I think it's a very complicated issue Todd, and kind of goes to the core of our enjoyment of vintage lightweight bicycles.
Even if we ignore the potential status-seeking aspect of things, we're still talking about people's memories and perception, which have a tendency to romanticize certain things, and devalue others, regardless of the "reality" of the past. One person's perception IS his or her reality. It doesn't really matter to a great extent what others think, or sometimes even whether that perception appears totally logical to others. Passions and emotions are hard to explain sometimes....
Many bikes were/are popular in no small part due to their "mystique," and who rode that marque to what victories when. "Race on Sunday, sell on Monday" comes to mind.... But the product has to perform and live up to those expectations too.
Recall that when Eddy started drilling out all of his Campagnolo Record components, a lot of folks took notice and did likewise, because they wanted to "be like Eddy...." However, if you look at something like the new welded Masis discussed recently on CR (that were being dumped on eBay), it's obvious that you can't simply rely on "mystique" or brand name alone to sell a current frameset....
Much of the "collectability" of many of the old vintage lightweights has to do with desireability today, which can often be directly related to what we and our riding buddies rode (or, sometimes more importantly, couldn't afford to ride and/or lusted after) in our "younger days," among other reasons. Vintage Raleigh Pros and Schwinn Paramounts are in some part popular due to the former, whereas the DeRosas/Masis/Confentes/Pogliaghis/Herses/Singers/etc. are lusted after perhaps more often for the latter reason.
Most well-known builders of the 1970s built lugged steel frames that didn't break. "Classical" lugged steel construction yields a long-lived frameset, and is amazingly forgiving of builder errors (within reason!). The only time I've personally seen a DT pull out of a BB was a Trek in a criterium race; it was quite obvious that the braze material didn't penetrate the joint very much at all. That didn't make me dislike Treks one little bit. QC problems happened (and still do happen), but they were/are rare. How a brazed lug joint looks cosmetically doesn't really tell you much about it's structural integrity. Paint can hide a multitude of flaws also. IMO, to really be able to judge the joining quality of a frame, you need to see a lot of them naked and unassembled, and section them if possible!
That said, the US builders certainly raised the bar on fit and finish considerably back in the mid-to-late '70s when they "burst" onto the scene. Unfortunately, they still had to compete directly on price with Production Colnagos and the like, to which their products were often vastly superior in QC. This made it very hard for folks like Eisentraut (and others) to get anywhere near what their finely-crafted creations were "worth," and caused much consternation I'm sure. Someone like e-RICHIE, Peter Weigle, or many of the others in their rather small group of peers, have spent decades (three or more in some cases) building sterling reputations for quality and performance, and I suspect they might tell you that they aren't exactly getting rich at even today's retails prices. They (fortunately) have chosen to continue to do what they do, which is to our sport's benefit.
My wife's favorite bike is a Guerciotti. She loves it to death, and often has no interest in any other choice vintage lightweight that I might offer her. It probably doesn't fit her well "by the book," but she is happy with it. Bought it new in 1981, still rides it, has 50,000+ miles on it. It gives her enjoyment, and brings back fond memories of life when things were much simpler, I imagine. The QC on the frameset is atrocious (awful chrome, file marks, machining chips under the mediocre paint, etc. etc.), but it hasn't broken yet. She loves the way it rides!
End of ramble....
Greg Parker Ann Arbor, Michigan
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 14:20:58 -0500 From: Todd Kuzma <tullio@TheRamp.net> To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Subject: Re: [CR]Re: What did the old builders have in mind?
on 4/8/04 2:03 PM, Fred Rafael Rednor at fred_rednor@yahoo.com wrote:
>> i was surprised to get cc-ed on this, so
>> i'll ask, "what <do> you think the old
>> builders had in mind?"
>
> Is it some sort of sacrilege to contend that they were
> businessmen who sold racing bicycle frames? No doubt, they
> liked bicycle racing - and may have been passionate about it -
> but there should not be any doubt they were businessmen.
To which Todd added:
I don't get it. If these "racing" frames didn't require great attention to detail, then why both to regard them as special? If they had crappy brazing and alignment, then they were crappy frames. If they are simply "serviceable," then they aren't special.
There is some weird mystique that surrounds certain builders that exists to this day. Put the right name on a crummy bike and the masses will bow down. Tell the right marketing story, and people will see flaws as "character."
Yet wheel out another bike with the same flaws but without the fancy name, and those same people turn up their noses.
Todd Kuzma