Willie G.'s New Book

[Earl]

Originally posted by HJahn
The boys really did make a great bike for the time -- even if the time wasn't until 1904 and more realistically 1905. Wouldn't it have been fun to hang around that backyard shed and watch what was going on? I wonder what it looked like inside? Again, no evidence survives so far as I know...

I think the Harley hit the market at the right time (1905).

Speaking of evidence that survived.............
In the same court case that had C.H. Lang answer questions under oath about his relationship with the Harley-Davidson Motor Company in the early years...........

The Four Founders were also put on the stand and asked questions, under oath..........

Very Interesting Answers !!!!!!!

The answers almost take you inside the shed !!!!!!

[AdminGuy]

I'd like to read that.

[Earl]

Originally posted by HJahn
Something else I noticed. In the book Harley-Davidson Lore #1 there is a photo of the Harley-Davidson factory collection in 1950. Guess what? There is no 1906 year bike in the line-up. The "1904" is there (SNO #1) and the "1905" (SNO #2), but no 1906.

Was it loaned out that day, or didn't they have a 1906 model? There is one in the factory collection now. Although with all the date changes going on with the MoCo's early bikes, I wouldn't be surprised to see it appear in a different guise any day now...

In the early years of the company, they couldn't have imagined their future desire to have that collection lineup, so motorcycles were sold to be used, and ridden. And we all knows what happens when bikes get sold and ridden. Sometimes, they get modified to owner's tastes. Something might break, and it gets fixed or replaced. I think we have to remember that the factory practice of saving a motorcycle from each year's production didn't start until sometime between 1915 and 1920. So by that time, it was probably quite an effort to locate any part of an original model from each year, let alone a complete original. That's why, in my opinion, the early models that Harley had in their lineup, the 1904 (SNO#1-Mitchel), 1905 (SNO#2-WillieG), 1906 and 1907, were assembled from pieces, and changed over the years.

We've already talked about the 1904 (SNO#1-Mitchel) and 1905 (SNO#2-WillieG) quite a bit. I still think there are a few parts that need to be switched between these two bikes. And SNO#1 has a 1905 motor, and SNO#2 has a 1906 motor.

Factory 1906 collection machine- The earliest picture that I have of this bike is when it was shown in the lineup in 1953. A few years ago, I saw the 1906 machine on display at York, and it exhibits an 8-stud crankcase. But all 1906 photographs, sales brochures and ads that I'm familiar with only show 6-stud crankcases. And strangely, the 8-stud crankcase in the 1906 machine has a HIGHER serial number than the factory 1907 machine. What should that tell us?

FRAME- Looks like a 1907 or 1908, as the pedal crank hanger is mounted on top of the rear fork.

FENDERS- The sales brochures for 1905/1906 and even 1907 show rounded fenders that are non-ribbed. Ribbed fenders were a 1908 feature.

TANKS- The gas filler in the front of the tank rather than the side was also NOT a 1906 feature.

This bike is probably the worst of the bunch, and is just totally pieced together, to fill the spot in the lineup.

If I had a 1957 Chevy, and took it to a car show, and called it a 1955 Chevy, because I always wanted to have a 1955 Chevy, I better be careful, because someone might notice. Get my point?

The same applies to early motorcycles. You can't call a 1905 motorcycle a 1903 motorcycle, when all the documentation that's available says it was made in 1905. And there is not a single piece of supporting evidence to make it a 1903. Except somebody wants it to be.

[HJahn]

Great analysis of the so-called '06 bike, Earl.

Trouble is, nobody did notice the grave errors about those early museum Harleys until now. Everyone believed they were correct. Afterall, they were in the factory's own collection for pete's sake going back to the 1930s, and had those year tags on them! Problem was, the year tags changed over the years and STILL KEEP ON CHANGING.

Here's a tidbit for you about the SNO #2 (1903/04 in W.G. book, but formerly tagged as a 1905), and that you think has a 1906 motor.

Harley-Davidson used to call that bike a 1906 model. Yup! On page 6 of the Feb. 1929 issue of Enthusiast , that bike is pictured and named as a 1906! Same photo appears in Hatfield's Inside Harley-Davidson p. 7 and shows up in many other places. No year tag on it then, but in 1929 H-D named it a "1906". By 1938 it had become a "1905". Now it has become the 2nd "Serial Number One" and has transmuted this time into a "1903-1904"!

I can see the problem when you're assembling bikes at a later date for a collection from bits and pieces. Mistakes are bound to creep. But some of this other stuff contains more blatant fabrications. Take that example of C.H. Lang again, and how that story was remade counter to the truth:

Step 1: Lang's 1914 Court Case testimony:

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

Step 2: Motorcycle Illustrated May 28, 1916:

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.

Step 3: Current Harley-Davidson, Inc. website history:

1903: 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.

In the most reliable of these sources (the court case) Lang did not even hear of H-D until late 1904 and didn't open for business until 1905. That changed by 1916 into hearing of them and buying a bike in 1903! Today HDI has made another leap backwards by claiming that Lang was already open for business and selling Harley-Davidson motorcycles in 1903! But by Lang's own SWORN TESTIMONY he didn't even hear of the Harley-Davidson motorcycle until late the next year.

Obviously this nonsense began at an early date and nobody at Harley-Davidson cared to untangle it. Now the quicksand is so deep that it would take an entire book to figure it out!

[Earl]

Originally posted by HJahn
Trouble is, nobody did notice the grave errors about those early museum Harleys until now. Everyone believed they were correct. Afterall, they were in the factory's own collection for pete's sake going back to the 1930s, and had those year tags on them! Problem was, the year tags changed over the years and STILL KEEP ON CHANGING.

I can see the problem when you're assembling bikes at a later date for a collection from bits and pieces. Mistakes are bound to creep. But some of this other stuff contains more blatant fabrications. Take that example of C.H. Lang again, and how that story was remade counter to the truth.

Obviously this nonsense began at an early date and nobody at Harley-Davidson cared to untangle it. Now the quicksand is so deep that it would take an entire book to figure it out!

The book I mentioned earlier will do just that. It sorts out the early history and origin years of the Harley-Davidson Motor Company, to a possible timeline, that makes sense. See the AMCA Spring 2003, the article about the Birth of the V-twin. The book is mentioned at the end of that article.

If I was to recommend to the Motor Company what to do, this is what I'd say........

1. First, I would probably start by changing what they're calling their early machine, from Serial Number One, to MODEL NUMBER ONE, based on the findings presented in the AMCA Spring 2001 article. (Just look at how many more models and tshirts they can sell now!!)

2. Next, I'd ask for a panel of experts to be recommended by the author of this new Origin book, to have discussions with key Archives personnel. The purpose of these discussions would be to discuss our research materials, in detail and in depth. (I'm not talking about no two hour meeting. I'm talking FULL SIZE pictures. I'm talking about reviewing sworn testimony of the founders, etc.)

3. I'd even offer to help them recreate the 1904 PROTOTYPE....

All this while we continue to search for more 1904 and 1903 information....

IT'S NOT TOO LATE !!!

WE CAN STILL GET THIS DONE BEFORE THE MUSEUM IS READY !!!

[HJahn]

Not too late...

You're right Earl, it's not too late to set Harley's story straight.

But it would be a tough job. Afterall, there appears to be nearly one hundred years of errors and outright lies to overcome. And change doesn't come overnight. Usually change is resisted at first because it threatens established dogma. Changing Harley origin dogma would be like changing the course of a battleship -- not an easy task. Tampering with Harley's origin would be like disputing the Nativity of J.C. Risky business! Anyone who attempts it better have their facts right and all their ducks in order.

That new book is called "At the Creation." Catchy title. I wonder if the contents will live up to the name? Interesting that it will appear at the time of H-D's 100th celebration. From what we've discussed here, there is a great story to H-D's birth and early years that is totally unknown. Will we finally get a true detailed accurate account of Harley's origin story and not just the same endlessly recycled marketing BS?

Recreating the 1904 proto Harley would be very cool. Did you read in the early V-twin article that somebody in the club is re-creating a tank-strap vintage Harley V-twin? That's nuts! How could anybody do that with only those few rough drawings and photos that survive!

[Earl]

Tough job is right........

I just came back from the grocery store, and on the magazine racks are all the "official" 100th anniversary magazines.

Now leading the 1903 decade is the WillieG-Serial Number One bike. That's the second 'SNO' job they 'made'. They claim it as being a 1903 machine.

That's their previously labeled 1905 machine that they took the fenders off of.

And that's the machine that I think has the 1906 motor.

And that's that machine that HJahn claims is in a 1929 Enthusiast and labeled as a 1906.

Do we have any club members who are lawyers?

Aren't we getting close to FALSE ADVERTISING ?????

There's no proof in the world that thing is a 1903.

IF THAT WAS A 1903 MACHINE, DON'T YOU THINK THE FACTORY WOULD HAVE LABELED IT THAT 70 YEARS AGO???

HEY FACTORY------PROVE IT !!!!!!!

[HJahn]

A guy should purchase a copy of every one of those mags for future reference. That way a real historian could document the lies that are being made now. It's funny that the modern MoCo is apparently the liar in this, and the real origin story is known to a few outsiders.

When is that new book coming out: "At the Creation"? Or will that be a "SNO" job too?

If there are vast lies being told now, they should be recorded....

How many mags have you seen? Do they all have SNO 2, and NOT SNO 1?

What are the titles?

There was a guy once whom I respected. He said: "The truth is the truth." Apparently now lies are being palmed off as truth. Funny, but I can't remember his name, and I don't think I will ever remember again.

The plot thickens....

[Earl]

Hey HJahn,

Taking an idea from another thread.........

Maybe we need to create a new class for motorcycle judging,
that is just for Harley Factory Collection bikes.........

and call it the "Modified/Want-It-To-Be" class.....

Bacause if they ever brought out a pre-1908 collection bike,

and we were asked to judge it.......

SORRY, according to AMCA judging rules,

we'd have to disqualify it,

because the factory could provide no period documentation,

to prove what year they were calling it !!!!!!

[HJahn]

Originally posted by Earl
Hey HJahn,

Taking an idea from another thread.........

Maybe we need to create a new class for motorcycle judging,
that is just for Harley Factory Collection bikes.........

and call it the "Modified/Want-It-To-Be" class.....

Bacause if they ever brought out a pre-1908 collection bike,

and we were asked to judge it.......

SORRY, according to AMCA judging rules,

we'd have to disqualify it,

because the factory could provide no period documentation,

to prove what year they were calling it !!!!!!

Earl,

That's a great point. Our club seems to have higher standards of documentation than Harley-Davidson does.

Amazing!

HDI's sense of history appears to be an advertising gimic. But don't they step over the line when they try to palm off fake history as the real thing? Because where does that put the integrity of the company in the long run? If they lie about stuff in one area, why should they be trusted anywhere else? Nothing they say will have any credibility at all.

And where does that leave a true telling of the Harley-Davidson story? I can understand simple mistakes and errors. Everyone makes them. But to purposely promote false information and false machines is dishonest and unfair to everyone who loves Harley-Davidson's long and wonderful history. It seems incredibly irresponsible to put forth obvious false statements at the time of the 100th. On the contrary, a strong effort should have been made by H-D to investigate the early record and the early bikes and to SET THINGS RIGHT. Why it wasn't done and who is ultimately responsible for this strategy would be an interesting story.

Yeah, a new AMCA judging class for H-D collection bikes. Good idea. Or maybe they could enter the SNO job bikes in the proposed "modified, bobber" class.

[Earl]

Originally posted by HJahn
HDI's sense of history appears to be an advertising gimic. But don't they step over the line when they try to palm off fake history as the real thing? Because where does that put the integrity of the company in the long run? If they lie about stuff in one area, why should they be trusted anywhere else? Nothing they say will have any credibility at all.

And where does that leave a true telling of the Harley-Davidson story? I can understand simple mistakes and errors. Everyone makes them. But to purposely promote false information and false machines is dishonest and unfair to everyone who loves Harley-Davidson's long and wonderful history. It seems incredibly irresponsible to put forth obvious false statements at the time of the 100th. On the contrary, a strong effort should have been made by H-D to investigate the early record and the early bikes and to SET THINGS RIGHT. Why it wasn't done and who is ultimately responsible for this strategy would be an interesting story.

I've been going thru some of these 100th anniversary mags that are on every news stand now, and came across the one put out by 'American Iron'. On page 80, Harley's Chairman and CEO, Jeff Bleustein, is talking about the new Museum that Harley intends to build, but is sort of on hold now. I know he's talking about the museum, but hopefully his thoughts would also apply to historical research.

Jeff Bleustein said, "Let's do this right and take our time...".

Maybe our audience with the MoCo has to start at the top and work it's way down......

Hello Mr. Bleustein, are you listening????
Is anybody listening???

[HJahn]

A Good Thing?

In the interest of historical truth, maybe it's a good thing that the Harley-Davidson Museum project crashed and burned like it did. Maybe somebody "upstairs" shook their head and said: "Nope, not if they are going to lie about it!"

Let H-D get this 100 Year mass-marketing hoopla over and done with. The exploitation artists and advertising types will have made their dirty dollars and gone on to the next fad. The dust will settle and the party detritus and wax beer cups will be swept up and carted to the dump.

Then only those truly loyal to Harley-Davidson will remain and the modern MoCo will inevitably have to face the question: What next?

Unless the MoCo plans to dump its own history totally, they will be faced with the wonderful (but screwed up) possibilities of year 101, year 102, year 103, etc.

Somebody on top (Mr. Bleustein?) has to put his fist down on the table and put a stop to the fakers and historical liars and demand a TRUE accounting. Otherwise Harley-Davidson will face a endless barrage of sniping during the next few years as they attempt to cover up the REAL FACTS and EVENTS with their bogus history.

IMHO, the 100th is not the end of the party, but just the beginning!

HJ

[Earl]

Re: A Good Thing?

Originally posted by HJahn
In the interest of historical truth, maybe it's a good thing that the Harley-Davidson Museum project crashed and burned like it did.

Then only those truly loyal to Harley-Davidson will remain and the modern MoCo will inevitably have to face the question: What next?

Unless the MoCo plans to dump its own history totally, they will be faced with the wonderful (but screwed up) possibilities of year 101, year 102, year 103, etc.

Somebody on top (Mr. Bleustein?) has to put his fist down on the table and put a stop to the fakers and historical liars and demand a TRUE accounting. Otherwise Harley-Davidson will face a endless barrage of sniping during the next few years as they attempt to cover up the REAL FACTS and EVENTS with their bogus history.

HJ

It almost seems that the MoCo enjoys having two different histories.

Their bogus marketing history.....full of impossible to accomplish feats..........

and then the real history, with REAL FACTS and EVENTS

[HJahn]

Enjoys?

I don't know if "enjoys" would be the right word, Earl.

More likely the phony H-D history got adopted by mistake or accident thru faulty research, bad documentation, and careless handling of the facts. Somewhere along the line a wrong turn was taken and those responsible got lost in a horrifying maze of contradictions and couldn't find their way out again. Like a pool of quicksand they waded in thinking they would only get their feet wet but it ****ed them in over their heads and all hope for the truth was lost...

From the incredible discussion on this thread, it is obvious to me that Harley-Davidson's origin story is no place for amateurs or sidewalk commando types. Tamper with it carelessly and get shredded by a meat grinder. It doesn't matter who you are or what your job description is. The result of such tampering has been an ever more convoluted and tortured account of impossible contradictory claims and chronologically challenged events.

Sad to say that situation continues to emanate from the MoCo itself....

And if the "official" origin hisory is messed up or worse, what about those SNO job bikes plus the 1906-1909 models?

They should be the STANDARD by which all other early bee-hive Harleys are judged, but when looked at closely what exactly are they when their model year identities keep changing?

This is a very sad situation indeed when the modern MoCo itself, which should be the jealous PROTECTOR of Harley-Davidson's heritage appears to be in fact corrupting it at the very time the stakes are the highest they have ever been with incredible prices asked and FAKE machines now appearing on the scene -- plus the enduring legacy of the 100th Anniversary we are about to witness...

Or should I say the 99th?

[Earl]

Re: Enjoys?

Hi HJahn,
When you said...

Originally posted by HJahn
Tamper with it carelessly and get shredded by a meat grinder. It doesn't matter who you are or what your job description is. The result of such tampering has been an ever more convoluted and tortured account of impossible contradictory claims and chronologically challenged events.

Sad to say that situation continues to emanate from the MoCo itself....

......I TOTALLY AGREE THAT THE FACTORY COULD MAKE THEIR ORIGIN STORY CORRECT, ACCORDING TO PROVEN FACTS, BUT THEY DECIDE NOT TO, ACCORDING TO MARKETING PRESSURE

Originally posted by HJahn
And if the "official" origin history is messed up or worse, what about those SNO job bikes plus the 1906-1909 models?

...THOSE ALSO, ARE MESSED UP, AND WORSE YET, IS THAT NOW THE FACTORY IS PLAYING WITH THEM EVEN MORE, TO TRY TO MAKE THEM INTO WHAT THEY WANT THEM TO BE.......VERY SAD

Originally posted by HJahn
They should be the STANDARD by which all other early bee-hive Harleys are judged, but when looked at closely what exactly are they when their model year identities keep changing?

.....WAY BACK IN THIS THREAD I SAID THAT YOU CAN ONLY PROVE SOMETHING'S HERITAGE BY HAVING KNOWN DATED MATERIALS..... THAT IS, UNLESS YOU'RE THE FACTORY..... THEN YOU CAN DATE THINGS ANYWAY THAT'S CONVENIENT FOR YOUR MARKETING STORIES.

Originally posted by HJahn
This is a very sad situation indeed when the modern MoCo itself, which should be the jealous PROTECTOR of Harley-Davidson's heritage appears to be in fact corrupting it at the very time the stakes are the highest they have ever been with incredible prices asked and FAKE machines now appearing on the scene -- plus the enduring legacy of the 100th Anniversary we are about to witness...

Or should I say the 99th?

......YES, VERY SAD....