I think that Robert's argument was very eloquently spoken and supported. I agree that it is not a pretension, but rather an adherence to an historical method that I have great respect for. I would like to interject one caveat. Powdercoating is chemically reversible (not as toxic as the chemicals used to remove many paints) and if properly applied with the right formulation, will encapsulate the frame and fully protect it for a desired future paint restoration.
I have powdercoated frames with great care, and have quite a bit of experience with the process. These are my observations. I have seen some really amazing paint jobs and in my opinion there is no powdercoat job that can compete with a Joe Bell, Brian Baylis, Jim cunningham- these are only a few of the really stellar paint work I have seen out there. this is not to say that I don't like what I have powdercoated, but it just does not compare. It was perfect for the particular applications, but I would not apply it for what i consider normal wear to a finish (I would not repaint it in this case either). The frames I coated were a disaster as far as finish, but not terribly rare or had no attribution. they do look kind of cool now.
It was not particularly cost effective as both took well over 3 days for the entire process including mask.
just my positive/negative ions to stick on the debate.
R.S. Broderick wrote:
> Jeremy,
>
> While you are most certainly entitled to your own opinion, I will say
> that I
> most emphatically do not share your apparent perception with regard to
> any
> general aversion to powder coating being borne of elitism and snobbery -
gabriel romeu in chesterfield new jersey usa, for some of the best
riding anywhere today....
--
G L Romeu
ø http://studiofurniture.com
ø http://lessplusmore.com
ø http://journalphoto.org