What is it?

[duffeycycles]

I repeat--since January 1 2008 it is illegal to sell a vehicle with a reproduction frame and original title
these are not OEM and not dated as year of original
A reproduction part is not an original to year of the original part in my opinion-especially if it can cause an accident if it fails
Furthermore you cannot sell a vehicle with said part and claim it is all original without lying
EVERYONE can have an opinion

[shelbyinparadise]

I agree with Chris' comment, and I think it is a good topic for debate. You can make the arguement that a perfectly reproduced part was not manufactured in 1916 but if it is identical in content, and appearance, with all the machine marks, and qualities of the original; what's the difference? Of course there is the intangible romantic value in a part that you know (without a doubt) came from Milwaukee, Chicago, or Springfield; but is the original a good part? People that rebuild old bikes, and even original paint bikes use reproduction parts in the engine, and transmission. Those parts don't show so nobody seems to care. Is that different than a perfect reproduction part that does show?

I agree with both Chris and Eric, Eric is also correct that it is a good topic for discussion. Even the OEM's made parts that were improved for quality or safety, so would one be incorrect using the improved part? Not all reproduction parts are of equal quality. The control of raw materials parts are made of in some countries is totally hit or miss. I can speak of 45 transmission gears, imported, looked right but size and heat treatment was all over the place. Colony for one makes some of the highest quality replacement parts, Tom Fabers handlebars are new but correct for the different years. People like Chris and many others have spent many years becoming knowledgeable in both the look and function of parts. In my view, any Craftsman that can produce a new correct replacement part should be able to use or sell such an item identified by the year of fitment. Shelby

[exeric]

No, it wouldn't. If you reproduce a part for a 1916 Ford it is still a part for a 1916 Ford, not a 2013.

I agree with Chris' comment, and I think it is a good topic for debate. You can make the arguement that a perfectly reproduced part was not manufactured in 1916 but if it is identical in content, and appearance, with all the machine marks, and qualities of the original; what's the difference? Of course there is the intangible romantic value in a part that you know (without a doubt) came from Milwaukee, Chicago, or Springfield; but is the original a good part? People that rebuild old bikes, and even original paint bikes use reproduction parts in the engine, and transmission. Those parts don't show so nobody seems to care. Is that different than a perfect reproduction part that does show?

[Chris Haynes]

If its one you made, did you make it for an early or late 1936 EL?

Pete Reeves 860

I never knew there were any differences.

[pete reeves]

If its one you made, did you make it for an early or late 1936 EL?

Pete Reeves 860

[Chris Haynes]

So would that not make it Late "13"

No, it wouldn't. If you reproduce a part for a 1916 Ford it is still a part for a 1916 Ford, not a 2013.

[Chuck#1848]

Neither. It is one I made. ;-)

So would that not make it Late "13"

[Chris Haynes]

But is it early or late 36 ?

Pete Reeves. 860

Neither. It is one I made. ;-)

[pete reeves]

But is it early or late 36 ?

Pete Reeves. 860

[Chris Haynes]

It looks like the swiveling part on a 36EL shift lever. Did I win anything?

You win the admiration of all those who didn't know what it was. ;-)

[harleytoprock]

It looks like the swiveling part on a 36EL shift lever. Did I win anything?

[Chris Haynes]

Who will know the answer? It is for a Big Twin OHV.