Re: [CR]Perfection (Like how the lugs on RICHARD'S NAGASAWA gracefully traverse the copes.

(Example: Framebuilders:Dario Pegoretti)

From: <"richardsachs@juno.com">
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 04:21:17 GMT
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: Re: [CR]Perfection (Like how the lugs on RICHARD'S NAGASAWA gracefully traverse the copes.


snipped: "Oh my, introductory intonation from Richard, will he go one way or the other, lets see..."

last post for awhile.
see you.
e-RICHIE


-- Joe Starck wrote:


--- "richardsachs@juno.com" <richardsachs@juno.com> wrote:
>
> <josephbstarck@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >what kind of "goof"
> >qualifies as return-worthy,
> "I erred on some brake bridge placements on a couple
> Hollands -- major goofs -- I added some checks after
> these expensive goofs. And when my work went into
> paint, the painters would occasionally alert me to
> things, and I became more attentive as a result."
>
> === === ===
> thanks for setting the record straight;

Oh my, introductory intonation from Richard, will he go one way or the other, lets see...
>now i
> understand
> the bar of quality you're trying to stay above.

Twice!
> you sold a guy a frame on which you've discovered a
> brazing
> error in the bridge placement and you rectified it,
> re-brazed
> in another one, and passed it off as a "new" frame?

I didn't sell frames. I was a subcontractor for others and for an initial seven years, an employee of Bill Holland. Others sold the frames. In one of my examples of "return-worthy," "a couple Hollands" were received by Holland dealers, and when they realized they had a brake reach problem, BUMMER FOR EVERYONE. The frames came back, I replaced the bridges, the paint was fixed, and the dealers then received the frames. I don't know to what extent the dealer or customers were compensated, so you, Richard, should not have accused anyone of having "passed it off as a 'new' frame."
> i could
> not conceive of ever rebrazing a joint, or replacing
> a
> bridge on a frame without considering it a "repair".
> iow,
> that kind of stuff is unconscienceable (sp?).

Every frame I made ultimately left my hands with innate integrity. I have no doubt that I have much more experience repairing frames than you do, so "rebrazing a joint" aint no big thing to me, it doesn't scare me. It's my call if I want to touch up a lug edge with the torch, and I'll do so if needed, because, I'm not into passing off gaps and file marks to the painter. I think it's unconscionable to pass off things for a painter to take care of, and I think it's unconscionable to act hysterical about "rebrazing;" the frame doesn't suffer from quick precision of a flame, and aesthetics are improved. Now, Richard, are you going to exagerate my words again and claim all my frames have been re-worked, when, IN FACT, they rarely required it?
> how you can endorse this as "acceptable" while
> commenting on the standards of another's metalwork
> is, well, beyond me.

It's acceptable, and expected, to do what it takes to make a thing right, such that the thing has integrity. The HOLLANDS are fine. Your NAGASAWA isn't.

Joe Starck, masidon, wi

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo