Secondly, unless there is some distortion of the jpeg involved, the top tube also appears to be bowed downwards on the Bilenky frame. This never appeared on any Hetchins frame. It appears to this Editor to be mere excess of curvature, without any design justification.
Thirdly, look closely at the top foto and note the rear tire clearance. You could fit four fingers into that gap. Why would anybody incorporate a curved seat tube, with track ends, and then set the bike up with such a long wheelbase? The point of the curved seat tube is to get a short wheelbase by moving the rear wheel closer to the bottom bracket shell than would be possible with a straight seat tube. The result in this case is amateurish: superfluous curvature in defiance of design concept.
Fourthly, the lug set, ostensibly Mag.Opus Ph II, incorporates an error we have seen on a number of other replicas: the lug extension along the top tube behind the head tube is too long. On the Bilenky frame, it is the same as on the down tube; not on a genuine Hetchins Mag.Opus Ph II.
Fifthly, as with many other replicas, the curves on the stays are not accurate.
If Bilenky meant this as a tribute to Hetchins, it falls short of the marque. They have juxtaposed unrelated elements and the result is a farrago which Hetchins would never have produced, certainly not together on one frame. The design is further marred by inaccuracies and errors of detail. While some Hetchins were fancier than this, Hetchins were always unified by a coherent concept, both aesthetically and functionally. In the opinion of this Editor, the Bilenky frame is no tribute to Hetchins, but an incoherent jumble. If you mix five different wines, you don't get one great wine. (No aspersions are cast upon the workmanship; only upon the design concept.)
Prospective buyers be advised that if you like this frame and want a similar one, you should approach Bilenky Cycle Works, not Hetchins. David Miller's terse (one-word) comment on the Bilenky 'Tribute' made it clear that he will not produce one.
|