Re: [Classicrendezvous] Re: Frame tubing & chrome

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Ideale)

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:33:44 -0400
From: Jerry Moos <>
To: PeterGrenader <>
Subject: Re: [Classicrendezvous] Re: Frame tubing & chrome
References: <> <001c01c0392d$9aafd4e0$2b24c5a9@davebohm> <> <000c01c039a3$8a9384f0$> <>

I'm not so sure $500 is that far out of line, Peter. I mean, have you looked at the price of optional chrome lately, or even of having chrome lugs replated during restorations? It's really expensive, in large part due to new environmental regulations. If stainless can give the same appearance as chrome without weakening the frame, it might be $500 well spent.


Jerry Moos

PeterGrenader wrote:
> I'm probably gonna get shot for this, but a good friend of mine has a
> Waterford with stainless lugs. It's a beautiful bike, it is. But I cannot
> imagine for the life of me why the addition of stainless lugs (which appear
> naked only at the headtube and are not all that finished) should constitute a
> $500 upcharge. After he saw the frame the owner was a bit shocked as well,
> let me tell ya.
> Richard Rose wrote:
> > Jerry, you might be interested in taking a look @ Waterford's website. They
> > are offering a stainless steel (polished), option on their frames @ a
> > $500.00 upcharge! Looks real nice too. Also, they have quite a bit of
> > technical info regarding the tubes used in their bikes - real proponents of
> > 853 I might add. I do not think that anyone would accuse Waterford of not
> > making a quality product made to last indefinitely or for following "fads"
> > for that matter.
> > Cheers,
> > Richard Rose (Toledo, Ohio)
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jerry Moos <>
> > To: dave bohm <>
> > Cc: <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 3:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Classicrendezvous] Re: Frame tubing & chrome