Well, there are a lot of different ways for these names to get passed along, and I react to them slightly differently. For instance (as far as I can recall), Activision passed through a crazy series of mergers and bankruptcies and offspins and so forth, but never entirely ceased to exist and then some other company started using the name (like Atari). It's like the difference between someone who has changed so much you don't really know him any more, but is still the same actual dude, and someone who is obviously a different dude wearing a rubber mask. :) For whatever reason, the latter annoys me a lot more than the former.

In the case of things like Springfield Armory's "since 1794" nonsense and "H&R 1871", it especially irritates me because they are explicitly trading on a history that isn't theirs. I guess the difference in how I react to "heritage brands" in general is whether it feels like homage or deception.

(Or, to take a converse example, a repellently transparent financial dodge, like the "new" General Motors skiving off the old one's debts and contracts because Oh, We're a Totally Different Company, We Just Bought the IP—Honest.)

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.