Re: [CR] pseudo-science and fitting the facts

Example: Production Builders:Cinelli

From: Dave Porter <>
To: <>, <>
References: <>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 08:39:48 -0700
Thread-Index: AcmOuVHYDhT13yKTRyGD17hMOOTyIAAAI5yg
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: Re: [CR] pseudo-science and fitting the facts

I would agree with Nick on this. Over the years I have deliberately tried to make some, even if small, change or improvement to each of my frames. There were very few duplicate frames out of hundreds built. Only the brazed on head badge was there to identify the maker after I'm long dead and buried.. ;>) Dave

Porter Customs 2909 Arno NE Albuquerque, NM USA 87107 505-352-1378 1954 BN2 1959 AN5 Porter Custom Bicycles

cars: gallery: ff


-----Original Message----- From: [] On Behalf Of nicbordeaux Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 8:31 AM To: Subject: [CR] pseudo-science and fitting the facts

Bike collectors inevitably seek to preserve knowledge. But where the knowle dge is missing, by deduction based on partial data, heresay and religious f ervor (hearing voices, visions, that sort of stuff) we start getting a whol e load of fantasy disguised as a scientific basis, which is then built upon . Whether a particular bike can be attributed to a particular maker is a go odc case.The guys who have seen a lot of a maker's bikes will dismiss anyth ing which they haven't seen before as "Not from maker x" because of somethi ng a little atypical, or the bike doesn't fit the scheme of what a maker is known to have been doing at the time. Turn up with a unusual bike, and the experts can't fit it into their already completed jigsaw puzzle, therefore it must be bogus/relabelled. It's inevitable, but maybe we could bear this in mind ?

Nick March, Agen 47000 Lot et Garonne, France