Wrong paint, but still winner circle ?

[fabercycle]

Steve, thanks for finally clarifying the original issue of this thread. I can see now, how this all happened.

I guess that one must be careful, when researching for their own restoration, to be aware that flaws CAN exist on winners circle bikes.

[HarleyCreation]

On the 1930 VL. I was also on the judging team for '30V1001'...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.

There it is again! The nearly universal but totally incorrect belief/myth that vintage Harley serial numbers began with number "1001." This is totally disproven by every Factory model layout sheet issued from the teens on; plus early editions of Uncle Frank's Q&A; plus period registration numbers & surviving bikes.

Serious question: If a pre-1957 H-D showed up with the serial "1000" for AMCA judging what is the official view of that number's authenticity in light of the above mentioned belief/myth?

Would a "1000" numbered Harley-Davidson be accepted as an authentic serial number?

Thanks!

[pete reeves]

Herb.
Because of the recent debate regarding what was the first serial number, the belief that it was 1001 is now in doubt. In my opinion serial number 1000 would and should be judged.

I am sitting on the fence regarding what number came first and still have doubts I would love to see some of the evidence.

Pete Reeves 860

[Chris Haynes]

There it is again! The nearly universal but totally incorrect belief/myth that vintage Harley serial numbers began with number "1001." This is totally disproven by every Factory model layout sheet issued from the teens on; plus early editions of Uncle Frank's Q&A; plus period registration numbers & surviving bikes.

Serious question: If a pre-1957 H-D showed up with the serial "1000" for AMCA judging what is the official view of that number's authenticity in light of the above mentioned belief/myth?

Would a "1000" numbered Harley-Davidson be accepted as an authentic serial number?

Thanks!

If it had a corrisponding line bore number why not? My 1004 bike has line bore 1098. Most numbers fall within a couple hunderd of the line bore number.
Here is 37EL1000.

[pete reeves]

Eric.

I may be naive on this but I did not realise that the forging of numbers was so prevalent.

In all the times that I have been judging I have only come across 4 or 5 bikes that I suspected had altered numbers and only 3 bikes that I was positive had altered numbers

I can accept and would encourage any thing legal that can be done to help bring back to life one of the antique bikes we are all so passionate about even if it involves using one of the motor cases that you describe as in limbo. this should only be cases that have already had there original numbers altered or removed. I would still need to satisfy my conscience that this was not hurting anybody or endorsing the theft of bikes
One should also be very careful how the bike is described when selling it.

I don’t agree that we should condone the alteration of original numbers after all these cases still have an identity, you need to remember that stealing motorcycles and restamping the numbers to change its identity still goes on to day, it could be your stolen bike or engine that some one is restamping .
Just because it’s possible for some number jobs to get past the judging system does
Not make it hypocritical to disqualify a bike that we are positive has bad numbers.

I am not suggesting that we disqualify bikes that we think or perceive have altered numbers just those that the judging team KNOW have altered numbers

The use of so called limbo cases in the restoration or repair of a bike will not take away the pleasure of owning and riding this bike but it would not be suitable for judging.

Pete Reeves 860

[pete reeves]

Chris.
I am not sitting on the fence any more 37EL1000 looks like proof to me.

Pete Reeves 860

[HarleyCreation]

Chris,

That is an awfully good find you made there with 37EL1000 and supports the other original information that I have about Harley's correct vintage start number. A club member also has 46WL1000.

Since Harley's correct start serial number is still very poorly known and understood by most people, perhaps it would be a valuable contribution on my part to do a column about it in the AMCA permanent record, The Antique Motorcycle mag. If a very knowledgeable guy like Pete Reeves was still sitting on the fence on this matter until yesterday, what about the rest of the world?

Does that sound like a plan to you guys?

Herbert Wagner

[Steve Slocombe]

Dear Herb, you can read 35VLD1000 in the Pohlmann studio photo of the left hand side of the bike used for illustrating the 1935 new model Enthusiast. This bike is clearly fitted with a 1934 Motolamp, when the new model literature trumpets the new Cycleray headlamp. It is interesting that both the 1935 and 1936 VLs in the Harley archive have blank number bosses. Also the 1932 bike that used to be at York has a very high engine number that show some signs of alteration, so could be a later bought-in restoration to fill a gap. That's why the AMCA prizes original paint unrestored bikes. Trust no-one!

On less certain ground, I remember in a book sale some years ago flicking through a roneoed typewritten report/book written for a police force. It was about engine/frame numbers and dated I suppose from the 1960s or 70s. I recall it said Harley engine numbers started with 1000 or 1001 in alternate years, but have only this hazy memory. Anyone have a copy out there? Best regards.

[HarleyCreation]

Dear Herb, you can read 35VLD1000 in the Pohlmann studio photo of the left hand side of the bike used for illustrating the 1935 new model Enthusiast. This bike is clearly fitted with a 1934 Motolamp, when the new model literature trumpets the new Cycleray headlamp. It is interesting that both the 1935 and 1936 VLs in the Harley archive have blank number bosses. Also the 1932 bike that used to be at York has a very high engine number that show some signs of alteration, so could be a later bought-in restoration to fill a gap. That's why the AMCA prizes original paint unrestored bikes. Trust no-one!

The body of evidence grows! Thanks much for pointing out 35VLD1000 circa late 1934. I think we can put something very useful together here and dispell ANOTHER pernicious long-standing myth.

Trust no one is my motto too, but only actual evidence. This 1000 vs.1001 matter can be documented now from several different angles, including Harley's own period literature as well as photographic evidence and at least one claimed surviving bike: 46WL1000. I would like to get a photo of that stamped SN boss if possible if the owner is reading this. It's time to clear this matter up once and for all and put it into the valuable & accurate AMCA permanent record.

On less certain ground, I remember in a book sale some years ago flicking through a roneoed typewritten report/book written for a police force. It was about engine/frame numbers and dated I suppose from the 1960s or 70s. I recall it said Harley engine numbers started with 1000 or 1001 in alternate years, but have only this hazy memory. Anyone have a copy out there? Best regards.

I think I also have that information from another H-D source, and believe it is correct, but that was later, 1960s-70s like you said; not earlier vintage SNs.

[Chris Haynes]

[QUOTE=Steve Slocombe;69351]Dear Herb, you can read 35VLD1000 in the Pohlmann studio photo of the left hand side of the bike used for illustrating the 1935 new model Enthusiast. This bike is clearly fitted with a 1934 Motolamp, when the new model literature trumpets the new Cycleray headlamp. It is interesting that both the 1935 and 1936 VLs in the Harley archive have blank number bosses.

Like this?


I also have many photos of completed prototype machines with no number or the previous years number on them. Many of these bikes are now on display in the MoCo's new Museum.

[HarleyCreation]

[QUOTE=Chris Haynes;69353]

Dear Herb, you can read 35VLD1000 in the Pohlmann studio photo of the left hand side of the bike used for illustrating the 1935 new model Enthusiast. This bike is clearly fitted with a 1934 Motolamp, when the new model literature trumpets the new Cycleray headlamp. It is interesting that both the 1935 and 1936 VLs in the Harley archive have blank number bosses.

Like this?


I also have many photos of completed prototype machines with no number or the previous years number on them. Many of these bikes are now on display in the MoCo's new Museum.

Another beautiful golden proof! Yesterday I looked thru my files but couldn't find that issue Steve mentioned; don't have it. But thanks to Chris that must be it.

Hopefully we can also track down the surviving 46WL1000 and verifty that number & stamps, etc. That will give us a good run of years by photos plus the H-D literature describing the facts about their numbering system. Then we can set this matter right in the permanent record.

I wonder about those blank unnumbered cases. My guess is that they were assembled pre-production and not in the normal motor assembly dept. where the guy who put the motor together also stamped it because only he knew what model it was (specific innards, etc.), and then the number was entered into the "good book" so there was also a written record of its existence. I have interviews with some of the guys who did that work in the 1930s-50s.

Good stuff!

[pete reeves]

I have posted this picture of an engine number as an example of what I would consider to be an obvious restamp.

Should this bike be eligible for AMCA judging ?

Pete Reeves. 860

[exeric]

I don't know what I'm looking at Pete. Is the number boss shaved ? Is the font incorrect ?

[pete reeves]

Eric.
The number and letter font look to be correct but the boss has been shaved.
The vertical reinforcement rib should be flush with the surface of the boss and the edges are sharp not rounded as you would expect in a casting.
not obvious in the photo but visible to the eye are file marks.

Pete Reeves 860

[vph-d]

Regarding suspected number jobs vs. known number jobs; how does a judging team decide which is which? The machine with the shaved number boss should [in my little opinion] be disqualified. Whose original serial number was shaved off to make way for someone else's serial number ?
VPH-D