Otis Chandler "1907" Harley in Fall Issue

[jurassic]

1835

[martin]

motor 1835

uh, let me guess... a fake motor? pics before the restoration?

[jurassic]

repop

[jurassic]

repop

notice that the M in milwaukee is right under the L in harley on this repop lower end.but on 1835 the M is to the right of the L.also the webbing is in a different position to the lettering.

[AdminGuy]

So was the bad typographic reproduction and placement (or slight tweek) done intentionally? Just curious. Cause I'm pretty sure that could have been reproduced or recast bang on. Was it done intentionally to differentiate between the two for ID purposes? Hummm... interesting to see. thanks.

[Earl]

Re: repop

Originally posted by jurassic
notice that the M in milwaukee is right under the L in harley on this repop lower end.but on 1835 the M is to the right of the L.also the webbing is in a different position to the lettering.

Hi Jurassic,

What's the history of motor # 1835 ?

[jurassic]

...

all i know about 1835 is the current owner has owned it for a long time,one of those guys who has been in the hobby a long time,and has the good stuff.i think it was missing most of the cam side stuff ,and the carb.it now has a fresh black chassis ,with the earlier style sager "attached" fork,and the tank with the filler on the side,and ribbed fenders.does anyone have a theory as to what was the first number harley stamped,if we are assuming 2000 was started in 1908.or how many bikes may have been built in 1907.does anyone have pictures of the collection bike tagged 1907,and is the vin number lower than 1835?

[23JDCA 808]

oldest running Harley (1905)

Just got the Spring 2007 AMCA publication. A p.14 article features a 1905 Harley.

[silentgreyfello]

Re: 1835

By my records, s/n 1835 would be the earliest original motor existing that has the numbers stamped on it. There are ealier ones unstamped. Here is what I do know about some fully complete, original bikes that remain. This is not counting partial bikes... just complete, originals.

s/n 1981: Fuel filler in front, ealier sager fork, no exhaust cutout, and smooth fenders. This is exactly like the one that walter is sitting on in the spring of 1907 except the filler is in the front. I would say this bike is late 1907. It doesn't appear that the tank was ever replaced. The patina is identical to the frame/battery box/fork/fenders.

s/n 2037: Fuel filler in front, later sager fork, exhaust cutout, and ribbed fenders. The nicest orig paint strap tank remaining. The only thing that appears to have been done on it is the rear fender brace being replaced many years ago (flat, not round and patina different).

s/n 2042: Same features as 2037. Bike was not original paint when Calidona owned it. It was a very old repaint. It was missing the handlebars and some small stuff when I saw it in Calif. Two owners later Chandler had it restored. The restorer didn't nickle the lower front fork like 2037 and some other subtle differences. It is now owned by an airplane/car guy.

s/n 2177 Same as 2037 except has less fins on cylinder and a toolbox. Bike had a very small amount of orig paint, but was "enhanced" on portions of the bike about 4 years ago.

s/n 2194 Has less fins and toolbox like 2177. Fork is later than 2177. This is the factory collection bike that appears the fork may have been changed? See ealier discussions on this bike.

IF Harley's production figures are correct (150 in 1907, 450 in 1908) AND my assumption that s/n 1981 is a 1907, then s/n 1835 could be an early 1907, but that would mean 1907's started at s/n 1831 or after. That is an odd place to start numbering! Another theory that I have is that s/n 1981 is an early 1908, but doesn't fit the advertising of 1908 features (ribbed fenders, exhaust cutout). However, if they were planning on making changed for 1908 but still had some parts left over, what do you think they would have done with them? It also doesn't fit if you believe the experts on this website that have said they didn't do mid-year changes. Look no further than 2037 to 2177 for a major change (different cylinder). I also think it is plausible that the fork on s/n 2194 could have been a late 1908 change, which would make the bike all correct except for the seat.

About the only thing that I would suggest on s/n 1835 is to put smooth fenders on it to keep the dogs from criticizing it.

[jurassic]

1907's

i totally agree with harley using what was on the shelf at the time.1981 is most possibly a very significant machine. i doubt it was built in 1908.also i want to know ,what are we calling 1908??.bikes that were built only in 1908?,or bikes that were built and then sold as 1908 models,but possibly manufactured and or assembled in the last months of 1907?we all know that today we can buy next years model in september.did the same principal apply in 1907,with a company that had only been producing machines for 3 years.or did the factory boys just wake up on january 2nd 1909 and stop producing strap tanks and start producing a completely different machine.or did they gradually change their production line towards the end of 1908.in my opinion i believe that they were using some of the sager forks {not the attachment fork} at some point in late 1907.apparently somewhere between 1981 and 2037.we really need to see pics of 1981,is that possible??,and why cant i know the VIN number on harley's "tagged" 1907?is it possible that 2037 was a "1908 model" produced in 1907?is it also possible that the boys at the factory may have wanted to road test their newly designed fork{ie. 1909 fork} just prior to january 1st 1909.possibly utilizing a machine that they ,or one of the factory workers ,may have been riding back and forth to work every day.at the risk of beating a dead horse,i do believe that studing some of the remaining machines and /or motors may tell us something.we need pics of 1981......

[jurassic]

1835

[silentgreyfello]

1981

I believe it is a significant bike as well. The owner said that he is going to bring it to the meet in Minnesota. I think that is in June? I have some old 35mm photos of it somewhere. I'll try to convert to digital. I plan on taking a bunch more photos of it if I make it to the meet.

There are too many discrepancies within one year to not believe that they made mid-year changes, large or small.

[jurassic]

strappy racer

one of my favorite strappy pics,geez , did they even have electricity in california in 1909?

[HarleyCreation]

1907 Factory bike: #1872

That is a REALLY nice early Harley racing photo that Jurassic posted. Very cool!

Incidently, we documented that the "first"(?) Harley reached California in 1906 also based on some race results.

Originally posted by Jurassic

why cant i know the VIN number on harley's "tagged" 1907?

and:

does anyone have pictures of the collection bike tagged 1907, and is the vin number lower than 1835?

I thought we posted the number of the Factory's collection 1907 bike already, but if not the number on it is #1872.

That number would put it in the 1907 model year if our below-2000-for-1907 theory is correct.

Here's a photo of #1872 from my little color book Classic H-D 1903-1941 published by MBI with Mark Mitchell's excellent photographs.

This shot was taken by Mark when the Factory collection 1907 was at the Milwaukee Public Museum.

Incidently, the contents in that color book about Harley's mythical "1903" first year has been superceded by At the Creation.

Back then I was a believer.....

[HarleyCreation]

Re: Re: 1835

Originally posted by silentgreyfello
It also doesn't fit if you believe the experts on this website that have said they [Harley] didn't do mid-year changes.

To my knowledge, nobody on this thread (including me) ever claimed that Harley didn't do "mid-year" changes. The controversy was whether the 1909 (1910?) model fork on the Factory collection 1908 bike was correct or incorrect. I maintained it was NOT correct for the reasons that I stated and I still stand by that position.

However, we know for a fact and have documented in the Creation book that Harley did make changes when they felt like it from the beginning. We see that happening in the first year of production in 1905. The first advertising drawing and the first advertising photo of a Harley we have from early 1905 show bikes WITHOUT fenders. However, by June of 1905, Harley was producing (and racing) bikes WITH fenders as documented by period photos. That change is clearly proven by original 1905 evidence showing that they made changes as needed and why wouldn't they?

Today, however, a hundred years later, when somebody finds a suspicious part on an existing bike that's one hundred years old and has been subject to one hundred years of backyard tinkering, repairs, and/or updates, the burden-of-proof falls on the person claiming that the suspicious part is original and on the bike today because of some hypothetical "mid-year" change made when the bike was originally constructed.

That's just common sense logic and has nothing to do with any special knowledge about early Harley-Davidson. But it is critical to how we examine antique motorcycles and how we judge their authenticity.

Opinions from other Forum members are welcome.