Otis Chandler "1907" Harley in Fall Issue

[B. Rodencal]

Well there you have the answer! Take a look at the questions on the listing.

[c.o.]

You point out the overlooked obvious thanks B.!!! So some original parts, but mostly re-pop......... At 135+ with reserve not met? This is crazy........Could it possibly fetch close to what the Chandler auction got????

[HarleyCreation]

The newly posted question and answer on the eBay listing is the one my "friend" asked the seller about his "1907" (1908) model. Whether it is: 1) Pristine Original. 2) Restored Original. 3) A Modern Made Replica.

His reply:

Quote: "Hi, It is a mixture of some original parts, but mostly new parts that are 100% correct. The paint is new, but made to look old. Serial no. is 20xx."

Yes, there we have it. I will credit the seller with posting his answer instead of just sending a private email.

But why wasn't this critical information posted in the original description? Not exactly fraud because he never claimed it was original, but just "used." Very sneaky nevertheless, esp. with that "some original parts" tidbit tossed in. I suppose you could "restore" a bike around one 1908 screw or one spoke or some other minor part and call it a "mixture."

Can you back out of an eBay auction once you bid?

What's crazy about this is that my pal's question seems to be the ONLY question asked about this "Hardly-a-Davidson" motorcycle. People are willing to bid up to $135,000 (with 5 days to go!) and aren't even questioning this bike's authenticity in any manner?!

On the other hand if we hadn't educated ourselves along with knowledgeable guys like Earl who have studied the field, why would we even be suspicious or sceptical?

Scenario: "Yeah, I was like stolling by eBay Motors parking lot the other day and there was this old Harley sitting there with a "used" for sale sign on it. Oh boy it was a 1907 model too! So I bid my life savings on it knowing how freaking valuable old Harleys are. How did I know it was a $%&*@$ replica?"

It will be interesting to watch how much higher this "Hardly-a-Davidson" bids up with a better description of this replica bike now posted for all to see before they pull the trigger.

Buyer beware!

[jurassic]

strap madness

well thankfully that crazy world out there has given us plenty to talk about on this subject as of late.the ebay bike #2016 is really an amazing bike,even more so if it is a replica.can you even imagine how much work must have gone into making a running ,riding exact copy of one of the most influencial,and beautifully crafted motorcycles in american history.in this day and age it would cost you half a mill to do what walter and the boys did a century ago for 300 bucks.if this guy has less than 100K in #2016 i would be amazed.and to note he has been answering other questions,and from what i can tell{because i placed a bid},he is not trying to" pass it off " as something it is not.as you can imagine this might not be an easy bike to sell.especially on ebay.but the owner definatly does not deserve to be villified in this manner,he should be complimented .as for the AMA museum bike ,geez is that ugly,nice engine though.i do agree that studying gas tanks and forks and frames is fruitless because of the many talented craftsmen out there today.i do have a little info as well.there is a lady on ebay now that is selling alot of 1911 harley engine parts.in one of her listings she says that "the 1908 harley engine" will be listed on december 5.i emailed her and tried to pry any info i could ,even offering large wheelbarrows full of money.she said no way .not sure if this is a joke or not,but i guess we will see.

[HarleyCreation]

Re: strap madness

Originally posted by jurassic
well thankfully that crazy world out there has given us plenty to talk about on this subject as of late.the ebay bike #2016 is really an amazing bike,even more so if it is a replica.can you even imagine how much work must have gone into making a running ,riding exact copy of one of the most influencial,and beautifully crafted motorcycles in american history.in this day and age it would cost you half a mill to do what walter and the boys did a century ago for 300 bucks.if this guy has less than 100K in #2016 i would be amazed.and to note he has been answering other questions,and from what i can tell{because i placed a bid},he is not trying to" pass it off " as something it is not.as you can imagine this might not be an easy bike to sell.especially on ebay.but the owner definatly does not deserve to be villified in this manner,he should be complimented .as for the AMA museum bike ,geez is that ugly,nice engine though.i do agree that studying gas tanks and forks and frames is fruitless because of the many talented craftsmen out there today.i do have a little info as well.there is a lady on ebay now that is selling alot of 1911 harley engine parts.in one of her listings she says that "the 1908 harley engine" will be listed on december 5.i emailed her and tried to pry any info i could ,even offering large wheelbarrows full of money.she said no way .not sure if this is a joke or not,but i guess we will see.

Jurassic:

While I agree with much of what you said, the fact that this eBay bike is "mostly new parts" (we learn only after bidding is up to $135,000) should have appeared in the original description if the seller didn't want to appear as "passing it off as something it is not." That the bike is "mostly new parts" seems like an amazingly important little detail to leave out of the description if the seller wanted to come across as being up-front and honest.

Based on that little omission, I seriously wonder whether ANYTHING on that bike is "original."

While I agree that this bike looks masterfully and very skillfully done, it doesn't matter how much money it cost somebody to build. If it is a replica bike then it is NOT a "Harley-Davidson" motorcycle. The very title of the ad is therefore misleading. To be honest it should read: "Beautiful Perfect Replica Copy of a 190[8] Harley-Davidson" motorcycle (with "some?" original parts).

Then the original (if any) and new parts should be clearly described and/or documented and the full background of this bike given including the skillful artisans who created it, instead of just calling it "used."

About that 1908 motor you mention. Very interesting! Please post anything about it you may find out.

[HarleyCreation]

A wild guess here, but if this eBay replica bike is #2016 then is it reasonable to infer that there are at least 15 more copies like it out there?????

[B. Rodencal]

I suspected the bike was not real for a few reasons, Carb bowl: to smooth and polished nickle should be rough cast and dull nickle and the modern tank transfers. also the lower nickle fork leg trim. look at the Walter Photo there is none. As well as a few other things.

[B. Rodencal]

Originally posted by c.o.
You point out the overlooked obvious thanks B.!!!

Also obvious... he posts on this site... I bet he's even been reading this thread! Check out today's post in pre-16 motorcycles by none other than... silentgreyfello check his email look like an ebay handle?

[LouieMCman]

It doesn't seem to bother a lot of people, including our AMCA judges, that an old bike is predominantly repop. We have a lot of judged 95 to 100 point bikes that are almost completely remanufactured. They include of course Harley's, Indians, Hendersons, and the only Detroit (All remaned except the motor). And of course there are builders that specialize in painting bikes to look original. Some that also have been judges to Winner Circle status. So, are we to accept these bikes as the real thing? What do You think?

[c.o.]

I think the aforementioned reproduction bikes should be recognised as such. They may be well crafted to the point to pass as originals, but they are still a remanufactured copy of the real deal. I think there is room for such motorcycles but it should be made clear that they are in fact copies. I've often thought of trying to reproduce a boardtrack racer because I would never be able to afford the real thing. But it would still be a copy and would only be a mimic of the orginal piece. Just my two cents........

[HarleyCreation]

Originally posted by LouieMCman
It doesn't seem to bother a lot of people, including our AMCA judges, that an old bike is predominantly repop. We have a lot of judged 95 to 100 point bikes that are almost completely remanufactured. They include of course Harley's, Indians, Hendersons, and the only Detroit (All remaned except the motor). And of course there are builders that specialize in painting bikes to look original. Some that also have been judges to Winner Circle status. So, are we to accept these bikes as the real thing? What do You think?

I'm not into the judging scene so I don't know the answer to this, but are the "mostly new parts" bikes identified as such when judged?

[HarleyCreation]

Originally posted by c.o.
I think the aforementioned reproduction bikes should be recognised as such. They may be well crafted to the point to pass as originals, but they are still a remanufactured copy of the real deal. I think there is room for such motorcycles but it should be made clear that they are in fact copies. I've often thought of trying to reproduce a boardtrack racer because I would never be able to afford the real thing. But it would still be a copy and would only be a mimic of the orginal piece. Just my two cents........

That is my point-of-view as well. Remanufactured copy bikes should be identified as such up front. The antique motorcycle field is no different from buying an autograph of Abraham Lincoln or purchasing a Civil War revolver. Any sane person would want to know up-front whether it is the real thing or a skillfully fabricated modern copy. That does not detract from the expertise or integrity of people who replicate antique bikes -- so long as these modern copies are clearly labeled as such.

[HarleyCreation]

Originally posted by Earl
I've been told that the motor in this machine is an original Harley. Or at least the cases are.

Looking at the motor I count 8 studs holding the crankcases together. I'm not aware of any 1906 period photos showing an 8-stud motor in a 1906 model motorcycle. The earliest period photos that I'm aware of that show an 8-stud motor, have it appear in a 1907 model motorcycle.

Herb may wish to comment on this........

Does ANYONE have any other information to add to this???

We have compared the chassis features of two excellent original Harleys, in Serial # 2037 and Serial # 2042. So we have two known original examples of 1908 motors. If the motor in this "1906" machine could be compared with the two known 1908 motors, that may help date the motor's vintage. If there are definite differences in the castings, then the motor may be from a different model year. These differences probably would not be visible to photograph comparison. I've been told by some, that motors in the 18xx range have some definite differences. So even by knowing the serial number of this original motor, we may be able to give it a probable model year date, but the earliest I think it could be is from 1907.

The chassis of this "1906" machine shows a mix of characteristics; smooth fenders ala 1906, but later 1908 style tank. I think we shouldn't concentrate too much right now on the chassis, since there are so many reproduction pieces around.

Doesn't this "1906" [1908?] AMA museum bike have ribbed fenders? From the photos they look ribbed to me. (Edit: Viewing the pix again, maybe I'm just seeing the pin-stripe line).

As you said, from period photographs the 8-stud motor appeared with the 1907-1908 motors and 6-stud motors were the 1905-1906 motors. Being an 8-stud, this motor cannot be 1906 but must be 1907 or 1908.

Again, it would be great to know the serial number on this motor. I tried enlarging the photo but still couldn't make out a number on the crankcase or cylinder.

Chassis features are 1908: tanks, spring fork, cutout, etc. I'd like to take a closer look at that fork however. It looks kind of slim in proportion. I wonder how much of this bike is "mostly new parts" and how much original?

This early Harley stuff is a confused mess. The Factory claiming two entire production years they never had and bikes that never existed. The world famous (Chandler) collection bike going for over $300,000 and they have the model year wrong. "Mostly" new parts bike on eBay going under the "Harley-Davidson" motorcycle label also claiming the wrong model year. And now the expert AMA Museum claiming "1906" on a bike that ain't NOTHING like a real 1906 Harley-D except in some guy's dream.

Here we are 100 years along and what a nutty situation. This confusion is what stimulated the Harley "At the Creation" book but obviously the information in it hasn't sunken in yet.

[c.o.]

You got it Herb.........very confusing indeed......... I have to get on ordering At The Creation............ I had no idea that the very earliest of H-D parts were being re-produced.... If that's the case and if there's much of it already out there, this is just going to make all the edges greyer.........

[Earl]

Originally posted by HarleyCreation


Doesn't this "1906" [1908?] AMA museum bike have ribbed fenders? From the photos they look ribbed to me. (Edit: Viewing the pix again, maybe I'm just seeing the pin-stripe line).

And now the expert AMA Museum claiming "1906" on a bike that ain't NOTHING like a real 1906 Harley-D except in some guy's dream.

You're right Herb. The first time I looked at the AMA "1906" machine, I saw the pinstripes, and the fender looked smooth. But I looked at the site again, and at a different photo that shows a closer view of the fender, and it has a small rise in the center. The fenders are the ribbed 1908 style. Sorry for the mislead.

The AMA machine is definately NOT a 1906 machine.