Charles Andrews wrote:
I was looking at this absolutely lovely Rotrax Hilary is selling:
..wishing it was my size, when it dawned on me.
(leading to a comparison with Rivendell lugs, which I have partly snipped, because it is not about what interested me):
I have a Rivendell made in 2000; I think it's a nice frame--the ride is superb, for the type, imho--but the lugs seem ill-proportioned, and too thick. I suppose it's just a taste-thing...
Yes, Charles, I think it is a taste thing. I think the whole head assembly on this Rotrax is stunningly elegant, both for the hollow spear points on the front, and for the thicker but totally integrated curls. Etc.
But (darn it) you got me thinking. I have a late Hetchins Italia, which I find handsome and only slightly over the top. But, to me, as a matter of personal taste, I find the ornament on many of the earlier Hetchins just too "thick." Thick not in the vertical (away from the tube), but in the lateral, where the individual members seem "heavy" compared with so many of the later stock and reworked investment cast lugs. Particularly when paint is used to pick out the shorelines. In part, I find the Rotrax attractive because so much of the ornament is slender.
It ain't 'bout quality or strength, but it is about what styles we prefer, which seems to be built up by what we grew up with and first loved.
harvey Sachs mcLean Va. (that still doesn't mean that the '74 Sears full 531 DB was handsome, except maybe stood up next to a Huffy AeroWind. Loaded an almost "perfect" Aerowind into a container bound for a developing country last weekend, and felt sorry that they might judge us not by the quantitiy of the gifts, but by the lack of quality in this one)