The Waterford vs Masi theme was aired a couple summers ago. Some of you may remember that was a thread raised to highlight the differing values we each bring to bear when attempting to explain what we liked/disliked about a particular bicycle frame. In that example the Masi clearly had more history and "intrinsic" value - some would say mojo, (though that word seems a bit off timeline here). The Waterford served to represent the idea that a modern frame made essentially like an older one could or maybe could not compare on physical details alone. I guess that was a bit of an abstraction. But some seemed to get the drift.
This latest go round of old and new Hetchins, seems at the root related to that earlier thread. I have been surprised as I'd thought we'd put the specifics of he Hetchins story to bed several months ago with the publishing of the history of the brand and the quite clear establishment of business continuity. While Hetchins surely aint Ford Motor Company and all that implies, I still find it hard to deny the firm its do as an ongoing entity. You can buy a Model T as a collectible and all the modern replacement fixings to keep it going or you can buy an Explorer and not worry about intrinsic/collectible issues. You can buy an original 1953 T Bird and/or you can buy the latest new and improved T Bird. And I bet this debate sorta kinda goes on about those. You pays your money and takes your choices. Theyre all Fords.
Not sure I agree Ron Cooper made Bates are the same thing, but lets not get that going........
But, lets up the ante a little. How about we push the discussion towards a ground that may be a little less comfortable. After our interest in bicyles prior to 1983 or 4 or 5 (whatever) we also support Torchbearers - those keepers of the flame - those new makers that continue to make in traditional ways and evolve the form - agreed?
Several of those guys contribute generously of their time to this list. And many of us hope to buy a frame or two from them one of these days so theres an inherent conflict in this discussion, but let's see if anyone's game to try this.
Without naming names (or please do if you like) how does this list view current makers of "custom" steel lugged frames that buy lugs, tubing, paint and transfers and essentially add value by measuring the customer, cutting/mitering tubes, brazing the assembly and shipping vs a maker who makes lugs or starts with lugs that are quite ill defined then files, saws and coerces the lugs into unique and one of a kind shapes? And paints? And how would we rank a framemaker who utilizes some form of mass production technique say by making forks and rear triangles ahead as subassemblies and assembles them to the main triangle, making the main triangle the only real source of customization vs a maker who makes every tube of every frame one at a time for each order? How do we think of framemakers who promote themselves, thus creating a "brand" vs those that quietly just toil away and hope they get noticed? Should the work of the "branded" maker be more valueable then the unknown? Is that "branding" the beginning of the intrinsic stuff we see adding value when we look in the rear view mirror?
Monkeyman, sorry but the fact that a framemaker is 3000 miles away and therefore not local - so disqualified - doesnt count.
Tom Rawson
Oakland, CA