the organic nature of frame building - taking a pile of parts, some tools,
experience, and a vision - has always confounded me atmo. i'm way more
comfortable with it now than i was when i started. but it often made me
squirm as i was trying to figure out the dance. no two are alike. and some
parts of one can be so very right, while the rest of it is just good enough.
getting it nailed from end to end isn't possible, and i surrendered to that
notion years ago. in some ways it's like the accuracy of a quartz watch
compared to the idiosyncrasies of a mechanical one. i say in some ways,
because i really don't know watches well enough to know why a drug store
example may keep more accurate time than one labored over by a skilled
watchmaker. oh, and in many ways i don't care.

but i do know about frames, and no matter what you bring to the table, and
no matter how hard you try, or how on your game you are, no two are alike.
alas, duplication and repeatability are just dreams atmo.

is it okay to articulate these differences and even celebrate them? since i
can't seem to get to that elusive other side, i reckon it is.