Willie G.'s New Book

[HJahn]

Replies

Originally posted by Earl
Their motor wasn't the biggest, but was substantial enough to not be the weak link. I think the Mitchel motor was bigger. They didn't place their motor in a diamond style bicycle frame, where it would give a high center of gravity. Their motor was mounted lower and had the frame member loop under it, which really gave it a nice look, and a lower center of gravity, ala better handling. So it was probably the combination of good looks, adequate power, handling, and reliability that won so many early followers.
People were after transportation, not an exercise machine.

--> Yeah, I looked the Mitchell up in the book. It was like a 630cc and the H-D was around 440cc and the Indian was much smaller at 260cc. These Harley-Davidson SNO jobs with no fenders do look cool. But like this book says, it's a dead ringer for the Merkel motorcycle. Funny, but the Mitchell, Merkel, and Harley-Davidson were all built in and around Milwaukee in that early 1901-1905 period.

Hey.....
We're getting off the topic.

Big deal!

These early early early bikes are interesting.

Is that why they call you Earl?

For "early?"

Or is it so clear to everyone the differences between the two Serial Number One machines that no one else has any comments?

You can't have TWO Serial Number One machines !!!

You COULD have two Model Number One machines.

OR, are there enough differences between these two bikes that show us we may have a Model Number One machine, AND a Model Number Two machine??????

COMMENTS????

-->I don't know what you mean by 2 "model one" machines. Isn't H-D talking about serial numbers like the W.G. book and earlier books say they found? But if they are different bikes, you wouldn't think they could both be stamped with serial number "1" unless they are different model years. Is that what you mean?

--> Another thing. I don't know why a stamped #1 would necessarily mean that is the bikes' serial number. If I look at photos of early H-Ds (like 1910), the serial number is stamped on the left side of the crankcase (and cylinder?). I don't see any number stamped on these so-called SERIAL NUMBER ONE machines in that location.

--> These machines do look a lot like Bruce's 1905 that is on the club calendar. Except for fenders/no fenders there isn't any real big differences that I can see. Is Bruces' bike Serial Number One #3? Model number one #3? I'm cornfused....

[Earl]

Re: Replies

Originally posted by HJahn

-->I don't know what you mean by 2 "model one" machines. Isn't H-D talking about serial numbers like the W.G. book and earlier books say they found? But if they are different bikes, you wouldn't think they could both be stamped with serial number "1" unless they are different model years. Is that what you mean?

Starting for the Model year of 1909, Harley-Davidson called their motorcycles for that year, Model 5 motorcycles. Counting backwards would give us Model 4 motorcycles for 1908, Model 3 motorcycles for 1907, Model 2 motorcycles for 1906, and Model 1 motorcycles for the production year of 1905. I'm not aware of the factory using these Model numbers, 1 thru 4, to designate different production years, but it helps me to think along those terms when I'm looking at very early harleys. We can only try to classify an early harley's heritage, or it's individual parts, by physical appearance, dimensions, and comparing to photographs and published specifications of the period.

This Model Numbering scheme is also the reason that the 1954 Model motorcycles were introduced as the 50th anniversary models.

Originally posted by HJahn
--> Another thing. I don't know why a stamped #1 would necessarily mean that is the bikes' serial number. If I look at photos of early H-Ds (like 1910), the serial number is stamped on the left side of the crankcase (and cylinder?). I don't see any number stamped on these so-called SERIAL NUMBER ONE machines in that location.

My understanding is that when the factory disassembled the lobby bike motor, they 'saw' what appeared to them as tiny 1's on some internal pieces/parts. Then the factory declared it to be the first harley motor ever built, hence the nickname Serial Number One. But that's not enough evidence for me. Could just as likely been match numbers stamped at a time when a number of motors were apart at the same time. Standard mechanic's practice. Did the factory take apart other early motors? What would they do if they found a '0' stamped in a motor? Or nothing at all?

Vehicle Serial numbers back then probably weren't important until vehicle licensing started to become an issue, and also contacting the factory for replacement parts.

I'm not aware of any early harley motor being stamped externally until 1907.

Originally posted by HJahn
--> These machines do look a lot like Bruce's 1905 that is on the club calendar. Except for fenders/no fenders there isn't any real big differences that I can see. Is Bruces' bike Serial Number One #3? Model number one #3? I'm cornfused....

And for those who don't have the club calendar.......get one!!!

[HJahn]

Re: Re: Replies

Originally posted by Earl

Starting for the Model year of 1909, Harley-Davidson called their motorcycles for that year, Model 5 motorcycles. Counting backwards would give us Model 4 motorcycles for 1908, Model 3 motorcycles for 1907, Model 2 motorcycles for 1906, and Model 1 motorcycles for the production year of 1905. I'm not aware of the factory using these Model numbers, 1 thru 4, to designate different production years, but it helps me to think along those terms when I'm looking at very early harleys. We can only try to classify an early harley's heritage, or it's individual parts, by physical appearance, dimensions, and comparing to photographs and published specifications of the period.

This Model Numbering scheme is also the reason that the 1954 Model motorcycles were introduced as the 50th anniversary models.

I got out the official H-D book "The Legend Begins" and that confirms what you said about the 1909 H-Ds being labed "Model 5" (1910 Model 6, etc. until 1916 when the system went to the classic "36EL" year/model system).

BUT -- given that as true and counting back makes 1908-Mod.4 to 1905 Mod. 1 -- then WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED TO 1904 AND 1903?????

"The Legend Begins" also confirms that the 1954 was the 50th Anniversity Model. That don't seem quite right either considering that H-D has 100th plastered all over the 2003 models.

It seems that in one sense we're missing a year here (2003-1954-1904=99 years). But at the same time we've got a couple of extra model years (1903 and 1904) that are not accounted for in Harley's own early model numbering system.

Something don't add up here...

[Earl]

Re: Re: Re: Replies

Originally posted by HJahn

BUT -- given that as true and counting back makes 1908-Mod.4 to 1905 Mod. 1 -- then WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED TO 1904 AND 1903?????

Have you ever seen a picture of a production 1903 Harley-Davidson motorcycle, taken in 1903? If they made 3 motorcycles, you'd think someone, somewhere, somehow, would have taken a picture??

What's the earliest published photograph of a Harley-Davidson?

Originally posted by HJahn
"The Legend Begins" also confirms that the 1954 was the 50th Anniversity Model. That don't seem quite right either considering that H-D has 100th plastered all over the 2003 models.

Growing up, I remember the different anniversary celebrations, you know, the 75th, the 85th, etc. and I remember taking the calendar year and subtracting the anniversary year, and getting 1903, but all those happened much later than 1954. ?????????
Doesn't seem quite right, now does it? That one has puzzled me for years.

Originally posted by HJahn
It seems that in one sense we're missing a year here (2003-1954-1904=99 years). But at the same time we've got a couple of extra model years (1903 and 1904) that are not accounted for in Harley's own early model numbering system.

Something don't add up here...

Did somebody make a goof between 1954 and now?

[Earl]

In the AMCA club quarterly magazine, there was an article on the early harleys. I just looked it up.

Good article !!!

A New Chronology of the Harley-Davidson motorcycle 1901-1905
Spring 2001 issue, Vol. 40, No. 1.

I just keep reading that article, and nodding my head in agreement. This article claims to have the earliest known picture of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, as well as a picture of the claimed original bike, taken in 1912.

The WillieG-Serial Number One motorcycle doesn't look like either bike. And the Mitchel-Serial Number One motorcycle doesn't look like either bike. Well they sort of do, but both frames and a lot of little details are different than either early picture.

Where does that lead us?

[HJahn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Replies

Originally posted by Earl

Have you ever seen a picture of a production 1903 Harley-Davidson motorcycle, taken in 1903? If they made 3 motorcycles, you'd think someone, somewhere, somehow, would have taken a picture??

What's the earliest published photograph of a Harley-Davidson?

Actually, when I go thru these books, the oldest ("first") Harley-Davidson pictured as a 1903 model always seems to be one of their museum collection bikes and NOT a photo from 1903 or 1904.

Growing up, I remember the different anniversary celebrations, you know, the 75th, the 85th, etc. and I remember taking the calendar year and subtracting the anniversary year, and getting 1903, but all those happened much later than 1954. ?????????
Doesn't seem quite right, now does it? That one has puzzled me for years.

Did somebody make a goof between 1954 and now? [/B]

Whether or not they "goofed" or not I don't know. But it looks like they shifted their anniversary from 1904-1954 (50th) to 1903-2003 (100th). I wonder when that change took place? I know the "75th" was in 1978. But how about between 1978 and 1954? Were any anniversaries noted???

You would think that in 1954 there were still enough old guys still around that they got things right. But what is RIGHT?

[Earl]

Originally posted by HJahn

"Actually, when I go thru these books, the oldest ("first") Harley-Davidson pictured as a 1903 model always seems to be one of their museum collection bikes and NOT a photo from 1903 or 1904."

I have a reprint of a 1938 Enthusiast, "Let's visit the Harley-Davidson Factory", and the inside back cover has a photo of the historical motorcycle lineup at the factory. The black model leading the lineup, is labeled as a '1904'.

A caption to that picture states.....

"First working model was designed and built in 1903-production began in 1904."

Sort of contradicts the 3 in '03 legend right there !! And if production BEGAN in 1904, but wasn't ready to sell until the 1905 model year, that would answer the Model Number 1 reasoning !!! And the 50th in 1954 also !!

In the September 1953 Enthusiast, there is a photo of the lineup on the inside front cover. The model leading the lineup is still labeled as a '1904'.

Then I have a picture from 1963, and the label on the same machine now reads as '1903-1904'. And there is a sign behind the motorcycle that reads, 1903, Our 60th Anniversary, 1963, so that might be where a shift in counting happened...???

Don't have any pictures of this bike depicting it as only '1903', until the late 1990's, but it appears to be the same machine.

No actual pictures from 1903 or 1904.
Hmmmmm???

[HJahn]

From the discussion so far, it seems that Harley-Davidson progressively back-dated its first/earliest machine in the Mo Co collection to be older and older over the years.

1) 1930s-1950s: Earliest was labeled as a "1904"

2) By 1963: Earliest was labeled as a "1903-1904"

3) 1980s: Earliest was labeled as a "1903"

4) Late 1990s-2000: Earliest is labeled as a "1903" and now called "Serial Number One"

5) Today: There are now two 1903 "Serial Number One" bikes!

During the same period, H-D's Anniversary year shifted back one year as well.

The "New Chronology of Harley-Davidson" article you mentioned that appeared in the Spring 2001 issue of The Antique Motorcycle mag. shows several early Harley-Davidson photos. The oldest photo there only dates back to April of 1905!

Once again, 1904 and definitely 1903 are missing.

This is getting to be a real educational process...

[Earl]

More questions than answers......

Look at the Harley-Davidson Co web site....
Pull down COMPANY, then HISTORY, then the decade 1900

Here some year 1903 information (fact, or fiction?) is presented.
They have a picture of C.H. Lang, and identified him as Charles, but I've only seen his name as Carl !! If they have his name wrong, what else might be incorrect?

And the year 1904 is completely missing. (Unless what happened in 1904 & 1905 was shifted in time......neat trick!)

Then for 1905 is says that they hired their first full time employee.

But if they didn't hire an employee until 1905, how did they make all those motorcycles? You know... design the parts, make the patterns, get castings done, get all that machine work done, order the parts they didn't make, assemble the parts, etc. etc.

PLUS,..........

They all had other full time jobs, and Bill Harley wasn't even there!! He was away at college most of the time. Sort of makes you wonder what these guys were eating for breakfast.

NOW, go back to that early Harley article in the club magazine, Spring 2001, on page 23. There is a letter from the Grandchildren of William S. Harley.

"However, over the years, our father, John Edward Harley, emphatically maintained two things:

First, ONLY one (1) machine was produced in 1903, and

ONLY one (1) machine was produced in 1904."

Does that explain the lack of any 1903 or 1904 photos?

[HJahn]

There's something else in the spring 2001 article we haven't mentioned yet.

That is the possibility that there was an earlier H-D invention of a motorized bicycle that was completely different from the loop-frame model we are used to seeing. This little motor-bicycle had a tiny engine (7 ci) and was probably put in a standard bicycle frame. The article theorizes THAT is what Harley-Davidson finished in 1903 and NEVER MARKETED. There is a 1907 Harley-Davidson source that states that.

If that is true and the loop-frame model with bigger motor (24 ci) wasn't finished until 1904 (like the article also states), then it makes sense there are no 1903 photos of it and why H-D considered 1954 to be their anniversary. It would also explain why 1905 was model year #1 (the 1904 bike(s) were protos.

Did the Mo. Co. later (after 1953-54) change their tune about the dinky 1903 motor-bicycle and push the later loop-frame model back in time? And then later push the anniversary back in time too?

[Earl]

Originally posted by HJahn
That is the possibility that there was an earlier H-D invention of a motorized bicycle that was completely different from the loop-frame model we are used to seeing. This little motor-bicycle had a tiny engine (7 ci) and was probably put in a standard bicycle frame. The article theorizes THAT is what Harley-Davidson finished in 1903 and NEVER MARKETED. There is a 1907 Harley-Davidson source that states that.

So in 1903 our heroes were able to get Bill Harley's first little motor put together and stuck in a regular diamond style bicycle frame. Then they realized that wasn't the vehicle they wanted to have. It was too underpowered, and still needed leg power. Back to the drawing board. That makes sense now as I read the September 1953 Enthusiast. But we still to this day don't have any positive proof that this Motor-Bicycle was ever finished or even ran, other than them telling us. NO PICTURE EXISTS, THAT WE KNOW OF !!!!!

Originally posted by HJahn
If that is true and the loop-frame model with bigger motor (24 ci) wasn't finished until 1904 (like the article also states), then it makes sense there are no 1903 photos of it and why H-D considered 1954 to be their anniversary. It would also explain why 1905 was model year #1 (the 1904 bike(s) were protos.

So after the NEVER MARKETED Motor-Bicycle of 1903, they started work on a NEW motor, with a NEW carburetor, which required a NEW frame, and while everybody still had other full time jobs, they were able to design, pattern, cast, machine, and assemble 3 fully integrated, functional motorcycles, in whatever remaining months of the year? These guys were good, but they weren't supermen !! So if they start in late 1903, and finish a prototype New model in 1904, that seems a lot more realistic, now doesn't it? Isn't there a record of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle entered in a race in 1904? And that would be the first recorded appearance of a HD motorcycle.

Originally posted by HJahn
Did the Mo. Co. later (after 1953-54) change their tune about the dinky 1903 motor-bicycle and push the later loop-frame model back in time? And then later push the anniversary back in time too?

It might not have been as late as that, but much earlier. Reading that Spring 2001 article again, the transformation of their 1903 Motor-Bicycle machine started to happen in 1908 with a succession of advertising blurbs. And with the given rarity, or rather, lack of 1903 or 1904 photos, it became easy to confuse all the early models. And aligning with the year 1903 made a lot of sense because that's when the Ford Motor Co. started, and Wilbur and Orville Wright did their thing.

[Earl]

And now folks, back to the reason for the thread in the first place. I got out my AMCA membership card to double check when the Florida meet was, when I noticed the Harley factory 1905 single on the front. I quickly grabbed my magnifying glass and looked at the details of the bike. I now think that the motorcycle pictured on the front of the AMCA membership card, the factory 1905 single, with fenders, has become the fenderless motorcycle that appears in Willie G.'s new book.

CHECK THIS OUT AND TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK !!

WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT ??

[Matt n. Olsen]

That is what I posted a month ago. It was incorrectly restored a long time ago. The story that I know is that Mark Rosenblum was researching the bike for the 95th anniversery and discovered that it was incorrectly restored. They have restored it to its"original " condition just within the last few years.

[HJahn]

Originally posted by Earl
And now folks, back to the reason for the thread in the first place. I got out my AMCA membership card to double check when the Florida meet was, when I noticed the Harley factory 1905 single on the front. I quickly grabbed my magnifying glass and looked at the details of the bike. I now think that the motorcycle pictured on the front of the AMCA membership card, the factory 1905 single, with fenders, has become the fenderless motorcycle that appears in Willie G.'s new book.

CHECK THIS OUT AND TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK !!

WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT ??

I found other photos of this 1905 collection bike in Harley-Davidson Rolling Sculpture with fenders before it became the Serial Number One/2 and I think you are right and they are the same bike. It has the same bashed rear end of the oil tank (under seat) that Serial Number One/2 in Willie G.'s book has.

So here we have another jump in time? A leap in faith?

Because what was traditionally called in the MoCo collection as a 1905 model has now become the 2nd Serial Number One "1903" model. In checking W.G.'s book again, it is listed as "1903/04 Serial Number One," and then the text says:

"This is the very first production Harley-Davidson motorcycle (though prototypes likely existed before it)."

I think it would have been a better choice had they kept calling it a 1905 model because that makes more sense as the "first production Harley-Davidson motorcycle" seems to have been the 1905 that was Model 1 -- and which I take to mean the first year of production.

Then they could call the 1st "Serial Number One" (the shiny one) a representation of the first prototype. I say representation because that first ever built Harley-Davidson (1904?) has disappeared from what I can gather. The photo of it taken in 1912 shows distinctive features not found on any of these collection bikes or in 1905-era photos (seen in the Spring 2001 article.)

In fact, on the inside of the front cover there is a full-page photo of this 1904 prototype Harley taken in 1912. You can clearly see that the rear motor mount position is DIFFERENT from that on the Serial Number One bikes (both 1 and 2). The article makes a point of this motor mount position being the best way to identify the 1905 model from the earlier (1904?) prototype. Both Serial Number One's have 1905 motors IMO.

[HJahn]

Originally posted by Matt n. Olsen
That is what I posted a month ago. It was incorrectly restored a long time ago. The story that I know is that Mark Rosenblum was researching the bike for the 95th anniversery and discovered that it was incorrectly restored. They have restored it to its"original " condition just within the last few years.

Yes, I have read the same thing.

But there is an added development Earl has brought up.

The MoCo now has 2 different machines that they are calling "Serial Number One" and claiming to be the original 1903 or 1903/04 bike.

1) the FIRST "Serial Number One" re-stored without fenders, low bars, and with white tires that appeared with that new look in the late 1990s (very slick and shiny, new paint, etc.) Previously this bike was called a 1904/1903-04/1903 model and it had fenders.

2) the SECOND "Serial Number One" also re-stored without fenders, white tires, but with older paint and generally rougher than SNO#1 and is ONLY seen (so far) in Willie G.'s new book where it is called a 1903/04. Just recently this SAME bike was tagged as a 1905 and it had fenders, etc. So recently in fact, that it appears in pre-restyled condition on the 2003 AMCA membership card as a 1905 model!

Overall, the early Harley-Davidson motorcycles and their history appears to be a confused mess and I don't think it will be solved until Bruce rides his 1905 into Milwaukee this summer!

Maybe then the skies will part and the TRUTH will be spoken by the ghosts of Bill Harley and the Davidsons!

I hope to be there on Juneau Avenue when it happens....