And kinda tacky, too.
Regards,
John "Kinda Francophile" Taglia Chicago, 28 with occasional snow squalls
At 01:37 PM 3/25/2001 -0500, Jerry & Liz Moos wrote:
>I've never been a huge fan of these, perhaps because I'm a contrarian and
when I started riding, it seemed that these were all you saw in the bike
magasines. My problem with them is that beneath the pantagraphing, the
late 70's Italian models were all the same, same tubing, same geometry,
same brazeons or lack thereof, same Campy NR/SR equipment. I don't have a
single conventional classic Italian bike, only the oddball stuff, like
ALANs and a 1968 Legnano and a Windsor Pro imitation Italian bike from
Mexico. I think maybe I should buy one bike of this style, but I don't
>really think it matters if it is Colnago, DeRosa, Guerciotti, Olmo,
Tommasini, whatever. Seemed that they only varied by whether the
pantographing and the lug cutouts were clubs, hearts, stars or diamonds. I
think the height of lightweights were the French touring bikes, like Singer
and Herse. Features combined form and function, with internal wiring,
take-apart frames, stems slotted for brake cables, brazeon brake pivots,
etc. By comparison, the Italian 70's racing models were exercises in
gratuitous decoration.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jerry Moos
>
>LouDeeter@aol.com wrote:
>
>> My vote would go to any of the fully pantographed bikes from the late
70s with Nuovo or Super Record parts. Most of these were Italian. I
believe the best lugged steel frames are still being made, in the U.S., by
the likes of Brian Baylis, Richard Sachs, John Murphy (Columbine), Tom
Kellogg, and Peter Weigle. You can hang whatever parts you want on them,
but the fineness of materials, the expertness of their experience, and the
precision of the painting is as high as it has ever been; no offense
intended to the builders who have passed before. Lou Deeter, Huntsville AL