Re: [CR]Division of labor

(Example: Events:Eroica)

From: "David Feldman" <feldmans1@earthlink.net>
To: "Dennis Young" <mail@woodworkingboy.com>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <B9EFB8F4.E54%mail@woodworkingboy.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]Division of labor
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 06:48:48 -0600

Considering the people who's names haven't been on the frames they made, there's no way I could consider one automatically inferior--if you have a Mark Bulgier-built Davidson or a Joe Starck-built Masi, for instance, you may likely have something built even better than the person named on the
decal, IMHO.
David Feldman
Vancouver, WA


----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Young
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 8:30 AM
Subject: [CR]Division of labor



> I am curious if people draw the conclusion that frames made in part by
> 'employees' are predictably inferior in quality than those done by the
> 'master'? Aside from the 'romance' of the total job done by the name on the
> tube, is it a quality concern? If that is a yes, then I suggest that it can
> be rather difficult to draw inferences purely on the face of the matter. A
> total'one man' operation in some ways may seem ideal from the outsider's
> perspective, but bear in mind that the one guy may be a master at his trade,
> but that trade also consists of fetching the parts, meeting with customers,
> maintaining the tools, answering the phone (nowadays), cleaning the toilet,
> going to the bank, clearing up the mess, reading the mail, sweeping up the
> joint, dealing with people who think your shop is a clubhouse, etc, etc,
> etc. There are a lot of distractions from the actual act of making the item
> that he is recognized for, which for experienced tradesmen, can be one of
> the easiest parts of the whole equation. Some days are spent working just
> so you can 'get back to work'. Distractions and time away from the actual
> making part are not conducive to produceing the best work. Frame making
> being a manual trade like mine (furniture making), probably the skill level
> on any given day depends on your physical orientation and concentration.
> Too much time away from the bench and the quality and speed starts to slip a
> notch until you can bring it back up to snuff. (Not a long time for old
> pros!) The point is, compare this schedule with a employee who is only
> thinking about his assigned task, (and maybe the pint he is having after
> work with his mates!). Day after day of only doing that, and someone with
> talent and initiative, after some years it sometimes can be difficult to
> judge who is really better at it. Obviously it depends on the degree of
> difficulty and experience, but given the right attitude and level of skill,
> a combined effort can certainly yield masterful results. If this is the
> case, does it really matter if the name on the tube did the whole deal? The
> bottom line is whether the total work meets the master`s standards. In some
> instances, what most differentiates the master from the worker is his level
> of total experience as applied to unusual jobs requireing unusual techniques
> or concepts.
>
> In my trade I have built handmade furniture for presidents and movie moguls,
> and people living in tract houses. Mostly I have worked alone, but I have
> had a few apprentices while working in the US. A skilled craftsman who runs
> a business knows to what extent the hired worker`s level of skill can meet
> his demands. Those who can`t meet the mark can be given the mundane tasks,
> or other initial jobs that the master can then carry through to completion.
> It is a old old practice, even amongst some of the finest and most reputed
> artisans. It speeds up the work! There is nothing quality lowering about
> it, nor 'mojo' compromising I believe. On the contrary, it further allows
> the master to concentrate on those tasks that only he can attend to. The
> person who signs his name to the work is proud to represent the combined
> effort of a diligent crew.....and shhhhhhhh, a little known secret, some
> apprentices get to be better at doing some things than their masters. I had
> one like that once.
>
> I'm not a frame maker. Hope I got it right!
>
> Dennis, still have to pay US taxes, Young
> Hotaka, Japan
>
>
>
> > i agree with you. but 1979 was my first trip to italy,
> > not the first time the light went on. even when i was
> > in london at witcomb lightweight cycles (71-72), the
> > notion of the 'one-man' shop was an anomaly. there
> > were few if any such examples of this enterprise. for
> > instance, prior to arriving there, i wanted to work for
> > mr. hurlow, but couldn't, because he already had younger
> > members of his thanet road club doing some of the work
> > i hoped to learn about. when i was actually in london,
> > i 'heard' similar tales about ron cooper, another archtypical
> > one-man shop. i.e. i cannot recall-i do not know of-any
> > one-man shops from that era. this all ties in with this a.m.'s
> > thread about the word 'built' when describing how 'he actually
> > built' the frame. my intuiton is that there was always 'someone
> > else' doing at least some of the work at the so called
> > one-man shops, regardless of how menial the task was. thus,
> > though i am as curious about all this as are others, i still think
> > that being a framebuilder in those past eras did not always
> > mean that you built the frame.
> > fwiw, i still would like to know what folks think about
> > this 'division of labor' topic because feel it's central to
> > the thread regarding the letter of authenticity.