---- Original Message -----
From: "Richard M Sachs" <richardsachs@juno.com>
>
> when this thread was a seedling, it seemed off-putting to suggest that
> someone, said to be the <actual> builder of a bicycle, maybe wasn't
> the builder at all. as we've discussed, 'what does _he-built-it_mean?'
> is hardly a defineable term.
>
I don't know so much that many people were put-off by the suggestion that the "name' wasn't the only builder, but more that there wasn't some connection to that name and the bike. Again, some connection that would suggest that an element of the "instigator" makes that product unique to them in some regard.
Alberto Masi building frames in the Vig Velodrome, but utilizing helpers at some or many levels under his tutelage, or guidance, or whatever, still feels like a legit effort of a craftsman, and warrants the name as is creation. But Alberto Masi marketing frames with that name (or Milano) on them, but they were made by whatever job contractor was low bid, or needed a business favor, or was conveniently located, or whatever, doesn't seem the same. Even if it's another competent (maybe more so) builder.
Torelli Imports might be a good example. Bill S. doesn't make a single frame, or probably even weld. But I feel buying a Torelli frames has some value. You're getting something in the bike that represents his philosophies and values at some level. And you might not get the same somewhere else. But the Masis he sold were made by Mondonico, and maybe by some of the other job shops he used. They may be perfectly good bikes, but I just don't feel they have any value as a Masi. Other than the trademark value, they have no connection to Masi, Alberto or Faliero. It was just a business move to enable increased sales to a customer that might already have a Torelli bike and not want another one, but would consider a different marque. Anyone with the $$$ could have created those Masis, but only Bill could have created the Torellis.
Any closer?
Jon Schaer
Columbus, OH