Re: [CR]Re: File Marks

(Example: Bike Shops)

From: <"richardsachs@juno.com">
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:32:32 GMT
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: Re: [CR]Re: File Marks


snipped from bruce's post (below): "I'm glad to say that I'm one of those he denigrates as misguided for thinking that it's nice to see the hand or file of an artisan in his work." --------------------

i am glad

that you said that. in my beginning years, since i didn't know anything about design and construction, i focused on metalwork and, er, craftsmanship; in the states, everyone was ga-ga* about filing and took it to an extreme. like, what--ever!!! these days, meaning since perhaps the mid-90s, while i don't go out of my way to file "file marks" into a frame, i am not bothered if one or some are inadvertantly visible through the finished paint job. for the unitiated, there are file marks and there are FILE MARKS. imo. when the former are the residual signs of the final strokes with a 4" or 6" needle file, and said marks follow the contour of the metal in question RATHER than appear as gouges and depressions, i actually like the look. it's human. organic. a thumbprint. hey-shut me up, huh!? oh heck, i lost my train of thought. monster garage is back on... e-RICHIE chester, ct *not a true framebuilding term.


-- "brucerobbins" wrote:


As usual, I've come to this topic a bit late but I think Dennis Young hit the nail on the head with his post below. I was going to snip it but it all made so much sense to me that I couldn't leave any of it out. The Joe Starcks of this world never seem to get it that there is no charm in perfection. Certainly, one can appreciate his pain-staking attention to detail and if you're a bit anal about these things then that's no doubt what will turn you on. I'm glad to say that I'm one of those he denigrates as misguided for thinking that it's nice to see the hand or file of an artisan in his work.

His comment that "File marks are marks of laziness and a measure of the maker's craftsmanship integrity" is an insult to generations of builders. Some of these guys produced the bikes-file marks and all-that are among the most popular with list members. Their frames will still be sought after and collected long after Joe's frames have been filed away in a mildly-interesting sub-section of cycling history, probably alongside Shimano. In my opinion, Joe Starck's work is sterile and soul-less and his comments (included beneath Dennis') a lot of pompous crap. In fact, I'd like to see so-called "keepers of the flame" (I exclude e-Ritchie and Brian Baylis here) who seem to have so little appreciation of the real meat of the list banished to the framebuilders' forum since many of them (and let's be honest here) only use the CR list as a cheap marketing tool anyway.

Bruce Dundee Scotland
>
> Brazing goobers not OK, but I can't quite figure why it is that sensible
> turns to dogmatic when it comes to file marks. You are talking about a
> different era of bicycle making when those Masis had the remnants of file
> work on them. People had a different mind about what they were doing
> then,
> and the expectations of the customers were different as well. Not that I
> would suggest it, but thinking otherwise suggests a lack of understanding
> of
> bicycle history, and aesthetics evolution. American's as
> craftsmen/artists
> tend to be very contemplative about their work, just watch the video made
> by
> Alan Bernstein, which shows two contemporary frame builders discussing
> what
> they do. They live and work during a time where they can generally afford
> to be so analytical, along with their education and cultural upbringing
> that
> stimulates such an approach. I don't think it is a low blow to call these
> people, doing what presumably you regard as a more respected type of frame
> building, as a breakaway from the former traditions, at least in some
> respects. It is very "American". European, Japanese, most third world
> craftsman/artisans, picked up their tools at a young age, often were
> instructed to do the tasks a certain way, maybe told not to sweat the file
> marks, and that's the way it was done, no dilemma and end of enquiry. I
> don't understand your call on poor workmanship here. Some guy often will
> eventually come along with a new vision, sometimes make what was a
> compilation of variety piece work into a skillfil one person operation,
> make
> things neater, prettier, it has happened in most manual trades where
> aesthetics can also play a big part. Certainly in woodwork, specifically
> 19th and early 20th century chair production this was the case, where
> burlap
> sacks were hung over the windows to discourage "idle gazing" that would
> detract from the valuable time, and leaving tool marks hardly stuck in
> anyone's craw. Then along came a guy named Jack. That you could afford
> to
> be discriminatory about file marks in your's and the assistant's work, it
> is
> noteworthy, but not everyone has had such luxury. Even if they had the
> time, the fact that the inclination wasn't there, is quite possibly more a
> reflection of the era, than of a desire to take a vacation from good
> workmanship. People see things differently when times change, have more
> information to go on, that's a very big part of it. Why go upside
> someone's
> head about it?
>
> Dennis Young
> Hotaka, Japan
>
>
>> Joe Starck posted-
>> I only value a hand-worked frame if it's finished
>> well. Gacky contours, file marks and brazing goobers
>> are like a crooked wood object that wasn't sanded and
>> shows glue comin' outta the seams. Oooh, hand-made.
>> Nice. And "silliness of file marks" comes from the
>> many misguided on this list who actually equate file
>> marks with "charm." File marks are marks of laziness
>> and a measure of the maker's craftsmanship integrity.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> End of Classicrendezvous Digest, Vol 25, Issue 131
> **************************************************