wool jerseys?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

WHAT BRAND AND STYLE ARE THEY?

Yikes. Don't shoot! I have short sleeve and long sleeve crew necks.
They are "Windsor Wear," made in Canada and purchased for very
reasonable prices from Sierra Trading.

I'm thinking of getting a long sleeve, short sleeve,
and sleeveless wool shirts.

Between those three different styles I am hoping to
cover abt any kind of weather by layering them in
combinations. Work you think? Or do I only need two
diff styles such as the long sleeve and sleeve less?

In article
<[email hidden]>,

James Thomson said:

"Tom" <[email hidden]> a écrit:

Quoted message said:

In the movie it was "Berkeley", while in the song it was "Berkley".

Quoted message said:

The song title used "Berkley" perhaps as a contraction of "Berkeley"
("Berk'ley"😉 due to the necessity of keeping the meter of the song (which
would have been compromised if sung as "Berk-uh-ley"😉.

In the local pronunciation, Berkeley has only two sylables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Square

The song, the square, and the Gloucestershire town all share the same
spelling.

Song title is 'A Nightingale Sang In Berkley Square'
<http://www.tsrocks.com/v/vera_lynn_texts/a_nightingale_sang_in_berkeley_square.html>

--
Michael Press

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> a écrit:

Quoted message said:

Song title is 'A Nightingale Sang In Berkley Square'

<http://www.tsrocks.com/v/vera_lynn_texts/a_nightingale_sang_in_berkeley_square.html>

Michael, the title and URL of that page both spell "Berkeley" correctly.
"Berkley" in the refrain, like "legand" in the first verse, "Astair" in the
last, and "sylables" in my previous message, is just a typo, multiplied
(like the unnatural capitalisation) by cut-and-paste.

James Thomson

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why don't you just wear heavier synthetic jerseys? Or several
layers? I'm sure wool clothes work but as Ozark said, the price is
unbelievable.

Quoted message said:

IIRC, good wool jerseys retailed for $35-40 in the mid-1980s.
According to the inflation calculator at Westegg.com, $35 in "1985
dollars" is $65.49 in "2006 dollars". so, the price of a wool jersey
has effectively doubled (adjusted for inflation) in the past ~20
years. I would consider a new wool jersey if the retail price was
$65-70; but at $130+, never!

You've pretty much nailed the reason a wool jersey costs so much then. Add
the inflation calculator to the devaluation of the dollar that's happened
during the same time frame, and you probably get darn close to the $130
current pricing.

Wool jerseys have been pricey for several years, whilst the decline of
the dollar is a bit more recent. And, do not inflation figures account
for currency value?

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

WHAT BRAND AND STYLE ARE THEY?

Yikes. Don't shoot! I have short sleeve and long sleeve crew
necks. They are "Windsor Wear," made in Canada and purchased for
very reasonable prices from Sierra Trading.

Sorry abt the caps

Cap key was on accidentally

OK. It seemed awfully urgent. ;-) Anyway, if you go to the Sierra
Traders web site and search for wool underwear, these often pop up at
good prices. Sometimes other brands.

In article <[email hidden]>,

David L. Johnson said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

I've been thinking abt switching back to wool as well.

If you read the Rivendell catalog they seem to swear by it

I'm waiting for someone to claim that wool shorts with real leather
chamois are a great idea. Since Rivendell has now been brought
up...

Yeah, right. For my money, "fake" chamois and lycra shorts, as
opposed to the "real" things, are the best improvements in cycling
equipment since the pneumatic tire. Those old shorts are horrible.

Yeah, wool is just what you need in 100+ degree temperatures.

In general, I agree. I have a pair of wool Kucharik shorts that have a
synthetic chamois and are very comfortable even in warm weather. But
they lack, ummm, support which can lead to some discomfort. The wool
isn't really any hotter than Lycra, since the latter doesn't breath very
well at all. But OTOH Lycra doesn't sag or just about fall off you if
it gets rained on and the legs don't creep up as you ride. People used
to wear suspenders with their wool shorts.

The other thing I find is that Lycra shorts last much, much longer than
wool shorts. Wool doesn't have much abrasion resistance.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

WHAT BRAND AND STYLE ARE THEY?

Yikes. Don't shoot! I have short sleeve and long sleeve crew
necks. They are "Windsor Wear," made in Canada and purchased for
very reasonable prices from Sierra Trading.

I'm thinking of getting a long sleeve, short sleeve, and sleeveless
wool shirts.

Between those three different styles I am hoping to cover abt any
kind of weather by layering them in combinations. Work you think? Or
do I only need two diff styles such as the long sleeve and sleeve
less?

For cycling, between one long and one short sleeved wool T-shirts, two
short sleeved wool jerseys and two long sleeved wool jerseys, I can
dress comfortably for anything from 80F to 40F. The most I wear is a
long sleeve T, a short sleeve jersey and two long sleeve jerseys. Below
40 I could adjust layers and add a wool sweater over the top and get
down to being comfortable from 30F-40F. The nice thing is that there is
very little moisture build up.

OTOH, at 40F and below I quite often just wear a wool long sleeve T and
my fleece windfront jacket from REI. It's a lot quicker to get out the
door and the ventilation is nicely adjustable. I end up a bit damp but
it's not a problem.

On the legs I wear a pair of shorts, some mid-weight wool socks, and
tights of appropriate thickness and wind resistance (PI Lycra 50-65F,
Gekko Gear Powerstretch 100 40-50F or PI AmFib windfront tights below
40F). On my feet I wear Lake MXZ-300 boots below about 45F, otherwise
they are too warm. Gloves are various weights from "lobster" glives to
thin polypro liner gloves. I like to keep my hands pretty warm.

Wasting money with wool
Try fleece (with light mesh polypropylene crew if below 20)
SKU: 36482
Campmor Polartec(R) 200 Fleece Jacket (For Men)
$29.99

SKU: 36486
Campmor Polartec(R) 200 Fleece Vest (For Men)
$24.99
SKU: 36428

Campmor Polartec(R) 200 Fleece Pants (For Men)
$22.97

Ozark Bicycle said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

> Why don't you just wear heavier synthetic jerseys? Or several
> layers? I'm sure wool clothes work but as Ozark said, the price is
> unbelievable.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IIRC, good wool jerseys retailed for $35-40 in the mid-1980s.
According to the inflation calculator at Westegg.com, $35 in "1985
dollars" is $65.49 in "2006 dollars". so, the price of a wool jersey
has effectively doubled (adjusted for inflation) in the past ~20
years. I would consider a new wool jersey if the retail price was
$65-70; but at $130+, never!

Quoted message said:

You've pretty much nailed the reason a wool jersey costs so much then. Add
the inflation calculator to the devaluation of the dollar that's happened
during the same time frame, and you probably get darn close to the $130
current pricing.

Wool jerseys have been pricey for several years, whilst the decline of
the dollar is a bit more recent. And, do not inflation figures account
for currency value?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And of course the dollar devaluation in the past 3 years should only
affect imports. So any and all wool clothes made in the USA should be
unaffected. Unless the wool is imported. But I was reading on a wool
website that the US is a wool exporter in total. So I think marketing
is the reason wool jerseys are expensive, not currency fluctuations or
inflation. Wool is in so people will pay.

email hidden said:

And of course the dollar devaluation in the past 3 years should only
affect imports. So any and all wool clothes made in the USA should be
unaffected. Unless the wool is imported. But I was reading on a wool
website that the US is a wool exporter in total. So I think marketing
is the reason wool jerseys are expensive, not currency fluctuations or
inflation. Wool is in so people will pay.

I agree. On a business trip to Britain a few years ago, I bought a
very nice wool sweater at an outdoor weekend market in a small
village. I paid roughly $15 for it, IIRC. Based on that, the price
surge isn't because of the cost of the wool.

.... which is frustrating. I've loved wool clothing for many, many
years - and I'm not talking just cycling clothes, but sweaters,
shirts, pants, etc. But it was always hard to find

Now that it's easier to find, it's becoming "in," so it's generally
expensive. <sigh>

- Frank Krygowski

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

James Thomson said:

"Tom" <[email hidden]> a écrit:

Quoted message said:

In the movie it was "Berkeley", while in the song it was "Berkley".
The song title used "Berkley" perhaps as a contraction of "Berkeley"
("Berk'ley"😉 due to the necessity of keeping the meter of the song (which
would have been compromised if sung as "Berk-uh-ley"😉.

In the local pronunciation, Berkeley has only two sylables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Square

The song, the square, and the Gloucestershire town all share the same
spelling.

Song title is 'A Nightingale Sang In Berkley Square'
<http://www.tsrocks.com/v/vera_lynn_texts/a_nightingale_sang_in_berkeley_square.html>

Michael -

I find examples of both "Berkeley" and "Berkley" in web-page text, but
these are images that seem definitive. I couldn't find an image of
"Berkley".

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2av4wm
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ohp8p
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ys6dmv

I'm satisfied that it is "Berkeley" over there and that "Berkley" is
either a misspelling or a contraction. This is more than I ever wanted
to know. I'm not even going to go find out where "Barclay" square is. I
doubt there's much cycling tech activity there, anyway...

Cheers,

Tom

Tom said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"James Thomson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Tom" <[email hidden]> a écrit:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> In the movie it was "Berkeley", while in the song it was "Berkley".
> The song title used "Berkley" perhaps as a contraction of "Berkeley"
> ("Berk'ley"😉 due to the necessity of keeping the meter of the song (which
> would have been compromised if sung as "Berk-uh-ley"😉.
In the local pronunciation, Berkeley has only two sylables.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Square

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The song, the square, and the Gloucestershire town all share the same
spelling.

Quoted message said:

Song title is 'A Nightingale Sang In Berkley Square'
<http://www.tsrocks.com/v/vera_lynn_texts/a_nightingale_sang_in_berkel....>

Michael -

I find examples of both "Berkeley" and "Berkley" in web-page text, but
these are images that seem definitive. I couldn't find an image of
"Berkley".

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2av4wmhttp://preview.tinyurl.com/2ohp8phttp://preview.tinyurl.com/ys6dmv

I'm satisfied that it is "Berkeley" over there and that "Berkley" is
either a misspelling or a contraction. This is more than I ever wanted
to know. I'm not even going to go find out where "Barclay" square is. I
doubt there's much cycling tech activity there, anyway...

Matbe not, but that nightingale is a helluva time trialer!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> IIRC, good wool jerseys retailed for $35-40 in the mid-1980s.
> According to the inflation calculator at Westegg.com, $35 in "1985
> dollars" is $65.49 in "2006 dollars". so, the price of a wool jersey
> has effectively doubled (adjusted for inflation) in the past ~20
> years. I would consider a new wool jersey if the retail price was
> $65-70; but at $130+, never!

Quoted message said:

You've pretty much nailed the reason a wool jersey costs so much then.
Add
the inflation calculator to the devaluation of the dollar that's
happened
during the same time frame, and you probably get darn close to the $130
current pricing.

Wool jerseys have been pricey for several years, whilst the decline of
the dollar is a bit more recent. And, do not inflation figures account
for currency value?- Hide quoted text -

Inflation figures show the overall average for everything a typical person
buys. There's no built-in adjustment for currency devaluation, beyond the
extent to which currency devaluation has increased the overall cost of
living. The relationship between the value of the dollar and overall
inflation is not positive, and over the course of time, may in fact show to
be negative.

But fear not; every once in a blue moon, important people meet to discuss
what should, and should not, be included in the various inflation indices.
Perhaps you can make a compelling case for them to kick out something
insignificant, like, say, a half gallon of milk, and replace it with wool
cycling jerseys!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

And of course the dollar devaluation in the past 3 years should only
affect imports. So any and all wool clothes made in the USA should be
unaffected. Unless the wool is imported. But I was reading on a wool
website that the US is a wool exporter in total. So I think marketing
is the reason wool jerseys are expensive, not currency fluctuations or
inflation. Wool is in so people will pay.

Domestic wool is not used in cycling jerseys. I don't know why; I don't even
know where it goes. I should, as my grandparents were farmers, as is my
Uncle, and they used to raise sheep. For info on who is actually producing
wool these days, check this out-
http://www.woolisbest.com/documents/woolfacts_0410.pdf. The US isn't even in
the top-10 anymore. Not for production *or* importation.

Not surprisingly, China sucks up a LOT of wool. More than 3 times the next
country (Italy), and that was in 2004. I'll bet it's even more lopsided
today.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

>> Why don't you just wear heavier synthetic jerseys? Or several
>> layers? I'm sure wool clothes work but as Ozark said, the price is
>> unbelievable.

Quoted message said:

> IIRC, good wool jerseys retailed for $35-40 in the mid-1980s.
> According to the inflation calculator at Westegg.com, $35 in "1985
> dollars" is $65.49 in "2006 dollars". so, the price of a wool jersey
> has effectively doubled (adjusted for inflation) in the past ~20
> years. I would consider a new wool jersey if the retail price was
> $65-70; but at $130+, never!

Quoted message said:

You've pretty much nailed the reason a wool jersey costs so much then.
Add
the inflation calculator to the devaluation of the dollar that's
happened
during the same time frame, and you probably get darn close to the $130
current pricing.

Wool jerseys have been pricey for several years, whilst the decline of
the dollar is a bit more recent. And, do not inflation figures account
for currency value?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And of course the dollar devaluation in the past 3 years should only
affect imports. So any and all wool clothes made in the USA should be
unaffected. Unless the wool is imported. But I was reading on a wool
website that the US is a wool exporter in total. So I think marketing
is the reason wool jerseys are expensive, not currency fluctuations or
inflation. Wool is in so people will pay.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > IIRC, good wool jerseys retailed for $35-40 in the mid-1980s.
> > According to the inflation calculator at Westegg.com, $35 in "1985
> > dollars" is $65.49 in "2006 dollars". so, the price of a wool jersey
> > has effectively doubled (adjusted for inflation) in the past ~20
> > years. I would consider a new wool jersey if the retail price was
> > $65-70; but at $130+, never!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> You've pretty much nailed the reason a wool jersey costs so much then.
> Add
> the inflation calculator to the devaluation of the dollar that's
> happened
> during the same time frame, and you probably get darn close to the $130
> current pricing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wool jerseys have been pricey for several years, whilst the decline of
the dollar is a bit more recent. And, do not inflation figures account
for currency value?- Hide quoted text -

Inflation figures show the overall average for everything a typical person
buys. There's no built-in adjustment for currency devaluation, beyond the
extent to which currency devaluation has increased the overall cost of
living.

That makes sense.

Quoted message said:

The relationship between the value of the dollar and overall
inflation is not positive, and over the course of time, may in fact show to
be negative.

Do you have a reference for this?

Quoted message said:

But fear not; every once in a blue moon, important people meet to discuss
what should, and should not, be included in the various inflation indices.
Perhaps you can make a compelling case for them to kick out something
insignificant, like, say, a half gallon of milk, and replace it with wool
cycling jerseys!

Perhaps they'll even replace it with carbon fiber, eh? ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > IIRC, good wool jerseys retailed for $35-40 in the mid-1980s.
> > > According to the inflation calculator at Westegg.com, $35 in "1985
> > > dollars" is $65.49 in "2006 dollars". so, the price of a wool
> > > jersey
> > > has effectively doubled (adjusted for inflation) in the past ~20
> > > years. I would consider a new wool jersey if the retail price was
> > > $65-70; but at $130+, never!

Quoted message said:

> > You've pretty much nailed the reason a wool jersey costs so much
> > then.
> > Add
> > the inflation calculator to the devaluation of the dollar that's
> > happened
> > during the same time frame, and you probably get darn close to the
> > $130
> > current pricing.

Quoted message said:

> Wool jerseys have been pricey for several years, whilst the decline of
> the dollar is a bit more recent. And, do not inflation figures account
> for currency value?- Hide quoted text -

Inflation figures show the overall average for everything a typical
person
buys. There's no built-in adjustment for currency devaluation, beyond the
extent to which currency devaluation has increased the overall cost of
living.

That makes sense.

Quoted message said:

The relationship between the value of the dollar and overall
inflation is not positive, and over the course of time, may in fact show
to
be negative.

Do you have a reference for this?

It's a tough one; you can do a google on it and find reports showing both
positive and negative correlations. Inflation as we're comfortable defining
it (in other words, ignoring those who feel that, from the day we got rid of
gold as the standard for our currency, we introduced all manner of hidden,
demonic inflationary devices that are deliberately kept out of the indices)
has been on a decline from 1990-2004. That can be seen here-
http://www.inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Annual_Inflation/annual_inflation_chart.htm

The dollar was on a decline from 1990-1995, and then began an upward climb
from then through 2001 against most major currencies. Since 2001, we have
seen a steady decline in the US Dollar vs the Euro (the single easiest
relevant currency to compare it to). You can play around with various
currencies here- http://www.measuringworth.com/exchangeglobal/

So perhaps there is no clear correlation at all! It's enough to make your
head spin if you really get inside all the numbers. Unfortunately, I can't
avoid it; it was my chosen field of study in college. Trust me, there are
very good reasons why I chose a different path. When I graduated, the world
was still reeling from the impact of the dissolution of the Bretton Woods
currency agreements.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But fear not; every once in a blue moon, important people meet to discuss
what should, and should not, be included in the various inflation
indices.
Perhaps you can make a compelling case for them to kick out something
insignificant, like, say, a half gallon of milk, and replace it with wool
cycling jerseys!

Perhaps they'll even replace it with carbon fiber, eh? ;-)

Perhaps! But I hope not. I think the price of a half-gallon of milk is more
relevant to this country's well-being than the price of a carbon fiber
frame. Or wool jersey.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

> > > IIRC, good wool jerseys retailed for $35-40 in the mid-1980s.
> > > According to the inflation calculator at Westegg.com, $35 in "1985
> > > dollars" is $65.49 in "2006 dollars". so, the price of a wool
> > > jersey
> > > has effectively doubled (adjusted for inflation) in the past ~20
> > > years. I would consider a new wool jersey if the retail price was
> > > $65-70; but at $130+, never!

Quoted message said:

> > You've pretty much nailed the reason a wool jersey costs so much
> > then.
> > Add
> > the inflation calculator to the devaluation of the dollar that's
> > happened
> > during the same time frame, and you probably get darn close to the
> > $130
> > current pricing.

Quoted message said:

> Wool jerseys have been pricey for several years, whilst the decline of
> the dollar is a bit more recent. And, do not inflation figures account
> for currency value?- Hide quoted text -

Inflation figures show the overall average for everything a typical
person
buys. There's no built-in adjustment for currency devaluation, beyond the
extent to which currency devaluation has increased the overall cost of
living.

That makes sense.

Quoted message said:

The relationship between the value of the dollar and overall
inflation is not positive, and over the course of time, may in fact show
to
be negative.

Do you have a reference for this?

Quoted message said:

But fear not; every once in a blue moon, important people meet to discuss
what should, and should not, be included in the various inflation
indices.
Perhaps you can make a compelling case for them to kick out something
insignificant, like, say, a half gallon of milk, and replace it with wool
cycling jerseys!

Perhaps they'll even replace it with carbon fiber, eh? ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

> I've been thinking abt switching back to wool as well.
>
> If you read the Rivendell catalog they seem to swear by it

I'm waiting for someone to claim that wool shorts with real leather
chamois are a great idea. Since Rivendell has now been brought
up...

Yeah, right. For my money, "fake" chamois and lycra shorts, as
opposed to the "real" things, are the best improvements in cycling
equipment since the pneumatic tire. Those old shorts are horrible.

Yeah, wool is just what you need in 100+ degree temperatures.

In general, I agree. I have a pair of wool Kucharik shorts that have a
synthetic chamois and are very comfortable even in warm weather. But
they lack, ummm, support which can lead to some discomfort. The wool
isn't really any hotter than Lycra, since the latter doesn't breath very
well at all. But OTOH Lycra doesn't sag or just about fall off you if
it gets rained on and the legs don't creep up as you ride. People used
to wear suspenders with their wool shorts.

Kucharik was actually one of the first to come up with a reasonable
alternative to wool. Helenca, I think the fabric was called. Not the
greatest by today's standards, but much nicer than the wool of the day. Some
of the wool shorts Kucharik sold were a "blend" of wool and nylon (which he
also used in some of his jerseys) and were a step up as well. If the shorts
you own are fairly thin, that's probably what they are.

Quoted message said:

The other thing I find is that Lycra shorts last much, much longer than
wool shorts. Wool doesn't have much abrasion resistance.

OK, so we're still waiting for someone to stand up for wool shorts with a
"real" leather chamois. Oh heck, we'll even settle for just one of the two!
Any takers?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

David L. Johnson said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

> I've been thinking abt switching back to wool as well.
>
> If you read the Rivendell catalog they seem to swear by it

I'm waiting for someone to claim that wool shorts with real leather
chamois are a great idea. Since Rivendell has now been brought
up...

Yeah, right. For my money, "fake" chamois and lycra shorts, as
opposed to the "real" things, are the best improvements in cycling
equipment since the pneumatic tire. Those old shorts are horrible.

Yeah, wool is just what you need in 100+ degree temperatures.

In general, I agree. I have a pair of wool Kucharik shorts that have a
synthetic chamois and are very comfortable even in warm weather. But
they lack, ummm, support which can lead to some discomfort. The wool
isn't really any hotter than Lycra, since the latter doesn't breath very
well at all. But OTOH Lycra doesn't sag or just about fall off you if
it gets rained on and the legs don't creep up as you ride. People used
to wear suspenders with their wool shorts.

The other thing I find is that Lycra shorts last much, much longer than
wool shorts. Wool doesn't have much abrasion resistance.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> I've been thinking abt switching back to wool as well.
>>
>> If you read the Rivendell catalog they seem to swear by it
> I'm waiting for someone to claim that wool shorts with real leather
> chamois are a great idea. Since Rivendell has now been brought
> up...
Yeah, right. For my money, "fake" chamois and lycra shorts, as
opposed to the "real" things, are the best improvements in cycling
equipment since the pneumatic tire. Those old shorts are horrible.

Yeah, wool is just what you need in 100+ degree temperatures.

In general, I agree. I have a pair of wool Kucharik shorts that have a
synthetic chamois and are very comfortable even in warm weather. But
they lack, ummm, support which can lead to some discomfort. The wool
isn't really any hotter than Lycra, since the latter doesn't breath very
well at all. But OTOH Lycra doesn't sag or just about fall off you if
it gets rained on and the legs don't creep up as you ride. People used
to wear suspenders with their wool shorts.

Kucharik was actually one of the first to come up with a reasonable
alternative to wool. Helenca, I think the fabric was called. Not the
greatest by today's standards, but much nicer than the wool of the day. Some
of the wool shorts Kucharik sold were a "blend" of wool and nylon (which he
also used in some of his jerseys) and were a step up as well. If the shorts
you own are fairly thin, that's probably what they are.

Quoted message said:

The other thing I find is that Lycra shorts last much, much longer than
wool shorts. Wool doesn't have much abrasion resistance.

OK, so we're still waiting for someone to stand up for wool shorts with a
"real" leather chamois. Oh heck, we'll even settle for just one of the two!
Any takers?

Mike,

Mr. K still makes me shorts with real chamois and no padding. He doesn't
stock them in the store that way; I have to come back in a couple of
days to pick them up.

My last pair of woolen shorts retired in about 1993 or so. I remember
that they had a large hole right smack dab in the middle of my left butt
cheek. I tried to patch them, but never with any success. I retired them
about two rides short of an obscenity charge...

Cheers,

Tom

THERE ARE COLUMBIA 2 PACKS IN THIS LIST
very comfortable, when new more comfort than synthetics but not as
effective.
The Chinese and walmart are putting the hurt on North Englands wool
producers.

http://www.campmor.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/campmor/search/main.jsp?ip_server=&ip_text=&ip_searchWithin=Off&ip_config=&ip_page=1&ip_constrain=&ip_relax=&ip_sortBy=&ip_perPage=&ip_viewBy=&ip_autoSummarize=&ip_summarizeBy=&ip_expandDrillDown=&ip_collapsDrillDown=&ip_logNrow=&ip_logFeatureId=&ip_logHref=&ip_textRemoveTerm=&ip_state=c0%3Di%253A1%253B770%253BCategories%252CDescription%252CName%253BWOOL%252CSOCKS%253B%253Awool%252C%253Asock%253B1%252C1%252C2%252C1%253B%252B0%2B%252B1%26q%3D25%26as%3D1%26i%3DCATENTRY_ID%26k0.0%3DWOOL%2BSOCKS%26qt%3D1195790935%26qid%3Dq8EK2Q9oHfHVr%26tq%3D1%26vid%3Dv4oLWaZ3XA53M%26qtid%3Dq8EK2Q9oHfHVr%26s1%3DCATENTRY_ID%252F%252F1%26v0%3DWOOL%2BSOCKS%26rid%3DrWDbvymNDD9TG%26s0%3Diphrase%2Brelevance%252F%252F0%26t%3D0&ip_bizRuleSrc=

that's a linkful it's campmor.com> search wool socks in left top field

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

OK, so we're still waiting for someone to stand up for wool shorts with a
"real" leather chamois. Oh heck, we'll even settle for just one of the
two! Any takers?

Stand up?
Whasup?

mk5000

Quoted message said:

"in order to adjust itself
in order to adjust itself
horse meat on monkey day?
you again reads itself"--the matrix of the matrix of the matrix, "--jd
nelson

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom said:

Crescentius Vespasianus said:

Any websites that sell good wool jerseys? I'm just tired of

freezing my

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ass in synthetics that promise but don't deliver.

Mr. Kucharik still sells wool and has been in business since dirt was

new.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't think their prices are outrageous and I know their quality is
excellent. I've been buying from him since the early 70's - never had

an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

article I wasn't happy with.

http://www.kucharikclothing.com/all-wool-c-43.html?osCsid=9ef02e89810...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cheers,

Tom

Thanks for that link, I had forgotten about Kucharik. Less than $60
for a LS "wool blend" jersey is a good deal. I'm tempted......

I have at least 4 Kucharik jerseys. They're very well made and
comfortable. Only one problem with wool, I perspire a lot and when I stop
at a store or restaurant after I hard ride I smell like a wet dog. After a
short while the wool jerseys dry out and the smell goes away.

Chas.