Neil G wrote:
Neil G wrote:
Lovely bike, shame the forks spoil the build as they are IMO fugly
Matter of opinion though, if your happy with that's all good
the fork is the highest point of that build. true high end, rare, great performing piece of cycling machinery.
i don't get it: an Orange, Kona or a Gt are praised as a beauties but that handmade by cyclist to the highest standards of performance groovy fork is seen as ugly...
Rare and high end doesn't make something pretty...it's still an ugly fork
form follows function. if it works beautifully it looks beautifull. beauty is shaped by function in the case of industrial design. it's a logical thing.
classic bikes as classic cars are about history and pedigree. information makes all the difference. is a Potts ugly? is a cunningham pretty? mountain gioat. salsa. Ibis.. Those bikes were cutting edge avant garde. mtb royalty.
Groovy is stepped in that royalty.
nostalgia otoh is a terrible judge of beauty. a zazkar w/ that silly triple triangle. orange which copied fat city features in taiwan(their fork or monostay). what's to like? because they were at shop windows when we started mtb?
I'd agree with some of that in terms of bikes which were avant garde
Some companies made parts/bikes that worked and looked beautiful, others didn't
I still don't get it 100% though, I wouldn't buy antiques for my home just because they were rare/expensive...I'd have to really like the pieces, I suppose I feel the same about old bikes/parts
i buy vintage bikes based on their meaning to the evolution of the sport.
they are not "antiques" neither "pretty". they are significant.
most of those who are into collecting anything know the history and buy significance, not prettyness.
taste is about knowledge.