Would you care to elaborate on how workmanship was affected by period as applied to bicycles within our area of interest? Are you saying that the makers of yesteryear had to work faster to survive, therefore the level of "quality" deemed appropriate by the top names was different than today? It seems odd that some bikes by a specific maker within a certain period were well done, and others sloppy. Not being a frame builder, I may be taking liberties here, but if the challenge of good workmanship is not a priority, the work would seem to be pretty boreing. The interest lies in the financial profits? I hope our heroes weren't wealthy and bored. I'd like to get a better idea of the mind set of the old builders.
> mikey, mikey, mikey...
> this would be a tough thread - because the rose coloured*
> glasses would need thicker and thicker lenses to really
> disect CR era stuff in the vein that u r suggesting. i think
> the derosa that is depicted is/was state of the art re "work-
> manship" back then. otoh, when i stripped the paint from my
> TWO italian 71 masis i was aghast at the level of heavy-handness
> that was evident. i even wrote about it in my tome, Period Correct®.
> i think the issue will become linked to our antenaes (sp?) going
> up much higher now than they were able to go in the 70s. it's
> an across-the-board problem when retrospecting. i like keeping
> things within their respective eras. my opinion of the a singers was
> based in a 2003 sensibility, but i think the derosa and others like
> them were mighty fine for 70s work. the only builder whose frames
> i saw (read: I SAW...) back then whose work and workmanship crossed
> eras was w.b. hurlow.