reply interspered. On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:11:49 +0000 Bob Reid <bob.reid2@virgin.net> writes: Where the logic is in claiming this treatment of the seat stay to be "Masi" style ? RS: it's not logical at all. but to save this debate from reaching any conclusion (!!!) it seems logical to conclude that, because masi was the first known brand to exploit the style, then "Masi" style is good enough for me. and, to me it represents generic nomenclature, like xerox and kleenex and mountainbike, the last name glommed even after it was registered as a corporate brand.
There appears to be plenty of evidence - both anecdotal and real to show
that this style was more commonplace some twenty years if not longer,
before
Masi claims to have "designed" them. duh - Am I missing something here
?
RS: claimed? consider the source. it was a second generaton quote pulled
from an article printed in the 80s in a now defunct periodical. who
really
knows what the answer to the question was, or even if there was a
relevant
question posed to him.
This is surely just another case of a framebuilder picking up and running
with a design feature that was clearly plagerised from somewhere or
someone
else ? Hardly innovative, and not uncommon, though perhaps it was in mid
60's Italy. A style or feature used by Masi but hardly a unique "Masi"
style.
RS: agreed 100%, but the point of the thread supports, to me, calling
it "Masi" style. fwiw, all other builder offered a variety of styles.
masi
took THIS style, refined it, exploited it, and made it work.
The best example I have (of course) is of a Flying Scot - one of many
produced in 1947 (around 1000 that year apparently) with the same
treatment
to the end of the stay, in the last year or so before they changed to the
semi-wrapround. These are not crudely bashed steel caps by any manner.
RS: there's no debate that variations on the theme always existed.
please
read my original post about this.
e-RICHIE
chester, ct