I admit I didn't even know what a "KOF" was until I had joined the CR List . And was too embarassed to ask. I think it's swell there are folks who st ill build bikes the traditional way.
But I am not in the market for them.
Why?
Because I don't quite see the point. A good steel, lugged frame of the right size and geometry and build quality is the same if it's built c. 1 956 or 2006. And an original classic frame from one of the famous builders o r manufacturers has the added benefit of the history, tradition and ethos that comes with it. And such frames can be restored to within a inch of their lives so you can, if you wish, have perfection instead of patina. And what of components? Mitch Butler suggests 1970s-80s components on these.
Hmmm? Now that really does beg the question. Why? If anything, moder n components are superior than the old ones in terms of performance. And i f you accept 1970s bits, why not 1970s frames? To me, if you bought into t he KOF idea, you'd go for modern components and not "try" to be retro. Rea l retro is, if anything, a LOT cheaper. That gorgeous 1954 Stella I lusted
over on eBay sold for about a third of a fully fitted out KOF. Pristine.
Perfect. Real character. Original. And cheaper, too.
So it's a matter of horses for courses. I have no "problem" with KOF thi s or that. But until the supply of original 59 cm-62 cm racing frames from
the CR List era runs out, I just can't see myself being in the market for one.
Peter Kohler Washington DC USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/