> The Waterford vs Masi theme was aired a couple summers ago.
Some
> of you may remember that was a thread raised to highlight the
> differing values we each bring to bear when attempting to
explain
> what we liked/disliked about a particular bicycle frame. In
that
> example the Masi clearly had more history and "intrinsic"
value -
> some would say mojo, (though that word seems a bit off timeline
> here). The Waterford served to represent the idea that a modern
> frame made essentially like an older one could or maybe could
not
> compare on physical details alone. I guess that was a bit of an
> abstraction. But some seemed to get the drift.
>
> This latest go round of old and new Hetchins, seems at the root
> related to that earlier thread. I have been surprised as I'd
> thought we'd put the specifics of he Hetchins story to bed
> several months ago with the publishing of the history of the
> brand and the quite clear establishment of business continuity.
> While Hetchins surely aint Ford Motor Company and all that
> implies, I still find it hard to deny the firm its do as an
> ongoing entity. You can buy a Model T as a collectible and all
> the modern replacement fixings to keep it going or you can buy
an
> Explorer and not worry about intrinsic/collectible issues. You
> can buy an original 1953 T Bird and/or you can buy the latest
new
> and improved T Bird. And I bet this debate sorta kinda goes on
> about those. You pays your money and takes your choices. Theyre
> all Fords.
>
> Not sure I agree Ron Cooper made Bates are the same thing, but
> lets not get that going........
>
> But, lets up the ante a little. How about we push the
discussion
> towards a ground that may be a little less comfortable. After
our
> interest in bicyles prior to 1983 or 4 or 5 (whatever) we also
> support Torchbearers - those keepers of the flame - those new
> makers that continue to make in traditional ways and evolve the
> form - agreed?
>
> Several of those guys contribute generously of their time to
this
> list. And many of us hope to buy a frame or two from them one
of
> these days so theres an inherent conflict in this discussion,
but
> let's see if anyone's game to try this.
>
> Without naming names (or please do if you like) how does this
> list view current makers of "custom" steel lugged frames that
buy
> lugs, tubing, paint and transfers and essentially add value by
> measuring the customer, cutting/mitering tubes, brazing the
> assembly and shipping vs a maker who makes lugs or starts with
> lugs that are quite ill defined then files, saws and coerces
the
> lugs into unique and one of a kind shapes? And paints? And how
> would we rank a framemaker who utilizes some form of mass
> production technique say by making forks and rear triangles
ahead
> as subassemblies and assembles them to the main triangle,
making
> the main triangle the only real source of customization vs a
> maker who makes every tube of every frame one at a time for
each
> order? How do we think of framemakers who promote themselves,
> thus creating a "brand" vs those that quietly just toil away
and
> hope they get noticed? Should the work of the "branded" maker
be
> more valueable then the unknown? Is that "branding" the
beginning
> of the intrinsic stuff we see adding value when we look in the
> rear view mirror?
>
> Monkeyman, sorry but the fact that a framemaker is 3000 miles
> away and therefore not local - so disqualified - doesnt count.
>
> Tom Rawson
> Oakland, CA