Kurt Sperry wrote:
I readily understand that often it takes two or three times as long to get a result that's likely to be seen subjectively as 5% better. I deal with that in my art in a daily basis. I'm just quite curious what the discerable differences would be to the untrained eye assuming the actual paints used are similar or the same. <snip>
The point of my earlier message was probably lost in the details of how Les Lunas did his work: The discernable differences between a "good" and a "great" refinish may be very small, such as very clean and precise "cuts" at lug shorelines.
To me, the invisible differences are critical: the durability of the finish. All these painstaking preparation steps really bond the finish to the frame, so it is all but impossible to get chipping. The paint is flexible, and you don't get as much damage tightening the seat post clamp. For some special bikes, that durability and the little details matter. But certainly not for all bikes. I rode my old Paramount more than 20 years in black rattlecan (which replaced green rattlecan it came with) until I was ready to try to have it done right. That bike, after that long, has emotional value to me. I'm not sure I'd do the same for anything else I own, even the Cinelli.
But, "it's just bikes," and there's room for many offerings and many paths.
harvey sachs
mcLean va.