Article about the "First Harley"

[HarleyCreation]

say herb ,do you have any close up detailed pics of negative 599.i dont understand the "straight lower rear frame stays" ?? i have the L&D engine completly finished ,but want to make the chassis just as it was in 1912.as in the last known picture that you discovered of the 1904 prototype.thanks ,lonnie

The best image of Neg. 599 is found in the club mag: The Antique Motorcycle, Spring, 2001 issue. The issue with the Indian "100 Anniversary" cover. Neg. 599 is on the inside front cover in a FULL page enlarged shot that shows the bike better than in the Creation book itself (p.66). The quality of the mag photo as good as it gets. So far as I know, that's the only known image of that bike, although others must certainly have been taken. Starting on page 23 is a related story.

Are you putting that spring fork on it etc. and making it into the last known incarnation? That would be rather cool; documented too.

[jurassic]

meyer-sparough

say herb ,do you have any close up detailed pics of negative 599.i dont understand the "straight lower rear frame stays" ?? i have the L&D engine completly finished ,but want to make the chassis just as it was in 1912.as in the last known picture that you discovered of the 1904 prototype.thanks ,lonnie

[HarleyCreation]

By golly Herb, I believe you said it better.

There is one person I know of that both you and myself have interviewed who we thought could provide almost first hand information. William Mack! Perry's only son.
I was so excited to sit down with William that I could hardly concentrate. William had a beer and a hambuger sandwich and I had my tape recorder. And then William explained that his dad really didn't say much about his time with Harley-Davdison other than there was some bad blood and how his dad had crashed that Harley after hitting the dog in Chicago in 1905. 45 years after one of the first five production Harley-Davidson motorcycles was raced by his father William first learned that his father worked for "The Motor Co". It was a real shame but William said his dad never talked about it till he was on his death bed.

I just talked with William a couple of weeks ago and told him that people are now building replicas of motorcycles using his dad's motors and he was quite excited. Hopefully there will be a couple at Davenport this year so I can get some photos for him.

Dick

I don't know Dick, you said it darn good!

It was fun talking to Bill Mack. The late Joe Koller was the one who pointed me in Bill's direction. Then it took a while to track him down. As I remember it he lived in a nice spot, but like you I was more interested in Perry's story. Too bad Koller passed away so tragically at such a young age. He was a real enthusiast about Wisconsin-built motorcycles. He also wanted to hear the best information and facts. Koller was a great guy.

Another myth that might have endured hadn't we found that photo and articles of Perry racing a Harley in 1905 was the later story carried down to modern times that he was riding a bike of his own build that summer. But unless he was the designer of the Harley-D we know that can't be true. But like you keep asking: How much input did Perry have on that original 1904-05 Harley? Was he just racing it for them? Or was he also their first hired employee? If the latter, then how many of his ideas went into that bike? From his later big magnificant full OHV motors in the Waverley-P.E.M.-Jefferson line we know that he was a very talented and inspired guy.

You mentioned "bad blood" with H-D. That kind of only makes sense if they used some of Perry's knowledge or ideas and then somehow he got aced out.

How does Perry exactly fit in with Bill Harley and Ole Evinrude, plus, the-not-to-be-overlooked dead-ringer Joe Merkel loop-frame chassis?

Again, that's a gap in our knowledge of that mid-1901 to late-1904 "era of mystery." We know who was involved for the most part, but what their exact roles and inputs were is still a tantalizing puzzle. There's a LOT more to the story when you step thru the door of that humble 10x15 ft. woodshed than modern H-D, Inc. is telling us. A heck of a lot more. Unless the complete full story is told in the new HOG Museum (has it?) we have still dug deeper and have published more of the true story of early Harley-Davidson than anyone else. Mostly in the Harley Creation book, and also that important "New H-D Chronology" article in the Club mag permanent record, along with your own excellent Perry E. Mack research & bio article there.

By the way, we can now add "garage" to "shack," "shed," "woodshed," "workshop," "coal-house," etc. to the various names of the whatever-it-really-was Davidson backyard structure:

Artifacts from the company's original workshop, a 10-by-15-foot garage that sat about three miles west of the museum. "That's the part of Harley-Davidson's history that blows me away the most," [Harley spokesperseon] Lee said. "A bunch of young guys in their 20s decided to build motorcycles."

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/n...IVE_S1.article

PS: Where the heck is Earl? Maybe he's reading microfilm in the Cleveland library. That would be March thru Nov. of 1894, Earl. You know what I'm talking about!

[pem]

By golly Herb, I believe you said it better.

There is one person I know of that both you and myself have interviewed who we thought could provide almost first hand information. William Mack! Perry's only son.
I was so excited to sit down with William that I could hardly concentrate. William had a beer and a hambuger sandwich and I had my tape recorder. And then William explained that his dad really didn't say much about his time with Harley-Davdison other than there was some bad blood and how his dad had crashed that Harley after hitting the dog in Chicago in 1905. 45 years after one of the first five production Harley-Davidson motorcycles was raced by his father William first learned that his father worked for "The Motor Co". It was a real shame but William said his dad never talked about it till he was on his death bed.

I just talked with William a couple of weeks ago and told him that people are now building replicas of motorcycles using his dad's motors and he was quite excited. Hopefully there will be a couple at Davenport this year so I can get some photos for him.

Dick

[HarleyCreation]

Well Dick, you've put down every question I've ever had about the early days. Is there anyone left alive that actually knows anything for sure? Does the Company deliberately leave the early day debateable so that the allure and mystery can stay alive? Does anyone really care about the truth except us antique nuts? I don't know if we'll ever know the complete truth, but I think Herb has filled in quite a few blanks that ended the fairy tale 1903 production date.

Oh, by the way Herb, I made it to the post office. It's on it's way!!!

Thanks Cory!

I doubt if anyone with first hand info of the earliest years could possibily still be alive. When Arthur Davidson passed away in 1950 the true facts died with him. By that time the other founders plus Ole Evinrude had passed away. Perry Mack died around that same period. I think Henry Melk was gone by then too. One or two of the original Becker brothers were still alive into the late 1950s but no later. I'll bet they knew the facts. I looked up everyone I could find starting back in 1988, but it was all second hand stuff full of myth and error. Added to the problem was that the Harley Factory neighborhood was no longer inhabited by the original workers or their families for the most part. If it had been, we could have scored lots of interesting folklore at the very least.

[HarleyCreation]

Asking questions; finding answers...

I read the book -- even researched and wrote it -- and I'm still asking why and trying to fill in the blanks. I'm even assembling a post-Creation-book file and stuffing it with new material as it turns up. The article that Cory found will go into that file. The coal-house article is another one. Because like Dick said, each one of those later "fairy tale" histories is different from the other, sometimes a LOT different. If we gather enough new raw material perhaps we can do an entertaining follow-up article in the Club mag and have fun doing it.

The biggest problem with those very early years is that between mid-1901 and late 1904 there is no known original evidence. That is, there's a blank between the time of William Harley's 1901 "Bicycle Motor" drawing and the appearance of a "Harley-Davidson" motorcycle in Sept. 1904 in a race.

Between those two events a HUGE amount of activity took place, i.e.: 2 completely different machines were designed and built, one an inferior motor-bicycle and the other a very refined 2nd generation motorcycle that was arguably the best on the market when introduced in 1905.

Yet in spite of all the steps along the way there is ZERO surviving original evidence that I have ever seen or heard of. Without that original evidence we are FORCED to consider the "fairy tale" histories and give them greater weight than they deserve. Yet they are wildly contradictory, sometimes insanely so, thus the frustration and the pointed questions that Dick rightfully posed.

What we are NOT doing, however, is picking out one or two of those fairy tale histories and trumpeting those as gospel truth and perhaps enshrine their glaring errors in a museum or something, because in fact NONE of them are 100% reliable or trustworthy, far from it. Each one has to be held up to the light and compared to the others, and see if we can shake from them something of value in relation to what we do know is true or most likely.

Some people think that H-D, Inc. today has all that early information, but unless they found it recently I doubt that. But I do think more original 1901-1904 information remains to be discovered. Certainly more of the "fairy tale" histories are popping up, like mushrooms after a rain it seems!

IMO this is just the beginning of the process. We are laying the groundwork for future historians who will follow in our footsteps. That's not a bad thing.

HW

[Chris Haynes]

After reading these articles and Herb's book (again) I get the impression
that who was ever writing these histories had some basis for their "facts."
Where did the writer(s) get the dimensions for the motors? Did he have a set
of blueprints to look at? Did the writer sit down with the four founders and
discuss the company's history? Did the writer go through old company
records?

And why did the writer change the histories from one article to another?
Were the four founders aware of these different histories? Why didn't the
writer just tell the truth? Why can't the present day Motor Co. just open up the archives and let the public see all the original documents? Why all the mystery?

Was it just good marketing practices? Was it just good advertising hype? Was
it a way to spin a tale? Was it boardroom politics that wrote the histories
and does it continue to this day?

Right now we have the "shed" being built in 1903 or being converted from a
coalhouse or being converted from a workshop. If we use the Motor Co.'s
logic where they base their history on magazine and newspaper articles any
if these three fairy tales would be correct.

We have the origin for the idea (or design) for the first motor attributed
to a German, a Frenchman, Ole Evinrude, Perry Mack, Edward Hildebrandt,
William Harley, Arthur Davidson and possibly Henry Melk or even Joseph
Merkel.

We have the year for the first motor anywhere from 1901 to 1903. We have the
year for the first production motorcycle from 1902 to 1905. We have the
first dealer from 1903 to 1905.

Why is it so dam hard to get the facts and why doesn't the Motor Co. ever
comment on these discussions or get involved?

There, now I fell somewhat better. Please fell free to answer any or all of
these questions at your leisure with attributed facts and or documents. Herb
has tried to answer some of these questions but there are still blanks and
nagging questions to be answered. Will we ever know the full truth?

Dick Werner

Dick,
If you actually did read Herb's book you wouldn't have to ask why.

[c.o.]

Well Dick, you've put down every question I've ever had about the early days. Is there anyone left alive that actually knows anything for sure? Does the Company deliberately leave the early day debateable so that the allure and mystery can stay alive? Does anyone really care about the truth except us antique nuts? I don't know if we'll ever know the complete truth, but I think Herb has filled in quite a few blanks that ended the fairy tale 1903 production date.

Oh, by the way Herb, I made it to the post office. It's on it's way!!!

[pem]

After reading these articles and Herb's book (again) I get the impression
that who was ever writing these histories had some basis for their "facts."
Where did the writer(s) get the dimensions for the motors? Did he have a set
of blueprints to look at? Did the writer sit down with the four founders and
discuss the company's history? Did the writer go through old company
records?

And why did the writer change the histories from one article to another?
Were the four founders aware of these different histories? Why didn't the
writer just tell the truth? Why can't the present day Motor Co. just open up the archives and let the public see all the original documents? Why all the mystery?

Was it just good marketing practices? Was it just good advertising hype? Was
it a way to spin a tale? Was it boardroom politics that wrote the histories
and does it continue to this day?

Right now we have the "shed" being built in 1903 or being converted from a
coalhouse or being converted from a workshop. If we use the Motor Co.'s
logic where they base their history on magazine and newspaper articles any
if these three fairy tales would be correct.

We have the origin for the idea (or design) for the first motor attributed
to a German, a Frenchman, Ole Evinrude, Perry Mack, Edward Hildebrandt,
William Harley, Arthur Davidson and possibly Henry Melk or even Joseph
Merkel.

We have the year for the first motor anywhere from 1901 to 1903. We have the
year for the first production motorcycle from 1902 to 1905. We have the
first dealer from 1903 to 1905.

Why is it so dam hard to get the facts and why doesn't the Motor Co. ever
comment on these discussions or get involved?

There, now I fell somewhat better. Please fell free to answer any or all of
these questions at your leisure with attributed facts and or documents. Herb
has tried to answer some of these questions but there are still blanks and
nagging questions to be answered. Will we ever know the full truth?

Dick Werner

[HarleyCreation]

Gotcha, but I just didn't want you to think I was hinting. The new article will be something to mull over this winter which is coming PDQ!

[c.o.]

No worries Herb.......I wasn't insinuating you were hinting. If I were a more ambitious typer, I'd put the whole article on here. But since I'm not, I'll get the article sent off to you so you can comment. Your much better with your history and words......

[HarleyCreation]

Cory, I know all about how difficult it is getting to the post office, etc. No rush. I wasn't hinting, honest. But I'm glad you found it!

[c.o.]

Yup, stumbled upon it by accident with some literature that I got from George Yarocki. Herb, I'll get a copy mailed to you soon. I can't seem to make it to the post office during operating hours, so I guess I'll have to get the Mrs. to do it. It is coming though, I didn't forget.......

[HarleyCreation]

Your right Herb, a big thanks to Rick for the information he uncovered in that lawsuit. It answered a lot of questions and nobody can dispute what was said as it was all under sworn testimony. Nobody would lie under oath would they?

Most people wouldn't lie under oath and that's why it was such an important find. In the future if anyone dredges up these old newspaper articles and tries to base Harley's origin on them, the well-informed enthusiast can rebutt them with the lawsuit's sworn testimony. I know which one I'd rather trust.

Here's a little tidbit from the Atlanta Constitution article. In 1913/14 Atlanta was chosen as the southern headquartes for The Motor Co. There was a boatload of ads and a couple articles in the local newspapers.

Paragraph heading; Tells of Gas Engine

"There came to Milwaukee one day a Frenchman who was given employment in one of the departments then in charge of William Harley. During the noon rests this Frenchman told Mr. Harley of the wonderful gas engine being built by Count De Dion in whose employ the Frenchman had formerly been engaged. The story of the gas engine so interested Mr. Harley he being an inventive genius he decided to build a motorcycle for his personal use.
As he, Walter and William Davidson were chums and personel friends the three decided to utilize their spare time in constructing a motorcycle.

The traditional histories have always referred to anther guy with knowledge about motors but without naming him, merely stating that he was a "German" which around Milwaukee seems more likely than a Frenchmen. This paragraph is also odd in that Arthur isn't named once, and he is ALWAYS credited with being the original one to have teamed up with Bill Harley. Walter and William A. Davidson didn't enter the picture until later, yet here they are given early billing.

In the rear of Walter Davidson's home there was a coal house. This was put into shape and a small lathe was installed and each day after working hours these three young men would hasten to their improvised factory. After months of hard work a motorcycle was built and completed but on being taken out for a trial it was found that the machine would not run down hill. Then followed a series of changes with the result that a fairly good motorcycle was turned out. When it appeared on the streets of Milwaukee it attracted considerable attention so much so in fact that the builders received several orders from young men in Milwaukee for motorcycles like the original. This is the way in which the Harley-Davidson motorcycle was born.

More oddness. Like pem said, no year dates are given, and again Arthur is left out completely! Nowhere else is the backyard workshop ever called a "coalhouse." Old houses typically had coal bins in the basement, not a building in the backyard. Willie G.'s dad told me that the building originally was his grandfather's workshop, and that the boys took it over. And what's that bit about the first machine would not run "down" hill???

Was the guy writing this stuff drunk or something?

This account, no matter how bizarre the contents, is still valuable. It is, perhaps, the best example found showing just how loosely these early copy-writers and ad-men handled the facts. Not at all agreeing with one another but coming up with contradictory versions of events. Like Dick said, was Crolius trying out different versions without regard to actual early events and didn't remember or consult what he had previously written on the subject?

Truth told, we don't know much about the earliest stuff said to have taken place in the Davidson family backyard shed that is so enshrined and hallowed today.

NONE of the photos of the 10x15 ft. backyard workshop that I have seen in either original or expanded form show any evidence of a motorcycle in the photo. Not a bike, not a part, not a tire, nothing! Even the original shed photo that says "Harley-Davidson Motor Co." on the door is suspect, being artistically retouched for a 1909 brochure. And if you study the name on the door in that photo very closely, the name appears to have been ADDED to the photo by a commercial artist and does not actually appear to be painted on the real door itself.

We'll probably never know the full truth, but every time another one of these contradictory early histories from teens and early twenties shows up, it makes it more likely that NONE of them should be trusted.

PS: Cory just found another one!

[pem]

Here's another history of the Harley-Davidson Motor Co. from the June 13, 1912 "Motorcycling" magazine. This excerpt is from an article titled "A Romance of Motorcycle Achievement". In this version we get yet another year for the first real "Harley-Davidson motor". The first paragraph describes the experimental "bicycle motor".

"Enters Walter D.

Enters now another factor, Walter Davidson, forceful, high strung, whose capacity is to do things, to carry the "Message to Garcia." Walter was three years older than Harley and Arthur D., and possessed the technical and mechanical knowledge required to assist the others in incorporating their ideas and motor into a complete motorcycle. At their request he constructed the machine in the machine shop of a friend, during odd moments. This first motor had a bore of 2 1/2 inches and a stroke of 2 7/8 inches. The flywheel was five inches in diameter-designed for use in an ordinary bicycle frame.

The First Harley-Davidson

This, however, was only experimental work-a new toy. But it suggested possibilities of great industrial achievement, and the boys grasped the idea and went to it. The result was the first real Harley-Davidson motor, brought out in 1902. It had a bore of 3 and a stroke of 3 1/2 inches, developing about 3 horse power. The flywheel was 11 1/2 inches in diameter"."

Later on in the article we get this.

"Factory No. 1

Until 1903 the young Milwaukee mechanics carried on their venture in motorcycle building at the machine shop of a friend a mile and a half away. In that year it was decided to build the first factory. Factory No. 1 was the result.
A second-hand gas engine of 4 horse power was brought to provide power. A lathe, then a drill press, were added to the equipment. And finally there came another big day in their history.
The first motor was completed in their first factory.
Three machines were the output of the year 1903."

What I find intersting in this article is that they had built a motor in 1902 but still had to buy a second hand 4 horse power motor to run their first factory in 1903. What is also of note is that it sounds like the experimental motor was made in 1901 as they say "The result was the first real Harley-Davidson motor, brought out in 1902."

In the 1914 "Coalhouse" version of their history they say "In the rear of Walter Davidson's home there was a coal house. This was put into shape and a small lathe was installed and each day after working hours these three young men would hasten to their improvised factory. After months of hard work a motorcycle was built and completed but on being taken out for a trial it was found that the macine would not run downhill. Then followed a series of changes with the results that a fairly good motorcycle was turned out." Here they are talking about the experimental motor being from 1903. In the "Romance" article they say the experimental motor was put in a bicycle frame but in the "Coalhouse" article they say it was a complete motorcycle.

In the "Romance" article they say they built the first factory(shed) in 1903 and in the "Coalhouse" article they took an existing coalhouse in 1903 and turned it into the first factory.

If it sounds confusing it is.

Also nowhere in any of these histories is mentioned Perry Mack, first person known to have his photo taken(in 1905) with a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and possibly Harley's first employee or Edward Hildebrand, first person known to appear in the written public record (1904)with the words "Harley-Davidson" and the first person known to have raced a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and also possibly Harley's first employee.(This info courtesy of Herb Wagner).

Did anybody who was at the new museum see or hear about these guys while you were there? Just wondering if they got their credit.

Dick Werner