But you can't judge an earlier example by this later standard - that's my point. For a lot of guys in the classic era, a few file marks bore no relation to the soundness, ride, alignment, etc. of the frame. That's where applying a later interpretation of certain details falls flat. To a builder of the time, the frame was impeccable by the standards of the time. There are of course a few examples even of the time that are up to current standards of perfection - or close - but they're exceptions, and intended to be so. Many iconic builders considered American "perfection" to result in "overworked" frames. To some extent, these accusations of American frames being "filed to death" are self-consciously defensive, because in some respects, guys like DiNucci and Eisentraut, etc., genuinely raised the bar. And that's when the connection between surface perfection and "hidden perfection" began to get made in the eyes of buyers. This was quickly followed, though, by the era of IC lugged frames that by-and-large look like crap, detail-wise (i.e. chunky, uneven shorelines and points that don't point), followed by Tigged frames, then aluminum, then carbon fiber, so that the steel lugged frames that survived and emerged from that crucible are super-self-consciously finished and "perfected" in part by way of simply justifying their very existence. A very different circumstance from the frames built for real pros in the 60's - and therefore more than a bit unfair to make over-critical judgments across eras. Many of those earlier frames (though certainly not all) are done well to an eye using the right lens to see it. In many cases, builders used little signature flourishes to signal their pride in their work and level of craftsmanship, much the same way contemporary builders might signal that same pride via super clean brazing or perfect shorelines. Discovering those little details and learning to spot them is one of my real delights in encountering older frames made in Italy. (The same is true, of course, with respect to many French bikes, which is why guys like Weigle take such delight in discovering and incorporating similar little details into their work.)

Incidentally, I'm not against the current aesthetic - it's appropriate for the current age of bike building. I fully appreciate KOF frames and the level of skill that goes into frames built by guys like Kirk and Wages. I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to NAHBS in Indy a couple of years ago. Because, as I wrote earlier, my range of interests and appreciation is very broad.

And all of which is not to say, either, that having the "scales lifted" from one's eyes with respect to the framebuidling pantheon isn't an important part of the whole process. Once you've seen a somewhat sloppy De Rosa, or a Masi made with real shortcuts, there's no need for a pedestal.