Pretty cool but has some questionable aesthetics. I think the problem with SS is probably the same as the problems caused by IC lugs but exaggerated- the products made from them paint and graphics aside all tend to come out looking almost alike. I used to think lugged frames made from Columbus/531 were at times a little generic but at least then there were several different companies with extensive multiple lines of lugsets and pressed lugs tended to show the hand of the person building up the frameset whereas modern IC lugs are closer to "plug and play". Also the "plug in" fork ends/DOs have the same issue- they generally show less of the workman's hand and individuality and tend to look the same no matter who is holding the torch. Think of all the possibilities for expression and individuality that conventional joinery between the ends and the stays or fork blades allow compared to simply plugging a tube into a socket and brazing it. Plus to me the resulting joints look clunky and inelegant compared to the old way. All this isn't really so much a criticism of this particular frame as almost any modern steel frame built from modern bits.
As for this particular frame, it's generally pleasant enough but has to my eye some puzzling aesthetic lapses that may be forced by the pieces available or time constraints: Firstly why so much plain lug extending from the joints showing at the head tube and seat cluster? Look at the head tube-top tube join and the clunky unrelieved expanse of lug above the head tube. Look at the head tube from the front and look at how much wider the lug above is than the one below. It looks wrong. It looks visually heavy and unbalanced. No framebuilder of the classic era would ever have turned out anything like that. Look at how the head lugs extend out around the TT and DT, again heavy and unrefined looking compared to a fine classic bike- any fine classic bike. Only cheap gas pipe bikes would be handled that way 40 years ago. Then look at the seat cluster and look at how much that cast lug extends unrelievingly out away from the ST-TT joint- again far more than on any classic bike frame. The lug shoreline never gets closer than maybe a half inch or more to the ST, just like the head lugs and the head tube. Clunky and unrefined to my eye. Also look how high on the ST modern seatclusters have put the ears for the pinch bolt and compare it to a classic lugset where the ears are close to the centerline of the TT. Again the new version to me looks inelegant and awkward by comparison.
There may be good engineering reasons for all these changes, I wouldn't know. Maybe the older more elegant designs were hugely inferior in terms of function or durability. I really doubt it, but who knows?
I guess what it comes down to is I personally don't think the guys designing steel frame parts today have the same artist's eye that the people designing those parts did in the past. There's probably relatively little competition today and anyone willing to make the probably daunting investments in producing anything framebuilders can use is in a sense a hero and it would be bad form to criticize them. So the guy paying for the tooling is probably the guy doing the design drawings and his main qualification is simply that he is in the biz and his checks won't bounce. So sorry for the honesty, I'm just calling it the way I see it as an artist.
Kurt Sperry
Bellingham, Washington
USA