1947 Knucklehead on EBay

[Jdiesel25]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/38760537761...Bk9SR8Df3oXkZA

[Jdiesel25]

Possible restamp? Hard to see from my phone

[JoJo357]

Possible restamp? Hard to see from my phone

Appears to be a real lousy botch.
s-l1600.jpg

*M.A.D.*

[KNUCK]

The number pad looks pretty good, but I started to look at the numbers and they seemed pretty decent until I got to the 2 and that is definitely not good. I looked at about five different knuckle engine case numbers to compare and none of them had a 2 like that. There should be a serif on the end of the 2

[JoJo357]

The number pad looks pretty good, but I started to look at the numbers and they seemed pretty decent until I got to the 2 and that is definitely not good. I looked at about five different knuckle engine case numbers to compare and none of them had a 2 like that. There should be a serif on the end of the 2

If you look closely Knuck, *(go to Max enlargement), you will see traces of ghost numbers and stamped over traces~at least i do. All in all, there is a title, and it's not really a bad pri$e.

*M.A.D.*

[Speeding Big Twin]

I agree something appears to be going on under the current SN characters and a close-up may reveal more about that.
I also agree the 2 should have a serif. And regardless of seriffed or sans serif the rest of that 2 doesn’t look like either of the types I’d expect for 47.
The 7 does not appear consistent with factory stamping for 47, partly because of its back.

Notice the 1 has its top serif at about forty-five degrees. For 47 model SNs at least two 1s were used and my photo collection indicates the first type had a horizontal top serif. For Knuckleheads that seems to have remained in use until just after SNs reached 10000 and therefore at 9142 I’d expect the top serif to be horizontal.
(The change to the 1 also occurred with Flathead SNs for 47 but at different stages of production, for obvious reasons.)
NB: for the benefit of anyone with Palmer’s 32–52 military book(s) you’ll notice mention of a change to the top serif of the 1. But both 32–52 editions are wrong about when the change occurred.

In both BNs the 9 has a straight back. Why? For 47 BNs I would normally expect a certain type of round-back 9. And I’d like a close-up of the ‘92’ in both BNs.
Eric