I got to see a number of VO frames at NAHBS (being used as mounting points for their component lines - they were definitely recalcitrant on discussing frames at that show) and I thought the construction, finish, et. al. was quite nice. Prices don't seem to be too bad for what they're offering.

Those here on the thread who are constantly bringing up the used alternative are conveniently forgetting one little matter: time. As in, if you have specific ideas for a bike you want to build this coming winter and have it ready for next spring's riding season, you're probably kidding yourself that you're going to build it on a set schedule if you're basing it on a used frame. Unless, of course, you find the frame first, and then get inspired to do the build based on that frame. And I have a feeling most of the 'used only' crowd work that way, but don't specify in their claims.

I've built lots of bikes based on used frames - every one of them started with the frame in hand, and the bike developed out of that frame's characteristics/limitations. The times I've had a specific idea for a bike, then went looking for the frame to build it around? My two best examples were what I wanted to do when I got back into cycling back in 2005: Build up a Fuji Finest and a World Voyageur, the former how they were being raced in Erie, the latter as a duplicate of the bike I toured back then.

The Finest will finally be done in about four weeks (five years after I put it on my list). The Voyageur hasn't come close - I found one frame three years ago that was in my price range, and it was more battered than I wanted to deal with.

Immediately chiming it with 'used' on a thread that's talking 'new' isn't assessing the issue. It's bringing in a new set of parameters that may or may not be relevant to the issue being discussed. More often than not, it's not going to be relevant; unless you're willing to compromise your initial intent, often quite severely.