Re: [CR]measuring ugliness

(Example: Racing:Jacques Boyer)

From: "ternst" <ternst1@cox.net>
To: "HM & SS Sachs" <sachs@erols.com>, "Classic Rendezvous" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>, <chasds@mindspring.com>
References: <41915D70.8060701@erols.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]measuring ugliness
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:57:29 -0800
reply-type=response

Ladies and Gentlemen: Give it a break!
             Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder!
          One man's meat is another man's poison!
                   There's a cover for every pot! You are beating the pretties and the uglies to death with every scrap length of tubing in all the framebuilders back yards. Who cares? Enjoy what you and all the other neat collectors have. Have likes, dislikes, but have fun and learn about bikes.
   That's what I enjoy about the CR.
   If I really want to see beauty I get up early and watch the sun rise or bask in a sunset, feel humble in the vastness of it all while putting the rest of "stuff" in perspective. Ted Ernst.


----- Original Message -----
From: HM & SS Sachs
To: Classic Rendezvous


<chasds@mindspring.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 4:14 PM Subject: re: [CR]measuring ugliness


>I suspect that our colleague Mr. Andrews is trolling, and I take the bait.
> I object, in concept, to the attempt to formulaically determine ugliness.
> Ugly is a "value" or "quality," and neither scalar nor vector. The
> assumption that everything can be - and should be - quantified is a
> conceit that must have been originated with economists, not physical
> scientists. I hope that we will not digress from real discussion (both
> serious and humorous) of that which bonds us (vintage bikes), for
> something that can't converge in a meaningful way.
>
> Please pardon the rant; I'm gagging on what I hope was humorous bait.
> Please reply off-list, or better, let's just drop this.
>
> harvey sachs
> "Economists think they know the price of everything, which means they know
> the value of nothing."
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> After a bit of off-list correspondence with a couple of
> list members, I have a challenge for the mathematically-minded among us.
>
> This challenge comes out of some idle chatter
> about that Colnago Export frame on ebay.
> I think the seat-cluster is butt-ugly, and
> the question was raised "how do you measure
> ugly?"
>
> I propose that one *could* measure ugly, with
> the right formula or equation. I am not sufficiently trained
> in the science of measurement to design
> such a formula, but I'm sure there are people
> here who *are* so trained.
>
> Whoever comes up with the most useful formula (that is, can be used
> without fear
> of *meaningful* refutation in conversation
> with like-minded obsessives, and could also
> be used in Concours, and the like), will get
> a prize from moi, yet to be determined.
>
> Discussion can take place off list, or on it,
> unless or until the omnipotent list-master calls a halt
> to list discussion of the matter (I figured he might want to compete
> himself, although what he'd need my prize
> for I can't imagine, he probably has three already,
> whatever the prize ends up being)
>
> ..it'll be a good
> prize too.
>
> The formula, or metric, must take into account
> the following, in some fashion:
>
> *the collecting experience, in years, of the person making the
> judgement of ugliness
>
> *the number of bikes of the same national origin,
> quality, and value, owned by the judge
>
> *the fair market value of said bikes
>
> *if the judge has designed and built more than 20 custom, high-quality
> lugged steel frames with their own hands, the collecting experience
> number is increased by some factor to be determined.
>
> The judge need not currently own any bikes, the *number of bikes*
> may include *all* bikes of the relevant kind that the judge has owned
> in the past, even if they have none in the present.
>
> The result of the formula must describe ugliness by a number that falls
> into a consistent range of numbers
> without reference to any other judge's result... the range
> can be 1-10, 1-100, or may be some fraction, as long as
> the number, and the range of ugliness, is predictable.
>
> the idea is to flatten the subjectivity of the judgement,
> and render some useful description of the ugliness
> involved.

>

> Have at it.

>

> Charles Andrews

> SoCal