even more chat about lugs, yadayadaydada,
or however it is spelled!!!

>"Those designed and worked over lugs that you 'kof' people
>spend hours doing, sure seem like ornamentation well beyond
>structure. The structure aspect is a given, but I thought
>you were saying that the quality of attractiveness defines
>their worth, given today's other joining methods that are
>also available."

i am not sure what i was saying, and i'm not even
a blond. but what i think needs to be said, and this
is my personal opinion, is that most folks get wet
and sticky over l-u-g-s without have a baseline of
aesthetic, structural, or historical criteria with
which to discern good from bad. if you simply want to
say, "all that matters is i like it...", i'm okay
with that. but i sense some folks are so caught up
in the vintage thing that - and this is an exaggeration
to make a point - they'll accept and pine for a bad
lug job over a fine(r) version of another technique.
to me, that is narrow-minded. otoh, the so-named kof's
produce in such small numbers that it almost doesn't
matter what they/we do because it's off the chart.
needless to say, they/we would want our bicycles to
exhibit a certain degree of fine metalwork aesthetics
or they'd/we'd have bailed a while back - when we had
the chance!!