Something I see being danced around, but not really stepped on, in the string of posts, is the true core of the subject.
When there is a name on a bike (which there always is), what does that symbolize? I'm not worrying about things like top tube signatures, but brand names. The "real" vs "fake" argument is pretty pointless, as by a strict definition nearly all bikes would be considered fakes. Only a true one-man operation would have the right to put his/her name on the down tube, as an indication that this person made the bike.
So then the question arises; where's the line in the sand? To my knowledge no frame builder draws their own tubing or makes their own paint, etc. So were dealing with construction and assembly issues.
Builders such as Peter Weigle or Brian Baylis or Landshark completely prep materials, brazes, finishes, and paints the frames, so they can legitimately put their name on the dt as "their" bike.
But what if there's one helper? Is a RS not real because Joe Bell paints them? Joe Bell has help, too, so even then there's even more hands creating the final product.
What about the "DeRosa and his two sons" approach, or the Pegoretti Brothers (one builds, one does business)? Are the bikes fakes because Ugo didn't build them?
If that's acceptable, then what of a shop of six builders, but with final checking of every frame by the "named" builder. Are those real or fake? What about Tom Ritchey's finishing on some frames. Are these real Ritchey's, or only the ones he built entirely? Then what about the frames with the same design, geometry, and materials, but not ever touched by Tom. Real or fake?
There are very few framemakers doing over a few hundred frames per year that are one-man operations. But there are many 200-1000 frame per year frame shops. Some may be under the direct guidance of a head builder that started as a one-man, or some started as a multi-man shop. Some may have a head builder that started the thing, but now only the philosophies, methods, geometries, etc, are still in place, but the construction is by a group. Are these fake?
Then, if a group construction method is accepted, how detached can it become and still be legit? An in-house group employed by the "name" would be considered to be making "name" frames. If a contractor is hired, but works in the same facility, is that accepted? Then, are completely outside contractors accepted, if they still employ geometries, methods, tooling, materials, etc of the original?
If I take the absolutely exact dimensions of geometries and materials of a Masi, but have a local builder copy it, what is that?
In the end, we need to identify what it is that makes a bike we like. I think firstly there are two ideals; collector value and user value. Collector value is probably the much harder quality to identify relating to the above story. User value mostly refers to what makes the bike do what it does well. Having a name on a product is supposed to say that this product reflects the ideas, values, talents, and preferences of that name. Of course, that rarely is the case these days.
With bikes, one would hope that construction craftsmanship, geometries, and sometimes custom fit, of a particular bike is what that builder intended. I believe that goal can be achieved without 100% of the product being generated or molded by one person, or even the "originator" of the product. I feel that an Independent Fabrication or Waterford bike, being a group effort, is just as legitimate a bike as a Landshark or Weigle. But somewhere we want to feel that there is some "soul" of the builder or group in the final product. Salsa might be an example of one that had it, but now doesn't, though the environment under which they're built is probably not too different from the original.
I don't think there is a definable set of criteria. It's almost a case-by-case basis judgment. I consider the Padua(sp?)-built Torellis as legitimate as the Mondonico-built ones, as Torelli doesn't actually build anything. But I do we consider the Masis built by Mondonico for Torelli "real"? Was there an established "Masi" geometry that the Torelli Masis were made to? Even though Alberto had no involvement with these, would he say they were ok bikes, or would he scoff at them as junky imposters?
There are probably makes of bikes out there that the modern "contracted" versions are actually better bikes than the ones the founder of the marque built. And of course, there are fine bikes that actually don't represent any proper name at all, but rather just a marketing name. Where does it all end......
Jon Schaer
Columbus, OH