I began road riding when I was eleven on my parents' old Atalas. This is the one I had done up for my father. (To replace the one I managed to get stolen many moons ago!)

I have to say that certainly they look similar from 10' away. And yes, it's the details and the craftsmanship that really distinguish them. However, I like all bikes, antique, vintage, modern, etc, when they are done with that level of execution of fine engineering and attention to detail. I can appreciate a certain beauty in the type and style of weave in carbon, and the smooth way of blending that those frames often exhibit. Look at some of the modern Wilier and Pinarello designs, just to name a couple, that really attempt to engineer the ride qualities that discerning riders look for. Many of which were just not possible in steel. I don't happen to own any, but they sure are interesting and some are downright awesome looking to my eye.
I do own a number of steel bikes though, and mainly because of the way they were handmade, and the level of fineness the builder was able to achieve. They have a simplistic beauty all their own. They are functioning, usable pieces of art in my book.

Cheers,

Joe

I'm a car guy. I've always been a car guy. What drives me nuts is when people look at an old car and like it, but don't know why.

Personally, I see C&V bikes kinda like this:

You can have this:


Or you can have this:



Both are 1969 Oldsmobile Cutlasses, but the first one is a bare-bones, base model Cutlass S. The second is a custom made, one of 500-some Hurst/Olds with the largest production motor producing the most power, and costing roughly double the S. Sure, they look similar, but it's all in the details.

The same could be said about C&V bikes.

You could have this:



Or this:



One is a '72 Raleigh Record, the other is a '72 Raleigh Professional. They look the same...but it's like the Cutlasses - really nothing is the same once you know what you're looking for.

But I guess it's the same about everything, when you come down to it. What's the difference between Monet and Manet? Beethoven and Bach? Chicago and NYC? They're all similar...but not.

Bingo.

heck- they all got 2 wheels, pedal things, and the curvy handlebars.
not much difference really.

I remember when I started woodworking
3 small stanley block planes looked the same in the store but the price was different.

can you see any difference?

or this one?


after you learn more on the subject you understand the difference, like bicycles

The one on top should be the most expensive of the two in the upper photo. The castings are more detailed and it looks like the knobs are a better metal. The one in the bottom picture appears to be even more detailed in the body of the plane, but I suspect it's because the parts are plastic, making it the cheapest of the 3.

partially correct but not the answer.

the lowest one is the cheapest, only the knob is plastic in that Stanley plane.
it is the cheapest because the knob is actually a fine adjustment for the opening on the other planes,
without this feature it is cheaper to manufacture, the blade quality and the casting quality are just as good as the 2 other planes above


the upper 2 take a very close look at them, there is a slight difference and unless you know what to look at you will miss the detail.
disregard that one of them is most likely used. we are only comparing the block planes.
Now I know rootboy will get the correct answer...

Excellent comments all. I was hoping the question would fuel this type of quality discussion. Certainly, the collector's devil is in the detail, whether bikes, Corvettes or Beanie Babies. But back to the basic hypothesis. This is why I have declared a personal moratorium on C&V road bikes and find my interests turning to the more unique, like this cross between MTB, TT and Motocross bikes:

Well, maybe. Or maybe not. But I'll take a shot at it. The second plane shown is a low angle block plane.

I knew he would get it,

the angle of the cutting Iron is less then the angle on the one next to it, if you look again you can see the slight difference.
the low angle is for endgrain work, and the other is for general use

The thing that I see is Campagnolo Nuovo Record all looks the same unless there is some embellishment like drillium or a anniversary group. I somewhat understand my fascination with French 10 speed Bikes, I started watched cycling in the 90's I was commuting at that time and stopped in 2004. I lived in Missouri and watched the Tour of Missouri right in front of my house and that huge hill WOW. I also lived in Brussels and I visited Paris I even proposed to my wife on the Eiffel Tower I have never ridden a 10 speed French Bike I have ridden a Gitane Tandem and Peugeot Mountain bike, but I have a Gitane TDF in my size and am building it up. The French components MAFAC TA and Stronglight also capture something I enjoy. Once I finish my French CV bike I will find something else learn build ride.

Yes the frames Look similar but I have 3d vision when I look at a frame I start seeing the inside the soul of a bike the rifling of the miyata the butting of Fuji's Valite and Reynolds and Columbus and Durifort and Vitus. I envision the penetration of the Flame brazing. I see sometimes the paint on these new Plastic Power Ranger Bikes and I have to look away. I see the function of a frame that is artistic with Lugs as Kinetic Art all else pales.

I think the russian track and professional bikes are way cool, love to see one in the flesh..

A bicycle designer looks at a set of tubes and sees compromise. Then he looks at sheets of prepreg and sees the fullfillment of his dreams.

Eh. "All people look alike. They all have 4 limbs and a head." You could make a statement like this about almost anything. It's "true" in a strict sense, but as said above, the details make things different. It applies to almost anything.

All of RFC's bikes have too much seatposts showing.