Harley-Davidson's "Belated" or Correct (1904-1954) 50th Anniversary?

[c.o.]

It's easy to get off on a tangent about the company's birthday and how long they've been in production. To me they are very different subjects. We know that a line drawing exists of the "bicycle" proto-type from 1901. From then until '03 or so this machine was built and put together. Sometime after that machine proved to be less than successful, the first proto-type was built which was prior to 1905. In '05 there is an actual count of machines sold. That to me would indicate production. I'm for letting the Company celebrate their birthday any way they wish. They could use '01, '02 if they wish. Heck they could even take it as far back as the summer of 1895 when they witnessed the Pennington display in their hometown! I'm sure the interest was likely sparked right then and there! But they have decided to use 1903 and that is fine with me. But the fact of the matter remains that they did not go into production until 1905.

[Paps]

And did they influence the so called "new deal act" as well ? Same ****, different story ! Paps

[bmh]

I found this today, It's from the 1950 model introduction brochure. Arthur Davidson would've still been alive when this was published. It states the first motorcycle was produced in 1903. More slick marketing?

[jurassic]

its just that damn AMF screwing everything up again

[bmh]

I just find it really curious that the 50 model intro says 47 years and mentions 1903 while the 54 model intro states 50 years and mentions 1904.

[HarleyCreation]

Lonnie, I think most of us agree with you that 2003 can and should be used for the 100th anniversary but I for one have a problem with the SNO #1 bike. It just didn't exist in 1903. There is no doubt the founders started all this in 1903 and possibly earlier. It's just that they didn't make a prototype full size motorcycle until 1904 and didn't make any for sale until 1905. The only evidence we have that a motorcycle was made in 1904 is the article Herb found in the fall 1904 Milwaukee Journal. Now we have two articles. I found one in the Sept. 9, 1904 Milwaukee Free Press that backs up everything found in the Milwaukee Journal article. There is tons of evidence that HD was producing bikes in 1905. There is no evidence that I know of that HD produced a motorcycle in 1903 for sale to the public. That I think is what we should be talking about. Don't you find it unusual that there is no 1903 evidence at all. No drawings, blueprints, letters, receipts or public record.

SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, I got carried away.

Dick

You stated the issue perfectly.

If somebody makes a claim today of owning a "1903" Harley-Davidson motorcycle, and also claim that bikes were produced and sold in 1903, they need to supply ORIGINAL evidence showing that it's true and those things really happened. Because original evidence doesn't show a Harley until late in 1904, and doesn't show production until early 1905.

Harley's own first history dating from late 1907 (and reproduced on p.176 of the Creation book) clearly states that they finished their first motorcycle in 1904.

The officers of Harley-Davidson knew that stuff and that is why the earliest Factory collection bike was tagged as a 1904 from the late 1930s to c1963. And also why the 50th Anniversary medallion was placed on the 1954 Models (1904-1954).

Just as clear is that the founders were busy in 1903, 1902, and 1901 (the Harley family has a 1901 dated drawing). The day that H-D decides to party on today is an issue that really doesn't concern us. But "official" spurious claims about when they built and sold their first motorcycles does concern us.

[HarleyCreation]

It's easy to get off on a tangent about the company's birthday and how long they've been in production. To me they are very different subjects. We know that a line drawing exists of the "bicycle" proto-type from 1901. From then until '03 or so this machine was built and put together. Sometime after that machine proved to be less than successful, the first proto-type was built which was prior to 1905. In '05 there is an actual count of machines sold. That to me would indicate production. I'm for letting the Company celebrate their birthday any way they wish. They could use '01, '02 if they wish. Heck they could even take it as far back as the summer of 1895 when they witnessed the Pennington display in their hometown! I'm sure the interest was likely sparked right then and there! But they have decided to use 1903 and that is fine with me. But the fact of the matter remains that they did not go into production until 1905.

Exactly right.

A birthday party or cutting a cake on a certain date is separate and distinct from the real issue.

The real issue is the debate over when the FIRST Harley-Davidson motorcycle was built and when production began. Also, the debate over the correct model years of early Harleys in existence today.

And the debate is not just over SNO #1, SNO #2 and other Factory collection bikes, it's also over the correct model year of the "1907" (1908) Otis Chandler bike, Danny's "1906" bike, and other early strap-tank jobs. This stuff is still very messed up although we have done some good work on this forum straightening it out.

[HarleyCreation]

I haven't read all 175 posts, so I apologize if any of the following have already been refuted.

In 1990, I wrote in "Inside Harley-Davidson" that four motorcycles were begun in 1903, two prototypes and two production models, and that the two production models were completed in 1904. This information was from a circa 1913 magazine article, and doubtless was provided to the magazine by Harley-Davidson.

The 50th "birthday" cake was cut around August 14, 1953, that being the photo processing date for the Pohlman Studio (offical photographers) picture number 20177.

When the factory executives cut the 50th "birthday" cake, new 1954-models were coming off the line, with the new Golden Anniversay identification. To me, the 1954-models recognized the fact that the Harley-Davidson endeavor (not the company) had passed the fifty-year milestone.

What was the beginning of the endeavor, anyway? The endeavor began as either a hobby or a hope, or both. Over time, the endeavor evolved into a serious business effort. In my opinion, there's no exact date that marks the birth of Harley-Davidson. The company name, including the word "incorporated", didn't appear until that legal step was taken in 1906. But that fact, and the subequent different legal names of the company, have no bearing on the concept of Harley-Davidson's "first year." To me, Harley-Davidson's "first year" was 1903 and that their "first production year" was 1904. But there are other ways of looking at it, as evidenced by this thread.

I think you've stated things well. Yes, there is a difference between the "endeavor" itself which we KNOW goes back to at least 1901 (and we have documented that), and the correct date/year that the first H-D prototype was actually finished (1904), the first bike sold (date?), and when "mass" production began (Spring of 1905).

IMO, that 1913 article you found is part of that large body of teens material written/provided by Lacy Crolius that cannot be relied upon. It was the contradictory mess within those teens articles that inspired me to go back and find earlier and original material.

"Inside H-D" was a inspiration. I first saw a copy at Wm. H. Davidson's home in 1990 and he told me: "I didn't even know all this stuff." For awhile I thought you had covered all the bases and that all the mysteries about H-D had been explained. Boy, was I wrong!

[HarleyCreation]

if we must consider the first appearance of a harley in print"september 9 1904". i'm sure we can all agree that for the bike to be in a race on sept 9 then it was probably built earlier than sept 9.an being the prototype may have taken a long time to build.and just because there is no mention of the bike "in print" does not mean that it was not being raced or ridden prior to sept 9 1904.

Sure, the proto bike had to exist somewhat previous to Sept. 9, 1904, but that date is PROVEABLE, nothing earlier yet is.

In the real world (not advertising myth) we have to document a claim in some way and that "Sept. 9, 1904" date is the first known appearance of a H-D in the historical record. Certainly the bike must have existed before that Sept. 9 race, but until more evidence is found we can't presume anything. It might have been finished some days-weeks-? before the race, or it might have been finished 10 minutes before the race!

If we don't go by the actual original documentation (or close to it) then anything goes. In writing accurate history one has to document or prove things to the best of ones abilty, and not just make claims, esp. claims based on wild advertisements written during the 1910-1920 period when just about everyone was lying their asses off in order to sell more motorcycles.

If someone has or finds additional proof giving an earlier date than Sept. 9, 1904 for a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, they should tell us, post it here, or publish it for all of us to see and examine. Until then, however, the Sept. 9, 1904 date will remain the DOCUMENTED baseline.

[HarleyCreation]

I found this today, It's from the 1950 model introduction brochure. Arthur Davidson would've still been alive when this was published. It states the first motorcycle was produced in 1903. More slick marketing?

Most likely somebody was reading teens junk written by Mr. Crolius.

[pem]

I couldn't remember if this article was posted in this thread so here it is. Herb has the photo in his book but the article is from the 1936 Milwaukee Journal. Now we are back to 1902 again with production in 1903 and 1904.

Dick

[HarleyCreation]

Another way to consider the "1903" problem is this.

Recall what Bill Harley and Arty Davidson were working on when Walter came home in late April of 1903 for older brother Bill's wedding to Mary Bauer.

Most accounts, even the bad ones, tell that it was the first experimental powered bicycle that in itself was not successful, never produced, never sold, but did lead to bigger and better things.

But before Walter could get his promised "wonderful" ride on it he first had to help them finish it. Only then did they find out its tiny engine couldn't climb Milwaukee's modest hills. Then they started over again from scratch.

Now ask yourself, if the experimental motor bicycle was still unfinished in April of 1903, how possible is it that the boys could have gotten it done, reject it as a learning experience, and then start over, first designing, then making parts for, and finally assembling not one but THREE of the first REAL Harley-Davidson motorcycles all in that same year of 1903 as the "official" story tells us?

Impossible!

That was one of the conundrums of early Harley-Davidson history that made me very suspicious that we had been duped. As Ed Youngblood said, "It doesn't pass the smell test."

But if we assemble the real evidence when the actual events took place, a LOGICAL scenario emerges. Even then, the first proto big motor/loop frame Harley being finished and raced by 9 Sept. 1904 was a great feat. It boggles the mind how quickly they got it done and made it so good to boot. Argueably it was the best motorcycle on the market when it appeared in the spring 1905.

No fibbing or time travel and magical lathe jokes to get it done and on the market in 1903 because that didn't happen. No need to badmouth the Factory in 1953-54 for making a "mistake" either because they didn't make a mistake.

Like our late lamented pal Tom B. said: "The truth is the truth."

[koanes]

Herb, In my opinion you are making alot of assumptions based on your personal prejudice. I know you spent a ton of time researching info for your book, which I have, and enjoyed reading,but would you give any thought to other scenarios? Isn't it possible, given the ambition and enthusiasm these men showed, that they could have had a working machine in early summer? And likely that they may have been working on more than one engine at a time. If they had patterns, how hard would it be to cast and work up enough parts and pieces for a few more engines. We're talking about a very simple machine. By your own admission, you thought that it was remarkable that they were able to show up with a solid, functional machine in Sept. 04 a short year and a half from the April 03 date. Unless we assume that the 04 bike happened by some miracle, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that Mr. Harley and the Davidsons aggressively pursued their dream and put a few motor bicycles together for testing and development? Maybe a couple of those machines were sold to friends and associates to help with the cash flow required to carry on.

[HarleyCreation]

Herb, In my opinion you are making alot of assumptions based on your personal prejudice. I know you spent a ton of time researching info for your book, which I have, and enjoyed reading,but would you give any thought to other scenarios? Isn't it possible, given the ambition and enthusiasm these men showed, that they could have had a working machine in early summer? And likely that they may have been working on more than one engine at a time. If they had patterns, how hard would it be to cast and work up enough parts and pieces for a few more engines. We're talking about a very simple machine. By your own admission, you thought that it was remarkable that they were able to show up with a solid, functional machine in Sept. 04 a short year and a half from the April 03 date. Unless we assume that the 04 bike happened by some miracle, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that Mr. Harley and the Davidsons aggressively pursued their dream and put a few motor bicycles together for testing and development? Maybe a couple of those machines were sold to friends and associates to help with the cash flow required to carry on.

Thanks for the thoughful reply.

Actually, I try to avoid "assumptions" if possible, relying instead upon evidence from the day, and also what is most logical based on that evidence.

When you say "a working machine in early summer" and possibly working on more than one example, I'm thinking you mean 1904, correct?

That is a possiblity I've left open all along and have said so. But we need evidence to prove it. But that's still in 1904, not in 1903 like the modern MoCo claims today (and in every history book but one).

If anybody can knock days or weeks from our Sept. 9, 1904 baseline for the 1st appearance of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle in the historical record, I would totally welcome that evidence and have said so over and over. I'm still looking for it myself, because obviously, it didn't appear on that date by magic or without a history behind it.

However, if we want an accurate history of Harley-Davidson (and I'm assuming we do), we need to back up our claims with evidence and not merely dream scenarios and say that maybe they're true. I remain hopeful that somebody will find additional evidence from 1905, 1904, 1903, 1902, 1901, (or even 1895 when the Big Man was in town). Then they should provide that evidence so we can debate it and test the merits against what we already have.

Is that prejudicial?

There's another point to be made here. Because Crolius wrote such inaccurate Harley "history" in the teens, stuff that often contradicts and confuses each other, we have to be even more careful and demanding today than we otherwise should have to be. It wouldn't be this difficult if they had kept things honest all along, but they didn't keep things honest. That's a problem, but it also makes a much better and more fun story if you ask me.

Right now the known documented facts about their first motorcycles are these: The boys raced a bike on 9 Sept. 1904, they offered bare motors to the trade in Jan. 1905, and they began producing complete motorcycles around April of 1905. That 9 Sept. 1904 date remains open. If someone can push it back, please bring it on.

[koanes]

Herb, I'm by no means qualified to have a serious discussion with you, I appreciate you allowing me to participate. I was a teenager in the early 70's and if the dang Hippies I hung around with taught me anything, it was to always question authority. I'm sorry Herb, in this case you are it. You suppose that because there is no evidence to support the stories of other completed machines, there must not have been others and believe that progress on the project leaped from the 03 motor bike to the successfull 9/04 showing. Personally I choose to believe that a more logical progression would involve a few more prototypes. Just as you believe there is no evidence to support this, I believe there is no evidence to the contrary. I would have to see a statement from a founder or some other recognized party from the start up, declaring there were no other bikes to believe it. Was it standard practice to provide a sales receipt or bill of sale with sold or bartered items at that time? Maybe something relevant will turn up someday. It's too bad Mr Crolius muddied the waters with his sales hype.