1965 Panhead Book Project

[Rollo]

Bruce,

Thanks for the reply and clearing this up. I know it is a daunting task trying to get it all correct and let me say you have done and excellent job. As with any work that attempts to record all the changes something goes through it is always subject to new information that comes to light over the course of time. You and Debby have undertaken a monumental task and with the second edition of the military book it is doubly impressive. We all thank you for this!

Tom (Rollo) Hardy
AMCA #12766

[rbenash]

What Rollo said!

[Chris Haynes]

The factory photos of ALL 1965 models show white grips. White grips are NOT listed as an accessory non the order blank.

[rbenash]

OK - I can't help it let me stir the pot.

ALL of the factory docs I have show smooth white grips only on '65. I was more focused on KOH grouping for mine though. I think I have a factory photo without the KOH group installed somewhere that MIGHT show smooth black grips there, not sure. But figure Chris has one :-)

Nice polished fork lowers in those photos from Chris. Don't let them gig you on a '65 restoration for polished lowers if you have KOH group. Lots of 64 and earlier Panhead owners/judges think that they should always be "rough" casting. I had a little bit of a battle with that one but was resolved after some discussion and exchange of documents, etc.. Just be aware. They (64 and earlier owners/judges) also like to make notice or field call on over polishing, etc. These look pretty shiny to me and if you have this photo with you, you can nip that in the bud also.

Notice there's no chrome trim on the rear of the front fender. Lots of 64 earlier panhead owners and judges think a '65 with KOH group should have the same little chrome strip/trim there that was on Duo Glides. 65's never had any dressing on that area of the front fender, even with KOH group.

No trademark "r" over the E-Glide script either. Make note of that too if you are replacing your script :-) You should try to find a repro or original that doesn't have the trademark included.

Notice this '65 has KOH group and a chrome battery cover. NO ENCLOSURE/Surround - '65's never had them. The enclosure/wrap came in '66 on the Shovel with KOH and as an accessory after the 65 Christmas brochure. The flat/smooth enclosure for 65 only is a myth. If you have a ridged one on you shouldn't be penalized as it is an accessory technically else leave your battery uncovered with just the top chrome battery cover on.

Sand cast timing and primary covers are the only correct ones for a '65 restoration - polished should get a gig.

Chris/All - do you think that all '65's should have that inspection hole and plug in the primary cover or just early models, etc? I think either might be correct depending on SN?? It disappeared in '66 AFIN. It's the same casting number inside (-65), but missing the work for the hole/plug from 66 on. I believe there was a shop note that instructed dealers how to place and drill the hole for the plug if replacing a primary cover on a '65??

Still not done staring :-)

[T. Cotten]

Ray!

My Kansas City Police Special had polished lower legs;
Do you really think the Factory was as anal as AMCA judging standards?

....Cotten

[Magic]

Do you really think the Factory was as anal as AMCA judging standards? I like that answer

[vph-d]

Ray,
Are you saying 65 lower legs were polished more than other year Panheads? Or, are you saying they are just not "rough"?
VPH-D

[rbenash]

Wow - I truly apologize for not getting back. Don't know what happened but I didn't get a thread notice, etc. I'm saying that stock no KOTH group 65's were sand cast. Then if you purchased KOTH group you got polished lowers from the factory. Now the finer point is when you have that all judged. The crowd around the judges who know paninheads 64 and earlier can influence judges
that frankly are still learning.

Case in point - my '65 is full KOTH group options (I think it's option 3 but that's another topic). Anyway - my lowers were polished as they should have been if you purchased a '65 with the full KOTH grouping. I was basically told they were "too polished" "should be rough" The panhead diaspora experts (and they were experts IMHO) were telling the judges that they should be rough cast (AKA sand cast). No one took into consideration that with the KOTH grouping it specified polished lowers.

So - that said. If you have a '65 or earlier panhead restoration being judged with the KOTH grouping make sure to do your homework and check that it included polished lowers.

But I think I put that to bed with the current chief judge over a good bit of dialog and proof - you need proof which is a good thing.

Have to say that using the judging process with ability to challenge worked great in my case. The chief judge helped me work through the process. It's a great feature of AMCA. And I think the chief judge and the current judging process is great. You just have to take the emotion out of it and do your research.

A '65 takes more research period in terms of a pinhead restoration. You have to know it at a deep level because of the challenge a '65 represents.

I was getting hit in the end for "over polishing". Which is just wrong. So if you have a '65 with the KOTH group - you should have polished, smooth (shiney) lowers, not sand cast.

If you are doing a restoration that does not include KOTH group - leave the lowers rough cast/sand cast.

[rbenash]

City police special had KOTH group - so should have had polished lowers. That's all I'm saying.

AFA Harley polishing and chroming quality - it was never show chrome or highly polished - but that should have nothing to do with judging IMHO. You should just
have the proper polishing, plating, etc. Too polished or to shiny should just be a field notice/comment not a deduction IMHO.

Unless I missed the point of your question??

[HarleyCreation]

Depending on who you are arguing with the production number started with 1000 or 1001.

Chris, I know this is an ancient post but I can give a definitive answer to that question: BOTH are right!

In 1956 and earlier, motor numbers started at 1000. In 1957 and later, motor numbers started with 1001. That is what dear old Harley-D did--just don't ask me why!

Earlier a guy said his motor number was 65FLH111. While his motor may be stamped that way, that would NOT be a valid Harley number. In 1965 the Big Twin line started with motor number 65FLH1001. A three digit number is spurious and therefore suspect.

Being an old Pan head guy myself, I always considered the '65 as something of a freak--in a good way of course.

[vph-d]

What trim level is the 65 in post 198? I'm curious, because the machine does not have rear safety guards, like my 65.
VPH-D

[oldsouthmcy]

Chris, I know this is an ancient post but I can give a definitive answer to that question: BOTH are right!

In 1956 and earlier, motor numbers started at 1000. In 1957 and later, motor numbers started with 1001. That is what dear old Harley-D did--just don't ask me why!

Earlier a guy said his motor number was 65FLH111. While his motor may be stamped that way, that would NOT be a valid Harley number. In 1965 the Big Twin line started with motor number 65FLH1001. A three digit number is spurious and therefore suspect.

Herb, I cannot speak for 1957 since I do have a record showing that for 1957 but I believe you are correct. However, I do have documentation for 1958-1979 showing the start and end VINs for Big Twins & Sportsters. It shows that 1958, 1959, 1961, and 1965 that they start with 1001 and 1962 start with 2001. The documentation shows that 1963, 1967, and 1969 start with 1000 and 1960, 1964, 1966, and 1968 start with 2000.

Why the inconsistency? I have no idea at this time.

[HarleyCreation]

Herb, I cannot speak for 1957 since I do have a record showing that for 1957 but I believe you are correct. However, I do have documentation for 1958-1979 showing the start and end VINs for Big Twins & Sportsters. It shows that 1958, 1959, 1961, and 1965 that they start with 1001 and 1962 start with 2001. The documentation shows that 1963, 1967, and 1969 start with 1000 and 1960, 1964, 1966, and 1968 start with 2000.

Why the inconsistency? I have no idea at this time.

You're right about those "2000/2001" start numbers. I forgot about those. Yes, that began in 1960 (some sources say 1962) The REASON was to make it more obvious if somebody restamped cases with fake, out-of-range numbers. An H-D to Highland Insurance Co. source gives these yearly start numbers for the Big Twin line. They agree with what you said. XL/XLCH numbers ran in similar fashion.

FL/FLH Models
1957 1001 and up
1958 1001 and up
1959 1001 and up
1960 2000 and up (yes, back to a "000" start number again!)
1961 1001 and up
1962 2001 and up
1963 1000 and up (yes, 1000 again!)
1964 2000 and up
1965 1001 and up
1966 2000 and up
1967 1000 and up
1968 2000 and up
1969 1000 and up
1970 (new VIN system)

As mentioned, the 1000 vs. 2000 start range was to detect fake re-stamped numbers. What I don't understand is why they used "001" start numbers in some later years and "000" start numbers in other years. Don't make sense. But like we've said before, it wasn't always the logical way, just the Harley-Davidson way.

According to this document, there was a 69FLH1000 stamped engine--first FL/FLH engine off the motor assembly line. It also shows that the earlier post's claim of 65FLH111 is a bogus, out-of-range number. Or maybe he left out one numeral.

[servicar]

65 pan

Hi Michael,

Thanks for stepping up and getting the ball rolling. You can send me a private message with attachments or you can always email me at gmarakas@kandgcycles.com.

Feel free to post anything you want discussed in this thread directly to the thread.

I promise you, this one will be both positive and fun.

Thanks, again.

i just picked up 65 pan basketcase 4 digit vin with oil screen original paint

[paddy]

Congradulations best of luck with it!!!!