Parking Light Lens Info for 1931-1935 Models?

[FCJ]

Does anyone have any info as to parking light lenses for 1931-1935 models? Did the lens change at any point (e.g., to an elongated version like the tail lamp lens changed for 1935 models?) or did H-D just start referring to the parking light lens as a beehive lens at some point after 1932? I see parking lights listed in the 1931 accessories catalog under "New Bullet type Parking Lights" with a lens that appears to be a beehive-type lens (that projects "ahead of the lamp body approximately one-half inch") and a similar listing in the 1932 accessories catalog. I also see parking lights listed in the 1935 accessories catalog with a "beehive lens." But, I don't know what happened, if anything (as to the description or mechanically), in between 1931 and 1935.

[Steve Slocombe]

Those parking lights are not often seen on bikes, and also appear in the 1935 Accessory Catalog but not the 1934, 1936 0r 1937 copies I have. In the 1941 catalog they are the rear facing ones mounted under the seat, given a 1938 part number, and described as having a beehive lens. My guess is that they were bought in from Guide, with the same body but the mounts changed for 1938, but we have accessory experts on the forum who will know for sure.

[Chris Haynes]

Oh dear! Here we go again.

[FCJ]

Oh dear! Here we go again.

Are you kidding me? Do you have some crazy personal stake in parking lights too? This doesn't concern or affect conventional wisdom as to your precious 35-38 tail light. I just started doing more research and wanted to learn more about other lights and lenses.

I'm not challenging your expertise or authority or position as the god of all H-D knowledge or the king of all forums. Although I did not intend to disparage or disrespect you, I apologized and kowtowed when you took a Facebook post the wrong way. I have consistently praised you and gone out of my way to avoid offending you or injuring your pride or sensibilities. But, you appear to view historical, factual questions as some kind of personal attack or affront. You tell me to do this and do that and suggest that I "invest several thousand dollars and years reading" all the literature that you have, but then you throw a hissy fit when I ask a question or try to research something. I am happy to invest in this. It would be faster and easier to pay someone else to do everything, but I'm here trying to learn what I can for myself in what little spare time I have. I may be new to this, but I have already read enough and spent enough time with motorcycle people to learn a little bit about you. If you don't want to be helpful or constructive, that's your choice.

P.S. I don't know why you keep talking about my education or what you think you know about me or how I spend my time, but I don't have any degrees in collage [sic]. Your statements may say more about you than they do about me. If you want to name call and make threats and try to bully on the internet, that's your choice. If a beehive discussion causes you to act like this, I can't imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth that would ensue if any mere mortal dared question a jiffy stand.

[Chris Haynes]

Name calling?

[FCJ]

Name calling?

Yes Chris. Name calling. We already covered this on Facebook when you said your statements were facts and asked for examples that were condescending. I'm a newbie and we aren't friends so I shouldn't have tried kidding around. I repeatedly apologized and publicly hailed your superiority in all things H-D. I respect your knowledge and enjoyed the beehive discussions, but started researching beehives and other terms because I was curious and didn't want to be one of those people that got ridiculed and insulted for mistakenly referring to something by its "incorrect" (albeit most common) name or not knowing what something was. I may not agree with conventional wisdom, but I don't have anything to gain by squabbling with you or anyone else. My questions were and are sincere/genuine. It's not about you. As far as I know, it's conventional wisdom and literally everyone but me has the same view. I apologize to you and everyone else on this forum if anything I have said or done was inappropriate. I tried to make sure my beehive statements were researched and factual. I'm here to learn. I will try to remember my place and be more political in the future.

[Chris Haynes]

I don't recall calling you any "Names".

[Rubone]

Those parking lights are not often seen on bikes, and also appear in the 1935 Accessory Catalog but not the 1934, 1936 0r 1937 copies I have. In the 1941 catalog they are the rear facing ones mounted under the seat, given a 1938 part number, and described as having a beehive lens. My guess is that they were bought in from Guide, with the same body but the mounts changed for 1938, but we have accessory experts on the forum who will know for sure.

Steve,
The -38 lights are the commonly referred to three rivet type. They are not sided, and when used as running lights one is upside down. The -49 type are sided. The early ones shown in those catalogs were post mount.

[Steve Slocombe]

Thanks Robbie, nice piece, and I didn't know they weren't sided/handed. I see the 1941 Accessory Catalog says they 'Can be mounted anywhere to suit'. My speculation is that these are the same Guide type bodies earlier sold as the front marker light, with different brackets, but have no evidence yet.