1965 flh vin?

[gitguy]

Nice bike however. . . this VIN doesn't seem quite right. These numbers don't appear correct for 1965.

Any thoughts?

VIN.png

https://www.ebay.com/itm/27680707431...Bk9SR_Tru-SIZQ

[Jerry Wieland]

I think you are right to question that number.

[gitguy]

Hope this pic is better

VIN.png

[otis71]

On the eBay site the picture of the belly numbers shows them being opposed. Without removing skid pans to verify I believe they always face the same direction. This leads me to believe the left case isn’t original and the engine number as well as the belly number was restamped.

[Rubone]

Another '65 for comparison.
1965 for sale 2.JPG

[Speeding Big Twin]

Looks like that alleged 65 has been sold.

I couldn’t see anything wrong with the SN boss and it appears unaltered. Notice the top edge of the boss has a small nick in it between the F and L. It may be a flaw in the casting and it is consistent with 65 and certain other, not all, Panhead SN bosses. Also visible, but not on the SN boss, are three indents which may be other flaws in the casting and which are consistent with 65 and certain other, not all, Panhead left cases. The first of those three indents appeared as early as 55 models but the earliest I’ve seen the third of them is around later-61 models and it may even have appeared about the same time as the nick in the top edge of the SN boss. Sometimes the left case also has another flaw in the casting but I can’t see it in the ebay photos.

SN complies with the 60–69 E-O code but several characters are not consistent with factory stamping.
For 65 Pan SNs the year characters were applied in at least three different ways but in all three combinations I’ve seen the 6 has a straight back, not a round back. In the second and third combos the back of the 6 is vertical while in the first combo the back of the 6 is diagonal with its top pointing to the right and I posted a photo below. The highest example I have of the first combo is just over 1200.
None of the three 65 combinations I’ve seen have a 5 like that. For example notice the space between the horizontal stroke and the top of the curved section is less than usual.
The 1s are not consistent with factory stamping. Notice the top and bottom serifs are shorter than normal for 65.
The 9 appears to be the 6 upside down. But normally for a 65 Pan SN the 9 would be a certain straight-back type.
Sequence 5 appears to be the same style used in the year portion. Again for example notice the space between the horizontal stroke and the top of the curved section is less than usual.

I wonder if anything was stamped on top of the cases near the rear mounting bolts?

As for the BNs, in both of them the first and third characters are not consistent with factory stamping. Hard to be sure about the 6 but a clear close-up may have helped resolve that.
R-H BN is not facing the usual way for 65. Also notice the R-H case appears to be very late 65, partly because near the rear tappet guide there is extra material in the casting in readiness for a top end oil line fitting for 66.

I don’t see MCC logos on the cylinders but I would have expected to for 65. Are the cylinders H-D?
Oil tank is 70 or later.
Eric

[T. Cotten]

More to compare...
65FL9278.jpg
65H13628.jpg

And here is a '63 with the diagonal strike.

63VIN.jpg
....Cotten
PS: Please note the 65s' identical clamping scars above the F, and to the left of the boss:

DIMPLES.jpg
These are the "Underdoggie Dimples".