[CR]Keepers

(Example: Bike Shops)

From: "Brian Baylis" <rocklube@adnc.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: [CR]Keepers
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:59:12 -0700



>
> Paul,
>
> At a certain "level" of involvement in creating artictic frames things
> become a matter of taste. We must respect all "artists" in steel, wheather
> we like the style or not. Glenn and I have very different styles of work. I
> like his designs, even though I'm generally not big on really fancy work. I
> focus more on the caliber of the craftsmanship than the design. I appreciate
> the concept and the vision of the lug design. I would file the lugs
> differently than Glenn does, but the design is something I would not be able
> to come up with.
>
> Just because something is "fancy" or complex doesn't neccessarilily make it
> a masterpiece in my book. I have seen some frames that involved
> unbelieveable amounts of work and even had unique and extensive lug design,
> that fall far short of the mark of a masterpiece. Most who observe these
> works are "amazed" at them. When I look close (and even from afar in some
> cases) I can tell that the builders' artistic ability is light years ahead
> of their abilities as a framebuilder. For the work to be a masterpiece I
> feel that the level of craftsmanship must be at that level first. Many times
> it is not. Some bikes are really overdone in my opinion; it is still a
> bicycle after all. I personally like to keep things under control as opposed
> to using the frame as an excuse to make every part and bit on the frame the
> ultimate piece of art. Quite frankly, this approach turns me off. I can
> think of three frames like this off hand; two of which are quite famous
> compared to the third who almost no one has ever seen. Even a poorly
> exicuted Hetchins can make me cold. I find it easier to appreciate the Peter
> Johnson approach than the Art Stump approach to be perfectly honest. I'm not
> in favor, generally speaking, of bikes that are overdone on purpose; mainly
> because those bikes always seem to not serve the purpose of the bicycle on
> account of some impractical wiz-bang approach to the basic function of th e
> parts. Even something as simple as an improperly routed cable can detract
> from a fancy frame as soon as it proves it won't work properly. A builder
> MUST consider these things carefully. I think it is easy to lose sight of
> these things if your purpose or focus is to make the frame some sort of work
> of art. What I'm saying I guess is that doing a high level of craftsmanship
> within the bounds of the basic function of a bicycle is an art in itself.
> How much is too much? I personally perfer to limit the "decoration" to the
> normal parts of the frame that need to be there, just do a clean and clever
> job of it. Try to make the piece harmonious without overdoing the theme of
> the frame. Excessive brazing to "trick out" the frame with flowery bits and
> decorations are out for me. One doesn't see too much "over the top" lugwork
> and extra eye candy on older traditional frames. My personal feeling is that
> it detracts from the bike. I know it's probably difficult to completely
> understand what and why I think what I do. Some of it probably seems
> contrary, I'm sure. Given enough time and the ability to show examples of
> what I'm saying, I could probably get my point accross.
>
> Back to the point. I think we can all have opinions as to which styles we
> like and don't like; but I feel we should be learning to recognize
> workmanship as opposed to design. Expert work on a simple design is far more
> appealing to me than extensive work exicuted poorly. Perhaps it is different
> for other people. I can only think of one builder who consistantly comes up
> with unusual designs and exicutes them to perfection; and it isn't me.
> Forget trying to contact him; he's booked for the next 4 years or so and
> won't answer your inquires. That's the way it is.
>
> Brian Baylis
> La Mesa, CA
> P.S. I especially enjoyed the writings of Bob Hovey, Dennis Young, and
> Charles Andrews yesterday, but haven't had time to tell them so. You guys
> all hit the nail on the head in my opinion.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Haussler <paulhaussler@earthlink.net>
> To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Cc: <cnighbor@pacbell.net>
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 7:45 PM
> Subject: [CR]Keepers
>
>
> > C'mon guys... Brian Baylis is an artist. So is Glenn Erickson. Both
> make
> > jewelry that rides like nothing else.
> >
> > Paul Haussler,
> > Huntington Beach, CA
> >
> > Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:19:49 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
> > From: Guy Apple <cinelliguy@earthlink.net>
> > To: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> > Subject: Re: [CR]Fine frame building. He is one of the Keepers
> > Message-ID:
> > <18652065.1066443590121.JavaMail.root@bert.psp.pas.earthlink.net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Precedence: list
> > Reply-To: Guy Apple <cinelliguy@earthlink.net>
> > Message: 15
> >
> > CR List -
> >
> > Brian not the man? Bet if Brian had listed a frame, it would have sold!
> >
> > Guy Apple
> > Sunnyvale
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Charles Nighbor <cnighbor@pacbell.net>
> > Sent: Oct 17, 2003 6:04 PM
> > To: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> > Subject: [CR]Fine frame building. He is one of the Keepers
> >
> > Erickson out of Seattle makes great frames. Goes back into the 70's
> > ERICKSON HANDMADE STEEL ROAD FRAMESET Item number: 3631300409
> >
> > Take at look at this Frame and forget Brain Baylis the Man. This is the
> Man.
> > (Look at frame and you see why.)
> > Charles nighbor
> > Walnut Creek, CA