Re: [CR]was "33". was "confente". now "lug filing".

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Chater-Lea)

Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:52:24 GMT
To: richardsachs@juno.com
Subject: Re: [CR]was "33". was "confente". now "lug filing".
From: <brianbaylis@juno.com>
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

Richard,

I didn't say that frames that have nicely filed lugs are no longer available; I said they are nearly extinct. That means that while once there were many framebuilders filing lugs (to a degree out of neccessity), there now is nearly no one who wants to put in the time and effort to make a more refined than "normal" frame these days.

Back in the day, most notable framebuilders had a style of filing and finishing lugs that gave the bike a look that was recognizable and refined as compared to the production bikes of the day. The first bike I ever saw with a real extensive file job would be Eisentraut. Although I think that style is too thin for my taste, at the time it was distinctive, along with the other unique traits of the frame like the binder arrangement. Mark DiNucci, Keith Lippy, Dana Fennimore, Wizard Cycles, Peter Weigle, Mark Nobelette, Chris Kvale, Doug Fattic, W.B. Hurlow, Ephgrave, Tom Kellogg and many others had the eye and the hand for filing nice lugs. Some of these guys are still doing it, along with a VERY few newer guys like Richard Moon. I'm sure they feel, as I do, that there is another level of craftsmanship involved in making frames this way. Many consumers can't really see the extra work in such frames nor want to pay the extra money; but some still do and we should continue to persist at resisting out of the box frame construction if that is what you prefer to do. Both ways are valid, there is a place for everyone and everything; but they are NOT all the same. No one is claiming one is better than the other, there is a difference and we should seek to recognise and acknowledge these subtle refinements and not downplay them as unneccessary or irrelevent to framebuilding. The satisfaction of making such frames is more than enough to justify doing it for those who are so inclined. We as framebuilders should recognize this aspect of the craft also, and not diminish the fact that those who take the extra time to refine the lugs are also taking extra time in every aspect of framebuilding to insure that the refined lugs adorn a refined frame as well.

Brian Baylis
La Mesa, CA


-- Richard M Sachs wrote:
snipped:

brianbaylis@juno.com writes: "I need to get back to Richies lug question. <cut> I'll respond to Richies' question about lugs, which has nothing to do with effeciency. My point has either been avoided or missed."

bb it was missed. that's why i rephrased the question and axed you to "name names" so i could get a grip on who you are saying once built frames/filed lugs in the fashion that you describe as being no longer available. i'm not interested in arguing for the sake of it; from an academic standpoint, i truly want to know. to wit - we agree that there are scores of builders that created "ornate" lugs using a variety of tech- niques. some executed these spires, curls, windows, fleur de lis, etcetera, better than others. i read from your posts that this is not the relevant issue, but the technique in filing those, (and plain styles too), lugs once the frame was built is what you're
talking about.
who were these builders?
e-RICHIE
chester, ct