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

[sswaney]

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

My point is that if this is a publication produced with "help" from the Motor Company then it looks just like the same exaggerations that got us to this point in the first place.

[Chris Haynes]

By God if Oxman said it, it must be gospel!!! By the way, who is Paul Oxman?

[bear54]

We do know that Bruce Linsday owns the oldest running Harley-Davidson. He rode it from Ohio to Milwaukee for Harley's 100th and couldn't even get the guys from the archives to come outside to look at it.

Hello all
They also weren't interested in my '54 at the 100th either. I had called several times but no one I talked to cared. The Harley worl has changed, and it kind of goes with the fact that 99% of the new riders don't know about the history and don't care.

I was looking for the 54 BT model in the displays, and one of the museum workers told me that it had been at Dallas but the "orders came all the way from the top" according to him to pull the '54 out of the show. They didn't know why, just that it was a management decision.

[HarleyCreation]

The bike is NOT serial number 1. The description on that bike was published during its latest restoration a few years ago. Internal parts of the engine were stamped with the number 1. Number 1 is not the serial number.

That's why I said earlier that even as a nickname the title "Serial Number One" doesn't make sense. By now everybody knows the earliest surviving motors do NOT have serial numbers. It merely confuses people and spreads myths and untruths.

Nor does that "c.1903" label in the HOG Museum make any sense either. "c." means circa, used before APPROXIMATE dates and numbers. Well, is it a 1903 machine or isn't it? Are they clumsily (but not quite) admitting that it's really NOT a 1903? Otherwise what is the reason for this latest weird "c.1903" formula now adopted?

Not does it solve anything, but only makes matters worse. Because now they've got somebody over at "Enthusiast" insulting and attacking the original Harley-Davidson Motor Co. for making a "mistake" in 1954 which was no mistake at all but based on the FACT that the first REAL Harley-D was the 1904 prototype!

I'm siding with the guys who gave us the 1905 Model 1, the early V-twin, the unbelieveably cool and nearly perfect looking 1936 EL "61 OHV" Knucklehead, the Mighty 1950 FL Panhead, and the immortal Sportster!

They need to call SNO #1 what it most closely represents: a very early parts-bike Harley-Davidson and specificially a stand-in for the missing 1904 prototype. Since we don't know exactly what the proto looked like in 1904, this representation is set up to look like an early 1905 without fenders. This fenderless look was determined by the early 1905 Line Drawing that I pointed out to them and the landmark early 1905 Motor World photo that Rick Morsher found. Solid ORIGNAL documentation.

It would be very simple for modern H-D to clear this all up. It they would just tell the truth it would free them from these weird formulas, unresolved puzzles, embarressing models (the 1954 "50th" bikes). It would give them back the rich tapestry of their own REAL origin story as it actually happened and not a bunged up fairy castle version that doesn't make sense with stuff dreamed up out of thin air and at odds with the original evidence.

[HarleyCreation]

We do know that Bruce Linsday owns the oldest running Harley-Davidson. He rode it from Ohio to Milwaukee for Harley's 100th and couldn't even get the guys from the archives to come outside to look at it.

Amen to that.

[HarleyCreation]

I'm in agreement with the 1954 as being the 50th Anniversary also. I have a letter on company letterhead dated March 18, 1954 along with the September 1953 and March 1954 Enthusiasts that reads:

Dear Motorcyclist:

You have, of course, heard that Harley-Davidson is this season celebrating its Golden Anniversary of 50 years devoted exclusively to the manufacture of motorcycles. Numerous friends suggested that the highlights of our half-a-century of service to motorcycling deserved recording in our monthly magazine, the ENTHUSIAST. This was done and knowing your keen interest in everything pertaining to motorcycling, we are enclosing a copy of our Golden Anniversary number. A copy of one of our current issues is also enclosed.

The culmination of our long experience in building motorcycles is represented in our 1954 Golden Anniversary models. We are proud of them and would like to have you look them over and try them out. They are on display at our nearest dealer who will welcome you and extend every courtesy.

That the coming riding season will bring you many motorcycling pleasures is our sincere wish.

Very truly yours,

Walter C. Davidson
Secretary

These are in an Enthusiast envelope so I would assume they were sent out to everyone that would have been receiving an Enthusiast at the time.

Dewey

Thanks for posting that!

I'm not seeing any apology there for "forgotting" the right year or having made a "mistake" that some day would need correcting by AMF/H-D. Only that H-D knew what the correct anniversary year was to celebrate as the 50th year of their first motorcycle: 1904-1954.

[HarleyCreation]

Hello all
They also weren't interested in my '54 at the 100th either. I had called several times but no one I talked to cared. The Harley worl has changed, and it kind of goes with the fact that 99% of the new riders don't know about the history and don't care.

I was looking for the 54 BT model in the displays, and one of the museum workers told me that it had been at Dallas but the "orders came all the way from the top" according to him to pull the '54 out of the show. They didn't know why, just that it was a management decision.

Interesting. Until they admit to the truth of the matter they will be forever haunted by these embarressments and will have to keep doing weird things like that.

I wonder: Are any 1954 "50th" models in the new HOG Museum? If there, how are they explaining away this embarressing discrepency? More disrespecting of the original Motor Company who got it right?

[DaveSwanson]

Are any 1954 "50th" models in the new HOG Museum? If there, how are they explaining away this embarressing discrepency? More disrespecting of the original Motor Company who got it right?

Yes, I know of at least one, a 1954 yellow KH. Compared to the shenanigans on Wall Street, or in Springfield, IL, I guess fudging your anniversary by one year doesn't really create much of a sensation these days.

[T. Cotten]

Compared to the shenanigans on Wall Street, or in Springfield, IL,...

Uh, Dave!
Our illustrious Illinois Governor (not to mention the President-Elect and his Chief of Staff) is Chicago through and through. He even refused to move into the Governor's Mansion in Springfield (but spent $100Gs of the taxpayer's money to commute by jet, while running up a $44B deficit. Nevermind the fact that he pilfered the Motorcycle Safety Training fund and gave it to a Chicago Church, other than it is 'almost' on topic.)
Everything south of Joliet is "Forgottonia".

Back to topic,
It is not illogical for a company in the transportation industry to deny or ignore its roots.
Only selling next year's models keeps their bubbles afloat, and surviving models only cut into the profit margin.
Even training technicians to service older models would be like Bill Gates fixing Windows: It ain't gonna happen.

However, it is diabolical when a company feeds upon nostalgic psychology in advertising and naming of models, but rebukes any attempts to sustain history with unreachable licensing fees, and spends more upon lawyers to stomp out 'vanity' reproductions than those who infringe would ever profit by them.

But let us not waste all of our contempt on just the MOCO.
Every time a new Indian is conjured, the reproduction industry wonders when they should run for cover.

...Cotten

[c.o.]

Well that put it into perspective Cotton. It makes perfect sense why they aren't acknowledging their true history. Do they even care?

[jurassic]

53

[Chuck#1848]

Send A Copy To Willie G.

Maybe photo copy it and send it off to the factory to help guide THEIR history

[jwl]

I have been watching this thread and it has really revealed a lot of interesting history. Lonnie's copy of the factory letter states what I have believed all along. HD claimes it was organized in 1903. They don't claim that they made their first motorcycle in 1903. I'm sure they didn't decide to start a motorcycle company and PRESTO!! the next day there was a newly made motorcycle ready to be sold to a consumer. I still believe that they were organized in 1903 and the first bike to be sold was probably cosiderably later. Whatever the PR people have been spreading around in later years is probably a mixture of facts and BS. Everyone will have their own idea of in what proportions. Personally, I will not lose any sleep over why HD changed their birthday in later years. Maybe they are no good at explaining why they did what they did. I am just thankful and proud that at least one USA company was able to weather the storm for over a century and still be around to put out a pretty darned good product. I will give them credit for that and let this minor gaffe slide. Indian and the long list of other hasbeen US motorcycle makers should have an easier time keeping track of their history because they have less than half as much to keep straight. If you have a different opinion of the Motor Company then I respect that. Anyway, I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a healthy New Year!!! John Lindemann (brrr. -27F here)

[pem]

Thanks Lonnie, that is one fine letter. Pretty much tells the story. But I'm afraid that
the marketing and advertising departments will still be able to spin the story.

When I was at the archives prior to 2003 I wanted to see the original 1903 drawings and blueprints. I was told they don't exist or that maybe they might be in another part of the plant such as engineering. I tried making contact and never received a reply. I was told that the archives had pretty much been plundered and what wasn't stolen was thrown away by AMF. This has been confirmed by more than one source and is now common knowledge. That may very well be but there must be something left from 1903/04/05. If not in the HD archives/empire then in someones private collection. I'm afraid though anything in private collections will be hidden from the public view as HD can come after anybody who has stolen items from their archives unless you can provide a chain of evidence as to how the items were acquired legally. I believe the answers are out there but are being hidden or kept under wraps.

Hopefully some day these important documents will surface but don't hold your breath.

Dick

[Chris Haynes]

Thanks Lonnie, that is one fine letter. Pretty much tells the story. But I'm afraid that
the marketing and advertising departments will still be able to spin the story.

When I was at the archives prior to 2003 I wanted to see the original 1903 drawings and blueprints. I was told they don't exist or that maybe they might be in another part of the plant such as engineering. I tried making contact and never received a reply. I was told that the archives had pretty much been plundered and what wasn't stolen was thrown away by AMF. This has been confirmed by more than one source and is now common knowledge. That may very well be but there must be something left from 1903/04/05. If not in the HD archives/empire then in someones private collection. I'm afraid though anything in private collections will be hidden from the public view as HD can come after anybody who has stolen items from their archives unless you can provide a chain of evidence as to how the items were acquired legally. I believe the answers are out there but are being hidden or kept under wraps.

Hopefully some day these important documents will surface but don't hold your breath.

Dick

Years ago I met a man at Volusia who had cases of vintage H-D literature. He told me had bought a lot of it over the years from Tom Bolfert. Mr. Bolfert is no longer an employee of the MoCo.
If you will look at page 23 of "At The Creation" you will see one sheet of the drawings of the original small engine that was built in 1903. It is in the posession of William S. Harley's heir's.