Wrong paint, but still winner circle ?

[exeric]

I'm only presenting this point of contention for the sake of discussion. In the case of this 1930 V series H-D, could the owner not make the argument that the motor # from the small original cases were transfered to the larger cases when H-D retrofitted those defective early V's. In other words, can you really say his engine is bogus? I can see this argument in the case of an obviously conflicting year casting,('47 FL with '48 EL cases). I think that judging the quality and integrity of the number boss could be a dangerous undertaking both legally for the club and for the personal safety of the judge. As for the case #'s, we have all seen terrible factory number jobs and who's to say that a replacement case wasn't stamped at a dealership by a cross-eyed alcoholic.

I have to side with Kevin and say that the AMCA should not get into this area. I'm just opening a dialogue and not trying to start WW3.

[Chris Haynes]

[QUOTE=exeric;69283]I'm only presenting this point of contention for the sake of discussion. In the case of this 1930 V series H-D, could the owner not make the argument that the motor # from the small original cases were transfered to the larger cases when H-D retrofitted those defective early V's. In other words, can you really say his engine is bogus?

I can say that it was obvious that the original numbers had been crudely removed and new numbers stamped over the mess. Not a good job at all.
The MoCo gave the dealers a new frame with a new lower end for each early '30 VL made. What numbers were on them I don't know.

[exeric]

I trust your's and Peter Reeves opinion Chris and I know both of you know what you're looking at, however, you have to admit that from the AMCA's point of view, it's quite a can of worms. Judging can get pretty ugly when you have an over zealous owner. I've personally heard threats, and sworn vendettas against judges. Some people just don't take criticizim very well. Questioning the fundemental identity of a motorcycle based on a crappy # job could push one of these over-acheiving trophy hounds over the top, which I heard happened at Davenport a few years back. I agree with you in principal and that the AMCA should not be intimidated by some psychopath with an antique motorcycle but I still contend that our club should take the military approach to this problem. . . . Don't ask, don't tell.

[Steve Slocombe]

On the 36 VLD. To elaborate/repeat on this one with the '1938/9 paint job'. I was a judge on this bike, and was aware of the 6 point rule for totally wrong paint. This bike did not have totally wrong paint. It is a police bike in silver with black striping, and both fenders are correct for 1936. The tank decal is correct, as this was the same 1936-39. The tank colours are correct, silver and black. The tank striping is incorrect, and the owner suffered a deduction of a point or so for 'incorrect striping'. This was insufficient to take the bike under 95 points, so the bike got its Winners' Circle award. I can still sleep at night after this result. I'm at Davenport next week if anyone wants to shoot the breeze or join in the judging process. A good day's judging is when you don't get abused, and arrive home only one day late. Why do we do it? Because it is central to the mission of our great Club!

[Steve Slocombe]

On the 1930 VL. I was also on the judging team for '30V1001'. A well qualified judging team saw that these numbers had been altered. The 3 is the round top style rather than the flat top style, and the grind/weld marks were discernable. The case numbers were around 30-5000. We asked for guidance from the then Chief Judge and were told 'we are not the police', and so merely deducted points for altered numbers. The bike then took whatever award it earned, and left with the judging paperwork endorsed 'altered engine numbers'. The bike later turned up at auction, described as the first VL off the line, and was I believe pulled out when an AMCA member drew the auctioneer's attention to the altered numbers. Last time I saw it was in the Anamosa museum, and it is still a pretty bike. I believe the alteration was done say in the 1950s, and the new owner was taken in.

I think altered engine numbers are an abomination, particularly on Harleys where it represents the entire identity of the machine, until 1969(?) when frame numbers were added. I can tolerate people riding bikes with altered numbers, just please don't put them in for judging. I agree we need a clear Club policy. What is the point of putting time and effort into judging a bike with dodgy numbers? I think I saw 36EL1001 in Germany or Holland a few years ago - clearly some random collection of parts coming out of Eastern Europe and faked up for the money. We know these sorts of things go on, but should not taint the AMCA good name by judging them.

[Steve Slocombe]

On Matt Olsen's yellow/blue knucklehead. This time I was not on the judging team, but recognised both the colours as being available in 1936 and would have let it go. There are several 1930s Shop Dope with prices for repainting bikes at the Harley factory. For instance, Shop Dope 73S of April 13, 1931, gives a price of $18.50 for repainting a complete motorcycle in any standard colour, and $23 for repainting it in standard optional or any other colour. Note the last three words. Also check out the Enthusiast for pictures of Florence Burnham ('well known in the speedboat world') on her completely chromed 1936 knucklehead, yup, tanks and fenders included.

[Steve Slocombe]

More on 1930 recalled VLs. Check out my letter on page 9 of the Spring 2002 Club magazine. There is a picture of what seems to be the only surviving set of withdrawn cases, 30V1238, and a later 1930 set. Analysis of the case numbers suggested the old engine numbers were re-stamped on the replacement cases, which is why 1930 case numbers run a couple of thousand numbers ahead of engine numbers for 1930 only. Best regards.

[Chris Haynes]

More on 1930 recalled VLs. Check out my letter on page 9 of the Spring 2002 Club magazine. There is a picture of what seems to be the only surviving set of withdrawn cases, 30V1238, and a later 1930 set. Analysis of the case numbers suggested the old engine numbers were re-stamped on the replacement cases, which is why 1930 case numbers run a couple of thousand numbers ahead of engine numbers for 1930 only. Best regards.

Re-stamped from the factory? Re-stamping suggests that a number was removed and a new number put in its place. Or did the factory simply stamp the original number on the new lower end that was being sent out?

[Chris Haynes]

I trust your's and Peter Reeves opinion Chris and I know both of you know what you're looking at, however, you have to admit that from the AMCA's point of view, it's quite a can of worms. Judging can get pretty ugly when you have an over zealous owner. I've personally heard threats, and sworn vendettas against judges. Some people just don't take criticizim very well. Questioning the fundemental identity of a motorcycle based on a crappy # job could push one of these over-acheiving trophy hounds over the top, which I heard happened at Davenport a few years back. I agree with you in principal and that the AMCA should not be intimidated by some psychopath with an antique motorcycle but I still contend that our club should take the military approach to this problem. . . . Don't ask, don't tell.

It is my humble opinion that any machine with an obviously altered serial number be disqualified. The same thing applied to a friends WLA that had a factory replacement case on it. They disqualified his bike. Now that same bike has a First place after he changed the cases.
At Davenport a few years ago Myself, Jeff Coffman and 3 others judged a Knuck that had won a Junior First the previous year. When we judged it it didn't get enough points to score anything. The owner was livid. I don't know who had judged it the previous year but the bike had a lot of issues with it. One item I just couldn't get the owner to understand is that the lower horn reinforcement plate went under the fender and not between the fender and the lower horn bracket.

[Chris Haynes]

On Matt Olsen's yellow/blue knucklehead. This time I was not on the judging team, but recognised both the colours as being available in 1936 and would have let it go. There are several 1930s Shop Dope with prices for repainting bikes at the Harley factory. For instance, Shop Dope 73S of April 13, 1931, gives a price of $18.50 for repainting a complete motorcycle in any standard colour, and $23 for repainting it in standard optional or any other colour. Note the last three words. Also check out the Enthusiast for pictures of Florence Burnham ('well known in the speedboat world') on her completely chromed 1936 knucklehead, yup, tanks and fenders included.

Where is yellow listed as a 1936 color? Anyway I believe Matts was Orange and Blue. Orange wasn't a '36 color either and I am not sure about his dark blue. And his paint scheme was definately not a factory layout. Could you have ordered a bike painted that way in 1936 I don't know 'cause I hadn't been born yet. The MoCo did offer custom colors. But all the custom colors I have seen were done in factory layouts.

[pete reeves]

Eric.
It should be remembered that bikes are judged by a team and if the team feels that a bike might need to be disqualified then it is the correct procedure for the team to bring it to the attention of the senior judge at the meet. Disqualifying a bike from judging (for any reason) is not taken lightly.

The way we judge should be consistent and should be done with out considering any thing other than the correctness of the bike being judged.

The owner being a nice guy or a guy that shouts loud or has a temper should not influence what is written on the judging sheet.

The statement we are a club and not the police is correct but surely the AMCA has a right to decide which bikes are eligible for judging.
If the team and the senior judge are positive that the numbers are altered them in my view the bike should not be eligible for judging and should be disqualified.

I suspect that most people that submit a bike with altered numbers already know or suspect that some thing is wrong; after all they have worked hard and done much research when carrying out the restoration. But they still enter the bike for judging because they hope it will get through or at the very worst a note will be made on the score sheet and maybe a 1 point deduction.

In allowing this to happen the AMCA is giving provenance to the bike that has suspect numbers and is certifying its correctness.

The integrity of the club and its judging procedure are at risk.

By adopting a more stringent policy on numbers and number bosses members will be dissuaded from trying to pass bikes with bogus numbers through our judging system.

There will be times that a bike will show up with numbers not strictly correct, possibly because the engine cases had to be changed by the dealer for one reason or another. If new correct for the year replacement cases have been used and stamped by the dealer this bike should be judged, with a note made on the score sheet describing what is wrong.
This bike should not be judged if the number boss on the replacement case used to carry out the repair shows any signs of alteration or over stamping.

Pete Reeves 860

[Matthew N. Olse]

Where is yellow listed as a 1936 color? Anyway I believe Matts was Orange and Blue. Orange wasn't a '36 color either and I am not sure about his dark blue. And his paint scheme was definately not a factory layout. Could you have ordered a bike painted that way in 1936 I don't know 'cause I hadn't been born yet. The MoCo did offer custom colors. But all the custom colors I have seen were done in factory layouts.

The blue that I used was a sample from an original paint venetian blue gas tank that I borrowed from a friend, and the orange that I used was supposed to be orlando orange, but it was from a sample from Antique Cycle Supply, and not an original paint source. I don't have any factory documentation stating that the factory ever made a blue and orange bike, I just thought that it would look neat. I don't know why you would say that it isn't a factory layout? I have the panels and striping set up correctly.

[pete reeves]

I was on the team that judged Matts Bike.
A great restoration Great bike fantastic colour scheme. But it is unlikely that any bike left the factory with this colour combination.
As the colours met the judging regulations for available colours there was no reason for it not to be judged.
I have concerns as to where this interpretation of the paint regulations might be leading too. A 1936 in gold and red with blue coach lines would be allowable under the current regulations.

Pete Reeves 860

[Steve Slocombe]

Yes, Matt's bike was 1934 Orlando Orange and 1935 Venetian Blue and not yellow/blue as I said for shorthand purposes last time.

On early 1930 VLs, there should be no survivors with the small crankcases, so anyone today bringing in a bike with serial number up to say 3000 can exhibit it as corrected by the factory. All this was probably done in Aug/Oct 1929. I just thought it would be cool to build a bike out my early crankcases to intrigue/annoy the judges. If you look at the photos from the AMCA magazine letter you will see no number boss on the early cases. The Harley factory over-compensated with those extra high 1930 bosses which makes them so popular for altering. My theory is that Harley knew who had these 2000 early bikes which were recalled. They sent out kits to the dealers, who had to eat the manhours to rebuild the bikes. See Inside Harley-Davidson by Jerry Hatfield. Using logic - not always a good idea - Harley must have sent out new engine cases stamped with the same numbers as the original small ones. Or blank cases for the dealers to stamp in the numbers (to match the title) with their own factory stamps. The factory must have demanded the old engine cases back for scrap, and to keep the paperwork straight on titles. They also had to change the frame, and my theory here is they then took the frames back, changed the shoe under the motor at the factory, then put these frames back into later 1930 bikes. After all, this was a colossal recall, and Harley would not want to spend more than they needed to.

On judging bikes with altered numbers, I think we need a clearer Club policy.

Just to stir the pot, what about frames? We judge Hendersons that are all replica apart from the motor, yet get ourselves in a tizzy about various minor year on year changes to brackets and castings etc on original Harley frames. Again a discussion among the Club Judging Committee followed by a clearer policy and guidelines would be helpful.

Best regards, and looking forwards to beating my head against the wall with fellow judges at Davenport next week.

[exeric]

I have one more observation about engine #'s and then I'm through. Everyone I have ever known that has had a few Harleys or Indians has re-stamped an engine case. All of the big engine builders and restoration guys do it. 99% of the time it is done for a good reason, i.e. busted engine case, hopelessly lost title, or NOS case that's never been stamped. Re-stamping engine cases is a necessary practice and has given new life to many engines that would otherwise float in a limbo of non-identity (i.e. illegal).

I think it's a bit hypocritical to disqualify a motorcycle for perceived bogus #'s when known re-stamped engines sail through without question. Basically, we would be judging the quaility of the counterfeit job. A good job is okay, a bad job gets disqualified. I should make a clarification and say that comically bad number jobs should be noted and have points deducted.

This goes back to my original contention that the club should stay out of the maelstrom of controversy that would arise if we start judging engine #'s.