Saturday evening post

[bmh]

Have you seen this? talk about authentic period modifications.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Harle...item4a9e8d3db4

[rbenash]

Nice! Wonder what they paid for it at the Los Vegas Auction.

[45OZ]

Results Las Vegas Auction

I looked up the site & found it did not sell at the Auction high bid was 26k,

South Point Casino and Exhibit Hall
2010 - January 7 - 9
9777 Las Vegas Blvd S
Las Vegas, NV


Year/1950,

make/ Harley Davidson EL Re-creation,
LOT#381
High Bid $26,000
Condition/3
Sold/N

[Chris Haynes]

I believe that Mil Blair, who was the co-founder of Easyriders magazine, built this machine.

[HarleyCreation]

Personally, I don't like it. Garish and overdone. Especially the cheap jewelry effect and the cheese grater thing on the rear fender.

Why take a beautiful bike and make it stupid looking?

If it were mine, I'd strip all that junk off and replace those fat donuts with 4:00x18s. I'd keep the saddlebags and windshield, of course, but instead of "Tex" it would say "Herb." Probably repaint it too. Maybe brown or green.

Is it a 3-speed? If not, I'd want that too, with reverse!

[Paquette]

Chris,
Mel Blair did not build the bike. I do know the builder as I made the seat, saddlebags, and sheepskin seat cover.
Herb,
I is not my taste either but the builder was trying to duplicate the magizine cover and as he stated, this bike did exist!!!! --Michael--6671

[Chris Haynes]

Mil has been working on a copy Of the Tex bike for several years. So I guess there will now be two of them.

[HarleyCreation]

Herb,
....as he stated, this bike did exist!!!! --Michael--6671

That's to his credit and more than we can say about some of the FANTASY bike creations to surface lately.

Nice job on the saddlebags!

[bmh]

That's to his credit and more than we can say about some of the FANTASY bike creations to surface lately.

I couldn't agree more. While not to my taste either, especially the shade of blue that doesn't seem to quite match the magazine cover.(we won't mention the cheap repop look of all that chrome) At least it is historically accurate.

[rbenash]

Personally, I don't like it. Garish and overdone. Especially the cheap jewelry effect and the cheese grater thing on the rear fender.

Why take a beautiful bike and make it stupid looking?

If it were mine, I'd strip all that junk off and replace those fat donuts with 4:00x18s. I'd keep the saddlebags and windshield, of course, but instead of "Tex" it would say "Herb." Probably repaint it too. Maybe brown or green.

Is it a 3-speed? If not, I'd want that too, with reverse!

I think you make excellent points. My comment was short and respectful. I recognize the period tastes of the time. Even though this example might be a little stretch I think it's an example of period mods of the time. Little more chrome than I would like, and where is the stock horn?

Thing is - personally I think this period mod is better looking than the mid 60's to 70's "full dresser" period mods along with the pin striping that was done. My '65 went through that before I owned it. The first thing I did was remove (and kept) all of those mods. I thing I probably pulled 150lbs of stuff off the bike until I got down to it's original "character".

But - to each his own. I still stand by my original statement that for a '50's period mod this bike is nice and I would be proud to own and run it. Well maybe sans all the gee gaws on the bags. And maybe just a little less chrome treatment. But - it get lots worse from there

I remember back in 2000 or so - a couple of weeks after I took ownership of the family heirloom '65 that went through 4 previous owners (I knew them all growing up and the last was my father) I pulled into the local Harley dealer lot to pick up some parts. The bike was still as is - I.E. had all of the "period mods" applied since 1965-2000. I never liked it that way and always had designs that it would be my bike some day and I would bring it back. Anyway while in the lot on my way out a fellow biker started a chat. He was in love with the bike and wanted to buy it as is. I told him of my plans and his last comment along with a strange look (as though I was crazy) "Why would you ever change it?". I understood what he meant, but continued on with my original plans. Just kept some photos.

To each his own as they say.

[HarleyCreation]

First off, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and that person is me. After all, one might say, look what Herb did to that nice Panhead in his avatar.

At least Tex didn't make a chopper out of his!

That is true, but I never cut a mount or bracket off the frame and the bikes were junked before I got hold of them anyway (including a 36EL chassis). And when I wised up and came out of my deranged chopper mind-set in 1973, I built it back to stock "50FL" specs.

With true confessions out of the way, I always loved that Tex Panhead Life cover. It's very well done. My old pal Larry bought a framed repro copy back in the late 1970s, altho I can't remember who or where he got it from. I almost think the Harley dealer. Someone must know that.

But sometimes maybe art doesn't translate well into reality. I guess what I'm saying is that the stuff I can't stand on the repro Tex bike (cheap jewelry effect, weird slicer apparatus on rear fender, etc.) were things that never bothered me in the Life cover painting. But seeing them on the repro job was like a slap in the face, since I once had a long love affair with Panheads.

Comparing it to a beautiful woman, the Tex bike reminds me of a certain modern type with overdone silicone enhancements, road-map size tattoos, multiple body piercings, and ghoulishly long fake fingernails. She might still be beautiful, but she has lost a great deal of her original natural charm.

And the stock 1950 Panhead was a great charmer, with aesthetics that rival the EL models of the 1930s, in my opinion. Things went downhill from there, only reversed in recent decades by good stylists in Milwaukee.

Just my 2 cents. A guy should build his bike any way he wishes and shouldn't be criticized for doing that, esp. if he is recreating a historical bike like this Tex job.

[Paquette]

Folks, I have studied that original cover for hours trying to get my part of the accessories to match the artist's rendetion as closely as possible and while we know that a "TEX" bike did exist, the artist certainly took licence with several things , most notably the saddlebags. The originals were Buco bags and I own an old set of them. There is no way in hell that the TEX letters were that big. H-D sold 1 inch chrome letters at that time and I am sure that was what was on the original because there is just not enough room on the bag lid for 3 inch letters to fit. The Stimsonite reflectors are usual to Buco bags but If you look closely at the SE Post cover, the bags have imitation roller buckles like Harley used on their saddlebags. Buco used a real roller buckle that had a strap keeper below it. The picture has both!!!! I also have never seen a two tone sheepskin seat cover like the one on the cover. They were usually solid colors, natural, gray, blue, red, etc. I also suspect that some newspaper in CT did an article about Tex and his bike shortly after it appeared on the cover and it would be interesting to ckeck newspaper archives to see if there was an actual picture of the original--Michael--6671

[Sargehere]

You have to be so careful when trying to replicate an icon like the Tex bike. I looked and looked, trying to explain to myself why the rolling copy didn't quite square in my mind with the one on the Saturday Evening Post cover. I could only make out a couple of differences, but the thing overall just doesn't seem to "fit(?)"
It's only tiny things. Maybe the fur on the seat is brand new, and "too long." So the shape of the seat is hidden. It needs to be mashed down a bit from use. Or maybe trimmed by a barber (or a dog groomer!). And the white shifter ball, red star in a blue ring, is pointed in the wrong direction. That's really a distraction that registers subconsciously with your eye, even if you don't realize it. And the T E X letters, even if they are perfectly scaled, just look too big. And shiny and new.
The whole bike, really, is jarring in the shininess, where the one on the cover looks worn-in and comfortable. The artist probably look slight liberties with the proportions, to get it to look so low, with those three kids looking it over, a bit like how the real one might look with about five pounds of air pressure in its tires, "squatting."
I just take an interest because the original apparently inspired the nickname that came with my own 37UL when I found it, so I always loved the cover. The repli-Tex, not so much. Just my two cents!

PS I agree with you, Herb: the "fat donuts," 5.00x16s from 1940-onwards, ruined the ideal looks of the late-30s Harleys. 'Took what had been lean bikes that screamed "motorcycle" and ushered in the garbage barge looks. I like the looks of them wearing 4.50x18s best. That why we have freedom of choice. To each his own, eh?

[Blupacer]

Stevan Dohanos Print

Herb
Harley did sell a framed 25x37 numbered print of Steven Dohanos original illustration in 1988 part number 99506-88vf for $259.95
Steve

First off, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and that person is me. After all, one might say, look what Herb did to that nice Panhead in his avatar.

At least Tex didn't make a chopper out of his!

That is true, but I never cut a mount or bracket off the frame and the bikes were junked before I got hold of them anyway (including a 36EL chassis). And when I wised up and came out of my deranged chopper mind-set in 1973, I built it back to stock "50FL" specs.

With true confessions out of the way, I always loved that Tex Panhead Life cover. It's very well done. My old pal Larry bought a framed repro copy back in the late 1970s, altho I can't remember who or where he got it from. I almost think the Harley dealer. Someone must know that.

But sometimes maybe art doesn't translate well into reality. I guess what I'm saying is that the stuff I can't stand on the repro Tex bike (cheap jewelry effect, weird slicer apparatus on rear fender, etc.) were things that never bothered me in the Life cover painting. But seeing them on the repro job was like a slap in the face, since I once had a long love affair with Panheads.

Comparing it to a beautiful woman, the Tex bike reminds me of a certain modern type with overdone silicone enhancements, road-map size tattoos, multiple body piercings, and ghoulishly long fake fingernails. She might still be beautiful, but she has lost a great deal of her original natural charm.

And the stock 1950 Panhead was a great charmer, with aesthetics that rival the EL models of the 1930s, in my opinion. Things went downhill from there, only reversed in recent decades by good stylists in Milwaukee.

Just my 2 cents. A guy should build his bike any way he wishes and shouldn't be criticized for doing that, esp. if he is recreating a historical bike like this Tex job.

[Greg H]

Mil has been working on a copy Of the Tex bike for several years. So I guess there will now be two of them.

Found the magazine article about Mil Blair & his building of the TEX bike.

In Earlyriders issue one.

Comparing the photos maybe 2 different bikes, all the seat & bags are different also no tank emblems on magazine bike like original Post picture

To me Mils/ Earlyriders is a much better job