Folks,
The reason, I omitted frames from my original rant is because I actually believe that the technology has improved here. Apparently the quality of tubing is better. No one has to deal with rust scaled tubes, and a greater variety of sizes, shapes, and materials appear to be available. IIRC, even Richard Sachs has been known to build with OS tubes. (anyway, if he didn't, there were some lovely Waterford/Paramount frames made that way, one of which I would gladly own.) Of course, today it is harder to build to build the artisan type bikes as nothing but investment cast lugs are manufactured (and apparently fewer of those), not to mention the economics of competing with third world labor.
As to the methods of joining and aesthetics, I think Brandon has it right: De gustibus non disputatum est. (Roughly: No accounting for taste.) And as I mentioned earlier, I saw a TIGed road frame in 1977. I imagine folks were doing them before that.
Further, I have to disagree about the importance of wheel weight. While everyone claims wheel weight matters (and to a lesser extent weight matters), I think that is a canard. Weight is the old stupid trend, just as colored tires (or tyres) are the new stupid trend. Weight anywhere is pretty much immaterial to performance. (Yes, and I have seen the website with model where you change input and it seems to imly weight matters somewhat. The assumption used in this model is a linear relationship between weight and rolling resistance. The particular coefficient is not empirically documented, so I question its validity.)
I think durability, compatibility, and the ability to rebuild parts are what makes the 1984 components better. (And, yes, the finish is generally better on the new stuff.)
John Taglia
Chicago, mid 50's & cloudy
We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.
Justice Louis D. Brandels