry level bikes to elite super high-end frames depending on performance and budget.
I wasn't drubbing on these brands at all, but was pointing out Kona did offer something different at the consumer-end.
If you asked, then or now, if I wanted 92' Kona Hei Hei versus a 92' Chas Roberts Dogs Bolx, both being race at similar price points, it would be a hard call. I admire both. But in terms of brand interest, legacy and contribution to the sport - which one writes more in the history books? This thread is already testimony to that answer.
To draw comparison and say that one should be more consigned to history than the other is a pretty absurd viewpoint. There’s no comparison between the two.
It's the difference of a hand-built frameworks versus a larger brand, with riders like Steve Peat and Dario Cioni in it's fold, that also dared to be diverse and quirky whilst offering an alternative price-point to those who wanted in.
