RBW and Meaning

[Surlyprof]

For those of you who don’t know me, in addition to wanting a Rivendell bicycle for years, owning a Hillborne for a year or two and being a member of this group for over a year, I am also a professor of Industrial Design.  This semester I have been teaching my course entitled, “Design and Meaning”.  The goal of the course is to prompt our students to explore various roles that meaning plays in the industrial design profession.  A portion of the time we look at the more artistic side of design and how designers express ideas using industrial design as a medium for expression.  Another aspect of the class covers semiotics and semantics and how designers can utilize form to communicate function.  The third topic of the course deals with meaning that people associate with and attach to the built environment that surrounds them.  As one of the lectures, I’ve been trying to pull together a lecture about RBW.  It seems to me that there are interesting connections between RBW, Grant’s ideas and meaning for many of us who own Rivendell bikes and accessories, belong to this group and/or the Facebook group, and believe in a cycling lifestyle that may veer from current mainstream bicycle culture. This is where my question lies… How do you connect meaning (however you interpret that) with RBW, Grant’s writings, bicycles in general and the design of bikes and other goods at RBW (as well as B,B&H)?  Are there design choices made at RBW that boosts that sense of meaning?  

Rather than presenting the students with just my take on that subject, I thought I'd solicit the thoughts of group members.  I’d be happy to field your thoughts via private responses but, if everyone is OK with this as a topic of open discussion, I think it might be a fun one to be shared in the group forum. Also, this is intended only for a course lecture/presentation and, even in that limited audience of 24 students, I will do all I can to protect every individual’s anonymity.  If this grows into something particularly interesting worth publishing somewhere, I would want to communicate with contributors before publishing anything anywhere.

So, there it is… any thoughts?

John

[Deacon Patrick]

Freedom. Including from the bicycle itself and from the need to be attired a certain way to go riding. Hop on. Just ride. Live. The bike doesn't matter because it goes invisible. Except the bike eminently matters because a bike (or any other useful object) that doesn't go invisible in use limits the freedom of it's purpose. Ride a Rivendell then ride a BSO or write a novel on a Mac then write a novel on a PC and you'll kinesthetically understand. Invisibility in use is the apex of quality design.

My Hunqapillar and Quickbeam harken back to an era of beauty emerging through craftsmanship more than design. An object (bike, hatchet, etc) that functioned well would inherently be beautiful and thus deserving of hearty use and longevity of care. There are some purely aesthetic touches, such as fancy paint (a natural extension of lugs, which I believe serve a functional role in addition to an aesthetic one. Aesthetics that do not interfere with function inherently enhance function by drawing us to a deeper appreciation of the function.

With abandon,

Patrick

[Patrick Moore]

On the whole I agree. In part:

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Deacon Patrick <lamon...@mac.com> wrote:

Freedom. Including from the bicycle itself and from the need to be attired a certain way to go riding. Hop on. Just ride. Live.

For the type of riding you and even that I do, Deacon, we always need cycle-appropriate clothing. Rivendell's catalogue is full of cycling clothing! You'd not ride the mountains in summer in a tight-cut, 2-slit, heavily lined tweed sportcoat, or pedal in Tony Lamas. You mean that Riv designs allow you to ride in your preferred cycling clothing. Me too! I don't see may cowboy boots, or 4" belt buckles or tight, low rise jeans, or tuxedos or Bass Weejuns in the catalogue.

 

The bike doesn't matter because it goes invisible. Except the bike eminently matters because a bike (or any other useful object) that doesn't go invisible in use limits the freedom of it's purpose. Ride a Rivendell then ride a BSO or write a novel on a Mac then write a novel on a PC and you'll kinesthetically understand. Invisibility in use is the apex of quality design.

Invisible? When I ride my Rivs, each pedal stroke (well, almost each) is a moment of conscious, deliberate, luxurious awareness of and pleasure in the Rivendell-designed bicycle. I've very definitely aware of the bike! I do like Macs, too.

My Hunqapillar and Quickbeam harken back to an era of beauty emerging through craftsmanship more than design. A

No, no, no, no, no, absolutely not! Rivendells are triumphs of design, that's why they are so good! Craftsmanship is good, but very much second place. I'd much rather have a cheap tigg'd Rivendell road bike made in China than a lovingly hand made, silver brazed, filed-lugged, pinstriped, Reynolds 753 thinwall tubed version of a crit bike!

But Rivendells are well made by humans, which is their #2 quality. Pretty is #3.

 

n object (bike, hatchet, etc) that functioned well would inherently be beautiful and thus deserving of hearty use and longevity of care. There are some purely aesthetic touches, such as fancy paint (a natural extension of lugs, which I believe serve a functional role in addition to an aesthetic one. Aesthetics that do not interfere with function inherently enhance function by drawing us to a deeper appreciation of the function.

Now here we are in complete agreement and implicitly contradicting your immediately earlier statement. Ananda Coomaraswamy! "An artist is not a special kind of man, but every man a special kind of artist." "Art properly meets the needs of the whole man." Ars sine scientia nihil.

As to Surlyprof's request, oh my! One could write a Summa Fabricationis on the subject, starting with the methods of production and its relation to the prevailing weltanschauung and anthropology, given that what one makes and how much and how derives directly from one's view of what is good.

[Deacon Patrick]

Exactly!

With abandon,

Patrick

[BSWP]

John, I stumbled onto RBW when I saw a Moustache bar, and mounted it to my REI Novara XR back in the last century. The bike was woefully under-sized for me, but the bars transformed it. After I won an insurance settlement for being doored on my also too-small Centurion (lugged steel!) in West Berkeley, I took a wild chance and put all the money into a custom-fitted frame from Rivendell. That's my 65cm 1998 Long Low Custom. Grant worked with me, selected tubing and specified dimensions, and the bike rode and continues to ride wonderfully.

But why Riv? The early catalogues & Readers spoke to me at an intrinsic level... here was a "bike shop" that could build a frame to my exact size, weight, and riding style, that used old-school techniques, that would produce something beautiful and lasting. Also something quite distinct from the average road bikes in other shops. A bike to be proud of, to show off (a bit), and to ride without ever a doubt to its proper fit. Everything about the shop, the process, the product line, resonated with me. I plunked down the money for a "life" membership/subscription, wanting to help them continue and thrive.

And I continue to be a fan (even if we won't ever see an IGH Riv) because the design lines, the flow of tubes & lugs, speak to what attracts me to bicycles - having fun, riding smoothly, traveling long and wide and far. I avoid using the word "retro" when I describe RBW's bikes, because they are staking out respectable modern territory, they are not just a throwback to a past time.

- Andrew, Berkeley

[Philip Williamson]

That's a cool job! I wish someone had told me in high school that Industrial Designer was a job choice.

I don't know how to talk about the things you're asking about. I do enjoy the Riv refinement and funk. There's a plainspokenness that draws me in, and I think the showroom carries that through, and is consistent with the Readers from the old days, to relate the "design" of Rivendell to the "feeling" of Ruvendell.

Philip
www.biketinker.com

Philip
www.biketinker.com

[Mark in Beacon]

When you pour more and more energy into a system, it grows more and more complex, e.g. the current fossil fuel era, on the wane. One could make the case that it also seems to become more and more bereft of meaning. I believe the bicycle as practiced and promoted by Rivendell to be a machine that represents the first watershed as described by Ivan Illich--that is, a convivial tool that strikes a wonderful balance between sustaining itself and providing a service--mobility at a human scale of speed. A non-competive machine that is joyfully useful for daily tasks. The second watershed for industrial tools (and Ilich also categorized institutions such as health care, finance, and education as tools) comes when the tool/organization exists primarily to continue its own existence--a situation that might be applied to much of mainstream bicycle production today in many ways (It goes to 12! Vertically compliant!), as well as every major institution in the United States and many other developed countries.

I don't know Grant's complete world view, but at least some lot of his ideas as presented would appear to line up in principle with the ideas that Illich presents in Tools for Conviviality. (I believe I copied a long quote from another of his books, Energy and Equity, directly related to bicycles, in a post a few months back.) In any case, I like the way he runs his business, and his approach to designing, building, and selling bicycles and other goods and sundries. He also has great skill as a writer in promoting his ideas and products while also being aware that this activity in itself is somewhat contradictory to his philosophy.

So how does this connect with meaning as found in our build environment? Well, as I said, this complexity issue is a nifty dilemma, and our build environment--sprawling suburbs, big box stores and strip malls, congested cities, confined animal feeding operations, decaying infrastructure, Dodge Durangos, LegoLands, poisoned water, eroded soil, monoculture agriculture, golf courses, smart phones, McMansions, cheap useless crap from China, blah blah blah, somewhat discourages quests for meaning. Do I believe industrial civilization is heading inexorably downhill in a handbasket fast? Yup. Do I believe bicycles (or industrial design) will save us from this fate? Nope.

But I do feel that any moments able to be spent on a bicycle are good ones, all in all. Because of that human-made balance and scale of the thing. Because of its usefulness, and its conviviality. Being on a bicycle is itself meaningful, and the form and function of Rivendell bicycles is designed to enhance all the aspects that make it so--from where it is made to the places it is capable of taking you comfortably and safely to its ability to be repaired with standard parts by a user to the way its geometries encourage you to ride. All this is fraughtfully academic, of course. Mr. Petersen said it best, just ride. Or go to bed, as the case may be.

[Patrick Moore]

I recall Grant saying back in an early publication, "We are product driven, not market driven," meaning they design things for use and not merely for sale.

I think this is a key element of the overall design, production, and sales method of the company that sets it so far apart from most companies where (to pick up on one of Mark's remarks) as they grow they get further from their original purpose and focus more on self sustainment -- which in most cases means sale, and therefore design and production, for profit instead of for use.

Granted, focus on sale has produced, by accident, many great improvements; but obviously it does not do so consistently and generally. Carbon fiber is probably a great improvement for some uses; for a city hybrid bike? I don't think so. 1X12 drivetrains may be useful for some situations; does the rider of the urban hybrid need 3X9? And so forth.

Many Rivendell products don't particularly appeal to me; tho' I'd rather ride a Clem than a Madone (I think; I've not ridden either). And there is undoubtedly an element of whimsy in some Riv designs and products that may or may not appeal on simple aesthetic grounds. But I can't think of anything they sell that isn't also useful in its own way; overpriced for the market segment, perhaps -- I'm thinking of $400 cheese boards and $300 axes for suburban duffers to whittle with -- but still useful.

Aside, re axes and knives: I personally would be more interested if Rivendell set up their own forge and produced distinctly home made style axes and cleavers and utility knives at good, blue collar American wages. I used to play around with forging, or at least re-shaping metal bits heated in the coals, when I was in high school. Made knives but not no axe, but family owned a locally made, small vendor produced axe that worked as well as the admittedly very dull and abused Sears axe brought with us from the Homeland. Point of this: crude is fun if you are doing it yourself, or buying it from someone you know. 

[ascpgh]

I've been a Bridgestone and Rivendell rider since...well, a while ago. I find the aesthetic of things that work very interesting and even when I try not to form an opinion about an item before its function is understood, it has the ability to project such through design. By that power, the designer has a very important role in the life of a design, manufacturing and life cycle of a product. Interestingly, an anatomy and physiology professor once told me to remember structure and function; each provides the cues to the other, if you know one you can predict the other. Works with design and function too.  

My architect grandfather had similar feelings about buildings and began forming my critical eye at a young age. What I find really interesting has been my accumulated experiences and the way that they create the values that I see in designs. More importantly they make clear what I am not attracted to, desire or trust to function in their capacity. Maybe a thread common to RBW fans and readers of this group. This  too explains why I prefer bike frames with the visual cues of lugged steel, am repelled by the Ultegra 6800 cranks and have mechanical love for the normally aspirated in-line six automobile engine. 

Here,The Carnegie Museum of Art currently has an exhibit about Peter Muller-Munk and his work in industrial design. They offer a captivating view of the back story of a designer, Muller-Munk, as important. He trained academically as a silversmith in Berlin and made waves with his work at Tiffany's but sought to produce designs attainable in the middle class marketplace. His designs and products in that effort were popular items without his name attaching importance or value, to the extent that much of the catalog of exhibits were acquired on eBay. 

As an industrial designer he felt well placed in this town when he arrived to staff the new discipline at then Carnegie Tech. As he expanded into providing design he said that if you design in particular materials, you ought to be where they make them which he did and produced icons of design in a volume and familiarity of which I was dumbfounded. 

The discipline of design can meet the needs of the already qualified user of items without distancing them, yet the ability to draw attention of others who may be well served with the same item in the same way, but brought into that realization of function by the aesthetic. Bicycles have overt enough visual mechanical functions that design can provide or promote that impact...or distract by pointless adornment. All in the eye of the desired audience. 

Andy Cheatham 

Pittsburgh

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-5, Surlyprof wrote:

[Mark in Beacon]

Our culture gives us our definitions of "progress" and "improvement." Take the side view mirror of an automobile. Once it was a humble slab of mirror attached to a basic frame that swivels on a ball joint that could be adjusted by rolling down the window, sticking your hand out, and moving it into a useful position. Now it is operated electronically by several switches, and costs many hundreds of dollars to fix or replace. And for what? To save a few calories of small muscle movements?It doesn't save time, these things can take longer to adjust. (And now I understand these gizmos will be replaced by video cameras, and this will be mandatory as per the federal government.)

Many people will consider this evolution of the side view mirror inevitable proof of human genius, an obvious sign of progress. But it is only replacing an existing object with debatable added benefits and lots of drawbacks--added complexity in extraction of raw materials, assembly (probably by robots) difficulty of repair, additional damage to the environment, cost to the consumer. This complexity also makes the supply chain much more vulnerable, as various parts come from different factories, etc.

The same factors are at work with, for instance, carbon fiber. This material is more complex to produce, cannot be easily modified or repaired or recycled or upcycled, uses high amounts of energy to produce, is made of a substance we are running out of, etc etc. And the sole benefit, when you cut to the chase, is saving weight on a product that, unless you are a professional bike racer (or a missile engineer, the original application), does not need weight savings (or heat protection). And even so, I recall that bike racing provided a decent amount of entertainment before the advent of carbon fiber and wattage meters, no? I have to laugh so not to cry when I see these dramatic commercials pitching "smart phones." As though something that takes pictures and can tell you in a funny voice where is the best place to get the best macchiato is some sort of dramatic achievement for humankind. Or that it does anything that can't be done without an overpriced status design object made in China (a country in the advanced throes of the world's largest case of indigestion from biting off more industrialization than it could chew--the fallout for the global economy will not be pretty, especially in combination with the many other dilemmas currently coming to a head.)

Going beyond Illich's second watershed comes with high prices--to the environment, to the social fabric of society, to our psyches. The debts from all of our wondrous gadgets and our industrially designed lifestyle, both literal and figurative, are all coming due in a hurry. But right now my Clementine is calling to take me to work.

[Stephen Kemp]

I could articulate the meaning I personally take from the whole Grant/Riv thing but I find it more interesting to consider this in a broad sense. So rather than clear meaning I see a number of contradictions in the messages/meaning/interpretation around Grant/Riv. I haven't taken the time to unpack these fully but here are some to ponder...

Simplicity/utility/democracy vs high prices/exclusivity/decoration

Longevity/sustainability/anti-consumerism vs selling/new products/here’s why you should buy this new thing/driven by cash flow

One man’s vision/independence/eschew received wisdom and find your own way vs cult-like, reverent following

These aren't meant as criticisms, they don't reflect any particular views of my own, etc. It's just a brief sketch of some of the meanings I think people get from Riv which don't add up to a coherent whole.

I guess you could extend this. What is meaning? How does personal interpretation of meaning differ from a shared/group interpretation? Can meaning be engineered or is it an emergent thing? How do we reconcile conflicting meanings/messages?

Interesting thread - thanks!

Stephen

 

[Patrick Moore]

I couldn't resist -- see below.

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:44 AM, 'Mark in Beacon' via RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 

I have to laugh so not to cry when I see these dramatic commercials pitching "smart phones." As though something that takes pictures and can tell you in a funny voice where is the best place to get the best macchiato is some sort of dramatic achievement for humankind. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CSsZlgBoQk 

[Patrick Moore]

That clip left out a bit; try this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dI-WZ5cvM0

--

Resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, and letters that get interviews.

By-the-hour resume and LinkedIn coaching.

Other professional writing services.

http://www.resumespecialties.com/

www.linkedin.com/in/patrickmooreresumespec/

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nouvelle Mexique,  Vereinigte Staaten

****************************************************************************************

The point which is the pivot of the norm is the motionless center of a circumference on which all conditions, distinctions, and individualities revolve. Chuang Tzu

Stat crux dum volvitur orbis. (The cross stands motionless while the world revolves.) Carthusian motto

It is we who change; He remains the same. Eckhart

Kinei hos eromenon. (It moves [all things] as the beloved.) Aristotle

[Philip Kim]

What appealed to me about RBW was that they are all about bikes fitting into the lifestyle of the person and not the other way around. The bike conforms to the rider; the rider does not conform to the bike. In a more simple term "more useful stuff". This is not only in their product design: higher handlebars, sloping top tubes, various wheel sizes, upright bars, single butted and straight gauge tubing, bigger tires, etc.

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-5, Surlyprof wrote:

[masmojo]

Not sure how it relates to what you are doing, but it occurs to me that the more the industry moves towards carbon fiber & bikes as a disposable, a consumable; the more Rivendell (& other small specialty brands) will grow.

[Evan E.]

I'm a fan of Rivendell because it slakes (and also increases) my thirst for craft and quality, beauty and utility, fun and freedom — and community, too. Grant, with his writings and with his bicycle designs and with the products he sells, has created a world that I want to live in. In this world I ride fast and climb easily. I eat bacon and never jog. I fell trees with Swedish steel. And my calendar is crowded with Riv rides and with Riv friends. 

Now, to somewhat address John's question: Did design build Rivendell? For me, no. Words built Rivendell.

[eflayer]

Seems to me the meaning comes out of a design and lifestyle aesthetic and value system invented by and marketed by Grant Peterson. He is incredibly focused on it and appears to be a man with a mission much stronger than most of us. He has created a world of his own design and filled it with mostly fine products that fit that world. His tireless interest in the written word and his quirky writing style are attractive to many of us who enjoy being entertained by a strong personality. I'd say he is evangelical in his approach and needs to be that way in order to sustain the business he has built. His fingerprints are deep in all that is RBW. He is seemingly practical to a fault and the aesthetic and price of his practical jewelry are not really practical at all. The bikes are all gorgeous and heavy in a day of lightweight steel, but he sells the heck out that stuff to those who buy the evangelism. No harm in it. In fact, if it makes you happy, it can't be that bad. I have been following him for 15 years, owned 5 Rivs of one sort or another. They mostly don't fit my fast, club riding bike style, so own them no more. He lost me, in a sense, at double top tubes. But as you can see, RBW still means something to me.

[Surlyprof]

This is great!  Thanks everyone for your thoughtful responses.  I feared that the idea of how, or if, we derive a sense of meaning from a product or a company may be too abstract.   This is something I have been wrestling with for a while now and I’m thrilled to see how others are responding to the topic.  Evan had a great suggestion as to how I might clarify the question.  His suggestion for another way to ask the question might be, “What does RBW means to you -- that is, what attracts you to it and how do you explain/account for that attraction?”  I think this was a nice way to ask the question (which is what happens when a writer writes it instead of a designer!).

I guess I should have thrown in my own take on the subject.  As a designer, I’ve worked for lots of companies where they created products that they may or may not have cared about.  Design choices were often driven by marketing reports and focus groups more than some sort of core beliefs.  The times I’ve loved my job the most were those where the company operated from their beliefs more than the latest focus group reports.  From my view, RBW seems to exist, promote and continue to evolve around things that Grant and others at RBW believe in.  He proves that taking a strong position in design may repel some but will also attract people with whom those beliefs and resulting products resonate.  As I often tell my students, the stronger position you take will increase the chances that you will alienate some people but it will also increase the depth of connection you may make with those with whom your designs resonate.  I admire that RBW believes in MUSA, steel, lugs, craft, wool, small manufacturers in Europe and Japan, etc.  My industry went through an “authenticity” kick in the early 2000’s but it struck me as an industry buzzword with no content backing it up.  RBW products don’t have to market authenticity, it just is.  I thought exposing students to this may reveal an option that many are unaware of when they come to design school.

With the exception of a few particularly unsettled years, I’ve always enjoyed cycling, did a little road and mountain racing, but mostly just enjoyed bikes and riding.  I’ve almost always ridden steel bikes, some lugged, some not.  As bike design became driven more by the racing world, the more I embraced my love of steel bikes.  When I was introduced to Grant and RBW, I had aluminum MTB I didn’t like and a tig-welded road bike I did.  The craftsmanship of Riv bikes represented a caring that I had been witnessing slip away in my industry.  The prices didn’t strike me as exorbitant since the craft was evident and I understood the value and costs associated with their production methods and low volumes.  When I finally bought my Hillborne, I saw it as analogous to purchasing a piece of finely crafted furniture.  Riding it clarifies what I always loved about using a bicycle for exercise, recreation and enhancing the sensory experience of getting where I need to go… as well as a few places I didn’t know I needed to go until I got there.  Riv products and bikes seem to align with my values as a designer and person.  In doing so, this helps clarify how I want to design and live going forward.  The Hillborne makes sure I don’t lose sight of that by revealing how fun it can be.

John

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:10:42 PM UTC-8, Surlyprof wrote:

[Patrick Moore]

John -- what exactly do you design?

When I took my MBA courses some 18 years ago, one of the big buzzwords was "perception of value" -- you want to convince customers that you are providing "value," so that they will give you money. I thought it strange that they emphasized "perception" and not "value," but the motive for this focus is evident when you consider that, after all, most organization are run "abstractly" by professional managers who "manage by numbers" and who have no real contact with, let alone love for, the product or service that their companies sell.

Here beginneth a spluttering rant: A entire way of life ("economy" is, after all, a way of living, including a worldview) based on conning the customer (buy at the highest price what we make at the lowest price even if you don't really need or want it) can't be healthy, despite the very obvious technological advances made by this system. It's essentially a con-man paradigm.

Rivendell makes and sells what it loves. Some of those things are very weird, but, to quote again, "we are product driven, not market driven."

[Surlyprof]

Patrick,

I've designed trains, lift trucks, amusement parks, housewares, office supplies, electronics, shoes, cars (interiors mostly)... all sorts of things.  The concept of "perceived value" has never sat well with me either and I have witnessed it first hand.  I think that is one reason I like what Riv is doing.  Things cost what they cost with enough of a profit to keep the company going and keep people paid.  In product design I was always amazed that something would be designed to retail for $80, would list for $60 (already a artificial price) and be manufactured for $6.50 + another $2 for the packaging that was thrown away!  The rest appeared to cover overhead, profits and growth for shareholders.  Your rants are justified in many cases, particularly in the consumer markets.  To add fuel to that fire, the prices of most goods don't cover things that I feel may be more important in the long run such as disposal, environmental impact or recycling costs.  I see some movement towards improving that situation in the future but it seems to be coming at way too slow of a pace.  That is another thing about Riv that resonated with me... 40-year bikes and other products that you buy once unless something happens to it.  I grew up around a grandfather who ran a small butcher shop in Ohio and paid a little more for things that he felt would last.  He was also a scratch handicap golfer who made a club with special grip he molded to teach my brothers and I how to golf.  I get to remember this fondly whenever I play golf because I'll be using the very golf clubs that he bought for himself over 40 years ago!  I rarely golf but still keep those clubs, not because they perform as well as contemporary clubs but because of the meaningful memories attached to them.  Given how I golf these days, performance is a much lesser factor.

John

[Patrick Moore]

You have an interesting job; hope it pays well, too.

Somewhat of an aside, but not unrelated: I have a small (1253 sf) house which I share occasionally with a 14 year old daughter (say, 1/3 of the year). I am the type who hates clutter, and who throws things out much too readily.

Yet I am continually impressed by how much "stuff" I have; clothing, say. I could easily do with 1/4 as much in clothes, bikes, pots and pans, dishes, and so forth -- leading me to think that, if I could spend the same on just a quarter of things, but have those things top quality, made locally, and meet my needs without compromise, I'd be happier with what I have.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Evan E.]

Patrick wrote: "if I could spend the same on just a quarter of things, but have those things top quality, made locally, and meet my needs without compromise, I'd be happier with what I have."

Yep! I imagine that most people on this list like the idea of products that work well, look good, last a long time, and somehow satisfy the soul. Most Rivendell products do that for me, and I, like John's grandfather, am often willing to pay more for an item that will last. But not always. A cherrywood five-drawer dresser from Thomas Moser costs $6,460, and though it might well be the Atlantis of dressers and therefore constitute a good value, I can't touch that price. So I buy a decent but lesser dresser (clean and simple design, made of alder wood in the USA) and hope that my soul will be content with people and experiences that one cannot buy. And, every once in a while, when I'm bored and when the consumer within me insists that I can buy meaning at a store, I make another trip to Rivendell!

[Surlyprof]

Patrick,

Teaching doesn't seem to pay that great in any field (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01eggers.html?_r=0).  That said, I do have a fun and interesting job when you get past the bureaucracy and paperwork.  Getting to explore topics like this and passing what I discover on to students makes it all the more worthwhile.  Guess I prescribe more to what I thought was Emerson's definition of success... which, upon further exploration, may not have been written by Emerson at all.  http://emerson-legacy.tamu.edu/Ephemera/Success.html  Learn something new every day.

Either way, I've gotten to draw and color for a living and that's all I really wanted to do as a kid.  The rest is icing on the cake.

John