Mark Stonich and then Joe Starck wrote:
Grants lugs look like they were designed by a
> committee, or came from
> 3 different sets. Hardly hideous, but with awkward
> transitions and
> no coherent theme. Don't let me get started on that
> fork
> crown. Acceptable on a lesser bike, but not worthy
> of the
> craftsmanship lavished on the bikes by Curt and
> painter Joe Bell.
http://rivendellbicycles.com/
********
All depends on who's lookin'. To me, Mark's words are exactly right. Even charitable. To Joe, they're not. This kind of thing distills down to "I think this is second-rate amateur work" or "I think this is beautiful, original, thinking about lugs." I'm with the first statement and with Mark Stonich, and for what I think are perfectly legitimate reasons. Joe disagrees. For Joe to accuse Mark, or anyone else, of being pea-brained for not liking Grant's lug design (and for saying so in a clear way, with reasons) is just worthless ad-hominem attack.
I have a custom Riv, and I'll probably keep it, but I'll always wish I'd had the Sachs lugs put on it. So it goes. The fancy-lugged Carpenter will make me feel better. It's what a fancy-lugged frame should look like--as is something like a fancy Hurlow. Grant would have done well to spend a couple of months contemplating a vintage Hurlow--or an Ephgrave--with the most florid lugs before he even put pencil to paper. Imho.
Charles Andrews SoCal
"The deeper I go in considering the vanities of popular reasoning, the lighter and more foolish I find them."
--Galileo Galilei