Re: [CR]Pog: Reynolds V Columbus

(Example: Framebuilding:Tubing)

From: <"">
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:00:28 GMT
Subject: Re: [CR]Pog: Reynolds V Columbus


>From what I've seen of Pogliaghi frames from the 60's and early 70's is that more than any other small Italian builder of note; Pogliaghi has th e most variations and custom stays and such than anyone else of the peri od. He must have had some special relationship with Columbus (often time s in Italy these associations can even be through marriage and relatives , etc.). Sante, I believe, was very sensitive to special tube shapes and may even be considered a pioneer of same.

Regarding the choice to use Reynolds and/or Columbus tubes in any given frame; those choices are virtually always for a reason. There is too muc h to explain here how framebuilders relate to each of the frame tubes an d their makers; but suffice it to say that these choices are very intent ional.

Brian Baylis La Mesa, CA Reynolds 531 and Columbus SL are as dependable as tubing gets in my opin ion. I like either; I'll take both. Same answer for chololate or vanilla
   ice cream.

-- Jack Gabus wrote:

Why would Sante Choose Reynolds over Columbus tubing (and Visa versa)? Is this also a date indicator or would this be the choice of the rider etc:

Or is this Sante at again being rather mercurial about what and how he chooses to build his frames?

More meal for the grist.


Jack (Giacomo) GabusLaguna Beach, CA http://www.wo

__________________________________________________________________ __________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.