>"I remember noticing file marks (I believe on the fork crown,
>maybe also in other spots), when I saw the photos of e-richie's
>Nagasawa. Does that detract from e-ritchie's appreciation of
>his frame? I didn't get that impression. But did he expect or
>anticipate them?"

anyone who was at my speech at the NAHMBS will attest to this:
i was asked about the frame as well as my motivation to place
an order for it. i have followed the frames of mr nagasawa since
the late 70s and was given the opportunity to own one by way
of the importer. as i noted in houston, i "made" mr nagasawa my
muse -- (at least one of my muses, the other being paris hilton),
since the 80s. it is true that the frame is over-the-top stunning
and there are also aspects of it that, in contrast, seem to
evoke a bit of indifference. it's quite alot to absorb, as
i have personally seen fewer than 5 of these frames before
mine arrived. to wit, do the frame's file marks detract from
any thing/my expectations? not at all? why? well, in some respects
it's because "who the hell am i to offer up judgement on this?".
this preoccupation with file marks and other visible "defects" as
though they indicate a level of attention or lack of complete
quality has less merit with me than it might with others. i was
buying a piece of the man's history and i appreciate the fact
that i could take advantage of a few days of his time and receive
the fruits of his labor. he apprenticed at poglighi and derosa
as far back as the 60s and early 70s. he's brought style and
austerity to the framebuilding world. his frames are iconic, and i
don't even know if that's the correct use of the word! i have looked
at this frame from all angles and know it fully; the aspects that
i see on the outside hardly stack up to what i know to be on the
inside: over 40 years of fine framebuilding by a man who practices
with the same methods that were once employed by the list of
names that populate the collections of those reading this note.