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

[jurassic]

i am an extremely big fan of the harley davidson motor company.and personally i dont care if their history is about 10 months off.arguements can be made either way as to the original date of conception. evidence shows that the 1903 date was tossed around from nearly the beginning.we know that these guys were definatly working on something in 1903.so lets give them a break on that.the only thing i have issues with is the serial number one that is in their museum.it is obvious that this was not the very first harley ever built.yet they strongly advance this theory.i dont think it is for us to challenge this ,but in essence we know the truth,and between us we can agree that the original prototype has been lost.

[jurassic]

the orignal prototype

[HarleyCreation]

Herb,
Did you attend the 75th,at Capitol dr. plant?

No, I didn't, but I'll bet it was a good time. Your dad must have been there. Any story on that?

[HarleyCreation]

Earl and Brian are both right.

Earl's list below was some of the evidence from the day that stimulated the "At the Creation" book in the first place, and one of the (now solved) "mysteries" of Harley-Davidson.

If, H-D had really built and sold bikes in 1903 and 1904 like they claim today (2 whole production/model years), then why didn't their model year numbering system include those 2 production years starting in 1909 when they numbered that production year as Model 5?

If 1903 and 1904 were figured in, the 1909 bike should have been Model 7, but it wasn't.

It makes perfect sense that 1909 was Model 5 if there was no 1903 "Harley-Davidson" at all, and 1904 was the prototype bike year. Production started in 1905, just as the original evidence shows.

I agree totally: "The folks who celebrated the 50th in 1954 knew EXACTLY what they were doing."

That would be my guess also Brian.

Motorcycles in 1909 were tagged as Model 5 machines.
Motorcycles in 1910 were tagged as Model 6 machines.
Motorcycles in 1911 were tagged as Model 7 machines.
Motorcycles in 1912 were tagged as Model 8 machines.
Motorcycles in 1913 were tagged as Model 9 machines.
Motorcycles in 1914 were tagged as Model 10 machines.
Motorcycles in 1915 were tagged as Model 11 machines.

Counting backward from 1909 would give us 1905 motorcycles tagged as Model 1.

Historical facts uncovered to date, have confirmed that as Harley's first year of production.
Read "At The Creation".

And counting forward would give us 1954 motorcycles tagged as Model 50 machines !!!!

The folks who celebrated the 50th in 1954 knew EXACTLY what they were doing.

[HarleyCreation]

so what happened between 1954 and 1963?why would they need to change the date?

Probably they thought they were doing the right thing, but actually made things worse when they put "1903" on a bike that never existed in that year. My guess is that they were "dazed and confused" about their own early history just like what happened again at H-D in recent years.

[HarleyCreation]

To the best of my knowledge AMF took over late in 1969. It was right around the model year change over I believe. I did also make it to the basement and looked through my crate of old photos and found the one I took in York sometime in the 80's of the same machine in the 60th anniversary photo. It has been obviously greatly restored though. Can scan and post if anyone wants. I was hoping to see the plaque at the front of the display with the description but it isn't visible in the photo. the plate on the front fender is the same one that reads 1903 and 1904 as in 63. Note that the plate on the 54 bulletin reads 1904 only. The plot thickens. Was there a 60th anniversary model? Also would be curious if anyone knows where the 63 photo was taken? To me at least it doesn't seem to have the polished look of most of the factory's photos.

That is indeed where the plot thickens.

It's one thing to celebrate actual events that took place in 1903 (and 1902 and 1901), but quite another to tag a bike with that model year that never existed!

That instantly and totally throws everything else off out of whack and suddenly all kinds of other things don't make sense, including a logical early timeline or history, sale of their first bikes, when they got their first dealer, a correct model year chronology, their early model numbering system, when production began, and the 1954 50th Anniversary to mention a few.

Goof up the beginning and lots of other stuff gets goofed up too.

PS: it would be great to see your photo if you care to scan it.

[HarleyCreation]

Here is part of the 1930 New Model Announcement in the June 1929 Enthusiast. 1930 minus 26 years = 1904 where I went to school. Even at this early date they are claimimg the first bike was built in the backyard shed.

Chris,

This is a good one. 1904 plus 26 makes 1930 for me too, which is spot on correct because they were talking about the year back in which the first real Harley was finished and ran: 1904!

What would modern H-D say about this one that even has the Founders it it?

That they made a mistake back in 1930 too?

Notice in the text they also talk about 1903 and working in the shed. That is the correct way to do it. Obviously they had to be working somewhere, and a bike finished in 1904 may have been worked on the previous year in that shed. Plus experiments that came before the 1904 bike may also have taken place in that shed. This strategy is how I suggested the 100th should have been celebrated. Plus it would be an honest, accurate, and traditional way of telling the story in the HOG Museum.

Perfectly traditional with 1903 at center stage, but WITHOUT any ficticious model year or bikes that never existed!

[HarleyCreation]

In August 1928 in the 1929 New Model Announcement they bost "HARLEY-DAVIDSON IS 25 YEARS OLD" Once again. 1929 - 25 = 04

That works perfectly for me.

But how does it work for Harley-Davidson, Inc. today?

Isn't that the greatest irony of all? That the modern MoCo has to hide from or say that the original firm made mistakes even when all of the original Founders were still alive? Because if the 1954 50th was a "mistake" then these from 1929 and 1930 must be wrong too.

Maybe these figured into their thinking in 1954! These are great finds! Too bad these two articles didn't make it into the "At the Creation" book because they are more solid evidence for the "smell test."

I'll admit that our numbers are few, but it appears that we are the real holders of authentic and traditional Harley-Davidson history.

If not us, who else?

[HarleyCreation]

It seems to me that the ol' Harley saying "If I Had To Explain You Wouldn't Understand" comes to mind........... I think what's important to some may not be to others....

Very true.

My philosophy is: "Is Somebody Doesn't explain, Then Nobody Will Ever Understand."

I guess it only matters if Harley-Davidson is a real thing and not just a fairy tale and if the Truth in any form or respect matters for anything.

[HarleyCreation]

How does the MoCo refute such evidence ?????

By digging up messed up old articles written in the Teens by Lacy Crolius intended for their advertising effect and not historical accuracy. That stuff is all covered and discussed in detail...

[HarleyCreation]

Your right Cory. I expressed my opinion poorly and I'm sorry for that. But all the same, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the H-D press release apologizing for 50 plus yrs of false claims. We are fortunate to have among our members scholars of history that work diligently to bring the truth to our attention. I am very interested in the history of the motorcycle, I just don't see the point in bashing The Motor company.

I agree, and thanks. Unfortunately, the incorrect history has been re-asserted in recent years with even more extravagant claims made (SNO #1 and SNO #2). But it isn't like they didn't know or were caught napping.

I totally agree with your last point about MoCo bashing and that's why I started this thread.

It bothers me to see the modern firm bashing the original Motor Company for having "forgotten" and making a "mistake" that had to be "corrected" later.

The Founders and real old timers of the original Motor Company are all in their graves and cannot defend themselves. If we don't stand up and show that they were RIGHT and didn't make a mistake, who will?

[HarleyCreation]

i am an extremely big fan of the harley davidson motor company.and personally i dont care if their history is about 10 months off.arguements can be made either way as to the original date of conception. evidence shows that the 1903 date was tossed around from nearly the beginning.we know that these guys were definatly working on something in 1903.so lets give them a break on that.the only thing i have issues with is the serial number one that is in their museum.it is obvious that this was not the very first harley ever built.yet they strongly advance this theory.i dont think it is for us to challenge this ,but in essence we know the truth,and between us we can agree that the original prototype has been lost.

To me critical points are modern claims for model years that never existed, plus way-wrong and mislabled H-D collection bikes that guys might base restorations or replicatons on and that turn out way incorrect and would be kicked out of any good judging circle or laughed at by any well-informed enthusiast.

Plus, like I said before, if they make wrong claims about the very first events and bikes, then everything else that follows gets messed up too in a domino effect.

If we don't challenge this wrong stuff, who will?

Do we want to see another 100 years of wrong information resulting in more badly written & wrong H-D history, more wrong restorations, and more wrong replication bikes? If we don't stand up for the truth, then in future we'll be considered dumb asses too.

Heck, there's another way-wrong black strap-tank Harley in the new issue of the Club mag! That so-called "Six" that was at Wauseon.

How did that baby get so messed up?

Gee, I wonder?

The Wauseon "Six" deserves a thread of its own, unless we shouldn't challenge it. But don't we all want the most accurate info possible on early model Harleys that until now EVERYBODY has gotten wrong?

[Paps]

If the 1903 model was underconstruction in 1903, yet not completed, they may have went with the birth date of 1903, not the public sale of their first bike. Paps

[c.o.]

If the 1903 model was underconstruction in 1903, yet not completed, they may have went with the birth date of 1903, not the public sale of their first bike. Paps

Yeah, but hasn't it been said there were at least three machines built and sold in '03?

[c.o.]

To me critical points are modern claims for model years that never existed, plus way-wrong and mislabled H-D collection bikes that guys might base restorations or replicatons on and that turn out way incorrect and would be kicked out of any good judging circle or laughed at by any well-informed enthusiast.

Plus, like I said before, if they make wrong claims about the very first events and bikes, then everything else that follows gets messed up too in a domino effect.

If we don't challenge this wrong stuff, who will?

Do we want to see another 100 years of wrong information resulting in more badly written & wrong H-D history, more wrong restorations, and more wrong replication bikes? If we don't stand up for the truth, then in future we'll be considered dumb asses too.

Heck, there's another way-wrong black strap-tank Harley in the new issue of the Club mag! That so-called "Six" that was at Wauseon.

How did that baby get so messed up?

Gee, I wonder?

The Wauseon "Six" deserves a thread of its own, unless we shouldn't challenge it. But don't we all want the most accurate info possible on early model Harleys that until now EVERYBODY has gotten wrong?

It's funny, I couldn't help but wonder how that machine was labeled as an '06. At first I thought it may have been a misprint? I'm curious to know the owner's views.........