Re: [CR]hetchins lugs--pet peeve

Example: Framebuilding:Norris Lockley

Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 18:49:27 -0400
Subject: Re: [CR]hetchins lugs--pet peeve
From: Richard M Sachs <>

i agree with you, chas. i think they were okay conceptually. but the execution rarely was up to the level you'd expect if you were a discering frame aficionado. funny, though - these "warts" are part and parcel of this type of frame's heritage. few folks would talk about this stuff back in the day - only in hindsight do we disect all the details in an analytical way. e-RICHIE chester, ct

On Wed, 19 May 2004 15:38:21 -0700 (GMT-07:00) writes: After examining quite a few Hetchins (I confess it, I don't own one myself---although a very early one would be of interest)..

... I've decided that they'd all look a whole lot better if whoever built them had been a little more careful during the filing/sanding polishing stage of finish. All that fancy metal-work is rounded-off in the most discouraging way. Edges are not clean and crisp, the profile of the lugwork is usually radiused to some degree...

(that is, metal of the fancy-work is high in the middle, low on the's all rounded off in such a way that none of the edges are clear..if I'm making any sense here.. much easier to see than describe)....

... I'm thinking how much prettier such things would be if they were finished off the way Baylis does it, or the way Richard Moon does it.

Being able to see the metal-work clearly is a great aesthetic pleasure, as anyone who's ever taken a close look at a Baylis frame can confirm.

Charles "I wish they'd been a bit more finicky about that kind of thing over there at Hetchins" Andrews SoCal