Willie G.'s New Book

[HJahn]

Originally posted by Earl
So in 1903 our heroes were able to get Bill Harley's first little motor put together amd 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.

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.

This would be a heck of a lot of work even if they didn't finish the 2nd design until sometime in 1904. Impossible to design a second model and build 3 copies all in 1903 if I follow you correctly.

Classic Harley-Davidson 1903-1941 p.27 says a race was entered by an H-D in the "autumn of 1904" in Milwaukee. Is that the first recorded appearance of an H-D?

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.

Yes, article claims the monkey business started back in 1908 by writing the little 7 cubic inch motor-bicycle out of the story. If so, it would explain why the modern MoCo can't keep their story straight either. Maybe they don't know what to think either because of the widely divergent origin stories that appeared very early.

[Earl]

We've mentioned Bruce's 1905 a couple times. For all the guys who didn't break down and buy the club calendar, this sweetheart is on the cover.

[HJahn]

Bruce's 1905 H-D

Originally posted by Earl
We've mentioned Bruce's 1905 a couple times. For all the guys who didn't break down and buy the club calendar, this sweetheart is on the cover.

I really like the way that Bruce kept the old parts old and original as much as possible instead of making this early early early Harley into a glitzy Hollywood piece of Rolex butt jewelry.

That shows class, good taste, and respect for accurate restoration history IMHO instead of the other kind.

Am I dreaming or was there another thread titled "Who's Bruce?" that has mysteriously vanished off this Forum?????

[Earl]

Originally posted by HJahn

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.

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."

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.

I've been studying these early harley's for years. I agree with most of what you said.

The first Serial Number One, (Mitchel bike), which used to be called the Lobby Bike, could be called a REPRESENTATION of the first 1904 prototype. BUT, it is different from the 'core' machine shown in the 1912 photo, because it has a DIFFERENT motor, DIFFERENT frame, DIFFERENT tanks, DIFFERENT front hub, DIFFERENT rear hub, handlebars..........and those are only the obvious details. In it's present form though, it is much closer in appearance to represent a 1905 machine, as it is compared to the photo on the inside back cover of the Spring 2001 AMCA issue.

It is true, that both SNO bikes have six-stud crankcases, and I believe that the Mitchel machine has a 1905 motor.

But the second Serial Number One, (WillieG bike), which used to be called the factory 1905, and appears on the AMCA membership card, doesn't appear to have a 1905 motor. I believe it may have a 1906 motor. There are a few differences that I see in the castings and in photos that lead me to say that. There are also a few other parts on this machine that I believe are of an earlier vintage than 1906, and belong on the early machine.

Let me ask a question: When were both of these bikes assembled?

Answer: We don't know because we weren't there.

They were both present in the 1938 lineup photo, but have been made over numerous times, before, and after, that photo.

I said this in an earlier posting: 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.

[HJahn]

Earl,

I'm glad you pointed out that Serial Number One #1 (in Mitchel book) can only be called a REPRESENTATION of that now lost (it appears) first 1904 proto H-D due to the many unique features you described that can be seen in the 1912 photo of the 1904 proto in the Spring 2001 issue on the front inside cover.

I agree, both Serial Number One H-D museum bikes look very much like the 1905 H-D on the Spring 2001 issue inside back cover. According to that same "New Chronology of H-D" article in that same Spring 2001 issue of The Antique Motorcycle, that photograph is the OLDEST KNOWN photo image of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. I have never seen it in any book on Harley-Davidson and except for that cute little line drawing also from early 1905, there is NO EARLIER IMAGE of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle until you go back to that little 1901 bicycle-motor and the parts drawing that the Harley family still has. If a photo from 1903 or 1904 existed in the MoCo Archives today, it would probably have appeared in the Willie G. book like the Holy Grail, but none were there.

Curiously, the Willie G book does have the 1912 photo of the "1904" proto, BUT the caption reads in a very odd way: "Nearly a decade after it was built in 1912, one of the first Harley-Davidson motorcycles was still on the road, and by some accounts had run 100,000 miles."

Whoever edited that caption made it sound as if the bike was BUILT in 1912 when that was the year the photo was taken and that was obviously what the writer had in mind. This is obvious because the caption also states that this is the famous "100,000 mile" Harley also mentioned in the Spring 2001 article. That identifies it as the same 1904 proto. Also note how "nearly a decade after it was built" would appear to hedge the build date of that machine and makes it seem like 1903 again. But again, if so, where is the evidence?

In spite of this stunning lack of evidence, and new evidence in the Spring 2001 article that points to a 1904 prototype and 1905 as the first year of production, H-D is still sticking to a 1903 origin with production starting that same year. That "3 in 03 and Lang bought one" story that Earl mentioned before seems to be what the MoCo is going with. But where is the proof?

Makes you wonder if H-D today really understands its own history or is just maintaining a long-standing fiction. We all know how many mistakes and myths these so-called "histories" are full of. This might just be the biggest and most primordial fiction of all. That H-D is off a year or two on the build and production dates of its first bike/s.

[Earl]

Originally posted by HJahn In spite of this stunning lack of evidence, and new evidence in the Spring 2001 article that points to a 1904 prototype and 1905 as the first year of production, H-D is still sticking to a 1903 origin with production starting that same year. That "3 in 03 and Lang bought one" story that Earl mentioned before seems to be what the MoCo is going with. But where is the proof?

Here's some more anti-myth information: C.H. Lang didn't even hear of the Harley-Davidson motorcycle until 1904, and didn't sell any of their motorcycles until 1905.

Originally posted by HJahn Makes you wonder if H-D today really understands its own history or is just maintaining a long-standing fiction. We all know how many mistakes and myths these so-called "histories" are full of. This might just be the biggest and most primordial fiction of all. That H-D is off a year or two on the build and production dates of its first bike/s.

A case of being too close to the forest to see the trees.??? And a little sad, because the history of the Harley-Davidson Motor Company is awesome. They survived when everyone else failed. There's no need for errors found in early advertising to get in the way of an accurate account of Harley-Davidson's early history.

[HJahn]

I dug around for that quote that claims that H-D made 3 bikes in 1903 and C.H. Lang of Chicago bought one. I just found it in Hog Tales . Is this also the one you mean Earl? The source is Hog Tales May/June 2001, p. 24-29: “Harley-Davidson Model 5,” by Marty Rosenblum. The original source from which this quote was taken was Motorcycle Illustrated May 28, 1916: "The Harley-Davidson Company's President."

Here is the 1916 quote as reprinted in May/June 2001 Hog Tales:

“We found that in 1903 that there was a market for motorcycles, C.H. Lang, of Chicago, having heard of us in that year and buying one-third of our output. We made three motorcycles that year -- Lang bought one of them.”

This is the same story that H-D, Inc. is following for their 100 Year Birthday. On their "official" website history under the year 1903 it states:

The first Harley-Davidson Dealer, C.H. Lang of Chicago, Ill., opens for business and sells one of the first three production Harley-Davidson motorcycles ever made

Notice the change from "heard of us" and "buys" a Harley in "1903" in the 1916 source to "opens for business" and "sells" a Harley in the website version.

Hmmmm....

But now Earl claimed the following in his previous post:

Here's some more anti-myth information: C.H. Lang didn't even hear of the Harley-Davidson motorcycle until 1904, and didn't sell any of their motorcycles until 1905.

Obviously somebody is LYING THEIR BUTT OFF here. There is NO WAY Lang could have SOLD a Harley if he didn't hear of the brand until 1904. So Earl, if you have something to back up that statement, you'd better spit it out for us all to hear.

Something definitely ain't right in all this. There's monkey business going on. Two "Serial Number One's". A 1905 turning into a 1903/04. Little ''number ones" taken as full-blown serial number. No consistency between the early Harley-Davidson model numbering system (Model 1 = 1905) and what they now claim to have built and sold in 1903. No photos or other evidence from 1903 or 1904. A shift in their origin year from 1904-1954 to 1903-2003. The 1904 collection bike becoming over the years a 1903/04 and then a 1903. No mention of the preliminary dinky motor-bicycle (not mentioned on the website history or in W.G.'s book), but PROVED by the 1901 Bill Harley drawing still owned by the Harley family and shown in the Spring 2001 article in The Antique Motorcycle .

Almost kind of funny when you consider this blurb also from the H-D, Inc. website history:

It's a story no one on earth could have made up.

What's the subliminal message here?

That some martian made it up?

Sounds like a case for Sherlock Holmes to me....

[AdminGuy]

Controversy is fun when you discover facts that some will not like.

Now this action is really heating up! Egggcellent. "James - Release the Hounds".

[Earl]

Originally posted by HJahn Obviously somebody is LYING THEIR BUTT OFF here. There is NO WAY Lang could have SOLD a Harley if he didn't hear of the brand until 1904. So Earl, if you have something to back up that statement, you'd better spit it out for us all to hear.

I've been studying and researching the early models and early history of the Harley-Davidson Co. for years. Something just didn't seem right. The more I tried to find evidence and justify their 'made 3 in 1903, and Lang bought one' claims, just the opposite happened. I have found evidence that Carl Herman Lang himself told a much different version of these same events, and not in a motorcycle magazine either, but under SWORN TESTIMONY in a court of law. The source for this information is the court record itself. Let's hush a moment and let Mr. Lang himself take the stand:

Question: Are you familiar with the motorcycle produced by the Harley-Davidson people?
Answer: Yes

Question: When did you first become familiar with their motorcycle?
Answer: In the fall of 1904

Question: As a dealer in motorcycles, do you handle their product?
Answer: Yes

Question: How long have you handled the Harley-Davidson motorcycle?
Answer: I started to handle the Harley-Davidson motorcycle as a dealer beginning in 1905

Originally posted by HJahn
What's the subliminal message here?
That some martian made it up?
Sounds like a case for Sherlock Holmes to me....

It would have taken a martian, and his time traveling machine, to make bigger motors before smaller motors, and to accomplish an impossible amount of work for ordinary humans, in the time span claimed.....
I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but I like to do this kind of research, and will continue to keep digging.

[HJahn]

dem hubs

Originally posted by Earl

I've been studying and researching the early models and early history of the Harley-Davidson Co. for years. Something just didn't seem right. The more I tried to find evidence and justify their 'made 3 in 1903, and Lang bought one' claims, just the opposite happened. I have found evidence that Carl Herman Lang himself told a much different version of these same events, and not in a motorcycle magazine either, but under SWORN TESTIMONY in a court of law. The source for this information is the court record itself. Let's hush a moment and let Mr. Lang himself take the stand:

Question: Are you familiar with the motorcycle produced by the Harley-Davidson people?
Answer: Yes

Question: When did you first become familiar with their motorcycle?
Answer: In the fall of 1904

Question: As a dealer in motorcycles, do you handle their product?
Answer: Yes

Question: How long have you handled the Harley-Davidson motorcycle?
Answer: I started to handle the Harley-Davidson motorcycle as a dealer beginning in 1905


It would have taken a martian, and his time traveling machine, to make bigger motors before smaller motors, and to accomplish an impossible amount of work for ordinary humans, in the time span claimed.....
I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but I like to do this kind of research, and will continue to keep digging.

Earl,

You should write a book about this stuff! You seem to have all the facts. What's funny here is that you name the first H-D dealer Carl Herman Lang (from the court case?), but the H-D, Inc. website history calls him Charles Lang.

Do we have two different 1st H-D dealers just like we have two different Serial Number One bikes?

I know! Carl Herman Lang sold one of those Serial Number One bikes in 1903 and Charles Lang sold the other one! Altho according to your research the real Lang didn't hear about H-D until 1904 and didn't start selling H-Ds until 1905 ("Model 1") and definitely could NOT have sold a 1903 model.

Good grief, H-D's origin is a awful mess. You'd think H-D, Inc. would have tried to straighten it out for the 100th as they must have noticed the same contradictions and confusions that you and others have.

One more thing: You said this a while back:

The first Serial Number One, (Mitchel bike), which used to be called the Lobby Bike, could be called a REPRESENTATION of the first 1904 prototype. BUT, it is different from the 'core' machine shown in the 1912 photo, because it has a DIFFERENT motor, DIFFERENT frame, DIFFERENT tanks, DIFFERENT front hub, DIFFERENT rear hub, handlebars..........and those are only the obvious details. In it's present form though, it is much closer in appearance to represent a 1905 machine, as it is compared to the photo on the inside back cover of the Spring 2001 AMCA issue.

Can you fill me in on the hubs? I can see differences in most of those other parts, but I'm not sure about the hubs.

Thanks!

[HJahn]

C.H. Lang

Here's a link to the photo of C.H. Lang on H-D, Inc.'s website. They name him "Charles" when you click on his photo -- NOT Carl Herman Lang.

Click on Lang's thumbnail here to see him named "Charles."

http://www.harley-davidson.com/CO/HI...bmLocale=en_US

Funny they would not even get their first dealer's name right!

Click here to see Lang's mugshot.

[Earl]

Re: dem hubs

Originally posted by HJahn


Earl,

You should write a book about this stuff!

You seem to have all the facts. Good grief, H-D's origin is a awful mess. You'd think H-D, Inc. would have tried to straighten it out for the 100th as they must have noticed the same contradictions and confusions that you and others have.

Can you fill me in on the hubs? I can see differences in most of those other parts, but I'm not sure about the hubs.

Thanks!

When I first saw the Mitchel SNO bike, it was at York after they opened the museum there in the 1970's. Of course, I took a lot of pictures, good closeups, and measurements. My interest has always been in old stuff, and it was love at first sight. I had some pictures blown up and I would just sit at my desk and ponder what it actually took to make that motorcycle. Naturally, as I would read about the early origin years of the H-D Motor Company, I would be working things out in my mind, the 'HOW' things were done, and with 'WHAT MATERIALS'. Then over the years, I would see different claims to what the founders did, show up in new articles, and I'd think to myself, and something just didn't seem right. There was so much work that was claimed to have been done, in an almost impossibly short amount of time, by a bunch of guys that were barely 20 years old. So my interest and research would continue over the years into early motorcycles. I have a historical museum and library close to where I live, and I was able to go thru the entire run of 'Cycle & Automobile Trade Journal', a page at a time, looking at the ads of materials available to the motorcycle trade. There are a couple of things on the SNO bike presently, that were not even available to the market in 1903 or 1904. Specifically, the front hub and the rear hub. The front hub is an ECLIPSE, which was patented in 1908, and I haven't seen an ad for much before 1907. And the rear hub is a THOR, which first made it's appearence at a trade show in 1904, and it's first ad appeared in June 1904. Yes, it has a 1902 patent date, but that was for the disk plate method of braking. In the March 1904 issue of C&ATJ, page 124, there is the mention of the introduction of the new Thor motorcycle brake. It doesn't seem too likely that our heroes would have been able to obtain a new Thor brake, when the maker couldn't even keep up with demand for use with their own brand of motorcycles. Possible, but not likely. More likely would be the use of a CORBIN, or a NEW DEPARTURE brake, which had been on the market a few years earlier. Let's see, other pieces of the Mitchel SNO job that were not available in 1903, or 1904, and are different than the earliest known picture of April 29, 1905: Oh yes, THE FRAME, THE MOTOR, THE TANKS.

ABOUT THE ONLY PARTS ON EITHER SNO JOB THAT ARE FROM 1903 OR 1904 ARE THE PEDALS ON THE MITCHEL MACHINE, AND THE HANDGRIPS !!!

The hubs are another reason that I think these two bikes were assembled from parts for display purposes, at a much later date.

P.S. There is a new 'H-D Origin' book in the works, and I have been able to help on it.

[HJahn]

Re: Re: dem hubs

Earl said:

The hubs are another reason that I think these two bikes were assembled from parts for display purposes, at a much later date.

Interesting stuff. No wonder you know so much. I've seen some of those Cycle and Automobile Trade Journal issues and they are good. Apparently that is where that earliest known image of a Harley-Davidson comes from. I'm referring to the line drawing Harley seen in the Spring '01 issue, p.26.

From the parts on them, it's pretty clear that neither SNO could possibly be a "1903" or "1904" Harley-Davidson.

Not a 1903 because they probably didn't make any of that type model in that year. And not a 1904 because the 1904 prototype ("Neg. 599 photo/Meyer-Sparough" bike on p.24 Spring '01 issue) has many many different core parts.

I can see myself that both SNOs have a later frame with a big sidecar mount lug behind the steering head. None of the 1905 bikes in the Spring '01 issue has that lug. SNO frames gotta be 1906 or later. Motors are 1905 or 1906(?). Hubs are newer as you pointed out. Definitely parts bikes assembled later.

Boy! To know the story on that. Like what was the occasion? Who did the work? Where did they find the parts? It must have been done early (by 1938).

Isn't there any other shot of a collection bike before that year?

But then you said this:

Originally posted by Earl



ABOUT THE ONLY PARTS ON EITHER SNO JOB THAT ARE FROM 1903 OR 1904 ARE THE PEDALS ON THE MITCHEL MACHINE, AND THE HANDGRIPS !!!

Do you mean that the pedals and grips ARE 1903-1904 or "POSSIBLY" 1903-1904, but also might be newer?

That's an important distinction.

It appears to me that the supposed "1903" (or "1903/1904") Harleys (actually 1905/06/07/08 parts bikes) in the factory collection are a lot like grandpa's axe. The handle has been replaced six times and the head three times, but it's still grandpa's axe. But for the "1903" claim, it appears, they might be replacing something that never existed in the first place. Unless they had recreated that experimental 7-ci motor-bicycle which would have been ULTRA-COOL but they did not. You wonder if H-D, Inc. is even aware that it existed?

That little 7-ci experimental job also explains that long learning period Earl was talking about. It doesn't make sense that these inexperienced guys could have built a motorcycle arguably better than anything else on the market -- including the popular Indian -- right out of the box way back in 1903 and made 3 of them. Because that would have put its origin back in 1902 or earlier and THAT is a real stretch considering what bikes of that vintage look like.

But if they experimented with an earlier more primitive motorized-bicycle machine starting in 1901 (date on Bill Harley's 1901 drawing) and did not abandon it until mid-1903, and then started over on a bigger and better machine that same year does make sense. By that time motorcycle design had advanced (check out the 1903 Merkel and 1903 Mitchell built nearby) -- loop and cradle-frame machines both. By then the diamond-frame Indian was arguably obsolete.

By 1903 Bill Harley and Art Davidson had 2 years experience of what worked and what didn't. They had probably made contacts around Milwaukee and gotten others interested in their project. By then Walter Davidson was working with them too. And Bill Davidson would have had access to parts and materials in the Milwaukee Road railcar shops where accounts say he was working at that time. But then it took another full year to build a running loop-frame 25-ci prototype (l904) and longer yet to get into production (1905 -- "Model 1").

That reminds me of a time a few years ago my brother and me were in Milwaukee and we visited Juneau Avenue. He knew about those railcar shops and we went over there. It was a huge deserted complex of 19th century factory buildings in the Menomonie river valley below the 35th street viaduct. We went down there, climbed a fence and explored the place. He kept saying that the first Harley-Davidson parts must be lying around there someplace -- and it felt like that too. But we didn't find any. Fun looking tho. Felt like exploring ancient ruins..

P.S. There is a new 'H-D Origin' book in the works, and I have been able to help on it.

Cool. I've heard rumors of such a book myself. That it will blow many long-held myths about H-D's origin right out of the water. About time somebody looked into the subject, eh?

[Earl]

Re: Re: Re: dem hubs

Originally posted by HJahn
Interesting stuff. No wonder you know so much. I've seen some of those Cycle and Automobile Trade Journal issues and they are good. Apparently that is where that earliest known image of a Harley-Davidson comes from. I'm referring to the line drawing Harley seen in the Spring '01 issue, p.26.

Not a 1903 because they probably didn't make any of that type model in that year. And not a 1904 because the 1904 prototype ("Neg. 599 photo/Meyer-Sparough" bike on p.24 Spring '01 issue) has many many different core parts.

I can see myself that both SNOs have a later frame with a big sidecar mount lug behind the steering head. None of the 1905 bikes in the Spring '01 issue has that lug. SNO frames gotta be 1906 or later. Motors are 1905 or 1906(?). Hubs are newer as you pointed out. Definitely parts bikes assembled later.

Boy! To know the story on that. Like what was the occasion? Who did the work? Where did they find the parts? It must have been done early (by 1938).

Isn't there any other shot of a collection bike before that year?

Do you mean that the pedals and grips ARE 1903-1904 or "POSSIBLY" 1903-1904, but also might be newer?

That's an important distinction.

It appears to me that the supposed "1903" (or "1903/1904") Harleys (actually 1905/06/07/08 parts bikes) in the factory collection are a lot like grandpa's axe. The handle has been replaced six times and the head three times, but it's still grandpa's axe. But for the "1903" claim, it appears, they might be replacing something that never existed in the first place. Unless they had recreated that experimental 7-ci motor-bicycle which would have been ULTRA-COOL but they did not. You wonder if H-D, Inc. is even aware that it existed?

By 1903 Bill Harley and Art Davidson had 2 years experience of what worked and what didn't. They had probably made contacts around Milwaukee and gotten others interested in their project. By then Walter Davidson was working with them too. And Bill Davidson would have had access to parts and materials in the Milwaukee Road railcar shops where accounts say he was working at that time. But then it took another full year to build a running loop-frame 25-ci prototype (l904) and longer yet to get into production (1905 -- "Model 1").

That reminds me of a time a few years ago my brother and me were in Milwaukee and we visited Juneau Avenue. He knew about those railcar shops and we went over there. It was a huge deserted complex of 19th century factory buildings in the Menomonie river valley below the 35th street viaduct. We went down there, climbed a fence and explored the place. He kept saying that the first Harley-Davidson parts must be lying around there someplace -- and it felt like that too. But we didn't find any. Fun looking tho. Felt like exploring ancient ruins..

Cool. I've heard rumors of such a book myself. That it will blow many long-held myths about H-D's origin right out of the water. About time somebody looked into the subject, eh?

The pedals on the Mitchel SNO bike, the metal type, were typical on early 1900's bicycles, and were available for many years. The pedals on the WillieG bike however, look like a 'Standard #3' pedal, and that pedal wasn't available to the market until 1908. The handgrips on both machines are wood, wrapped with leather, which once again, were typical on early 1900's bicycles, and were available for many years.

Let me mention the new book again...........
The Harley family is very much involved with the project.

The Harley-Davidson Co. had heard of the author's findings earlier than anyone else, but stuck with the "made 3 in 1903, and Lang sold one" myth...........????????

Strange, because the 'Official 80-year History' by David K. Wright, on page 279, lists production in 1903 as 1 machine, and in 1904 as 2 machines. Now that would pretty much agree with the AMCA Spring 2001 article, with the slight adjustment that the 1903 machine was actually their NEVER MARKETED Motor-Bicycle project.

Regarding your question about any other early pictures of the factory collection bikes:
The following is a picture from "Growing up Harley-Davidson", by Jean Davidson. This appears on page 48-49. It has many 1905 features. I believe that it may be a picture of the 'Mitchel SNO bike/Lobby bike, not taken in 1905, but in later years before it was redone in black. There are some distinctive features and parts on this machine that are the same on the Mitchel SNO bike that lead me to say that they ARE the same bike. At the same time, there are some parts on the bike in this picture that ARE NOT the same as parts currently on the bike, which lead to my comment about the bike being changed many times over the years.

[Earl]

Hey Mr AdminGuy:

Who is James ?????