62FL case # ?

[62pan]

True. I am assuming that this motor hasn't had parts switched. However after 40 years of rebuilding motors I have seen a great many that have had major parts replaced, usually heads and/or cylinders, and few that haven't. As time has passed I see it more often than not. In the case of this motor the heads both bear late 61 casting dates, the cylinders are dated Feb. 62 and Mar. 62. The fellow that I got it from was the second owner, unfortunately he chopped it back in 1970.

[Luke]

What are the belly numbers? they should not be more than around 100 different from the VIN.

They match and read 162-xxxxx

What do you mean they shouldnt be nore han 100 different from the VIN? Sorry Im not sure I understand.

Its obvious bottom of case has not been messed with.

[Robert Luland]

Guys I've been following this thread and I just got to chime in. Forget the odds and evens and production numbers for a minute and get down to the basics. With my limited knowledge I will put forth the following. First Luke. The numbers are to perfect. Up until 64 (I'm doing this off the top of my head) The year was struck with a single die. This was done at another part of the factory. The year for the most part will be a lighter indentation do to the fact they were punching two numbers at the same time. The FL(H) and numbers were punched in down the line. They had no guide when they did this. The letters and numbers were all over the place. The year on the other hand was always placed nice and neatly. The pad is to thin in my book. Notice the pitting on the pad. This is a dead give away of bad heliarc. 62Pan. Forget about it. That vin is so bad, I'm surprised it wasn't on the back of a flat bed already with a State Trooper standing next to it. To everybody here. You'd be amazed what you can do with glass beader to blend things. Every meet I go to I study numbers and take pictures for my data base. Guys remember the year number thing first. Go out and look at a few vins and you will see what I'm putting fourth. Just my thirteen cents. Ride safe lads. Bob L

[Lowbikemike]

Luke,

Those numbers look very simliar to my 62. I've got an early 62 motor with a stamping less than 2070 with matching 161 belly numbers. I don't have a 6 in the sequence so I can't comment on that, but the rest look the same.

Also checked my 61 with matching belly numbers and the year numbers look the same.

[Luke]

Luke,

Those numbers look very simliar to my 62. I've got an early 62 motor with a stamping less than 2070 with matching 161 belly numbers. I don't have a 6 in the sequence so I can't comment on that, but the rest look the same.

Also checked my 61 with matching belly numbers and the year numbers look the same.

Thanks Mike. Can you send me some pics if you get a chance. My vin numbers also look the same as the belly numbers - crisp.

[Luke]

Thanks for the input Robert. I will say though the pitting is not only on the pad there is some on other parts of the case that is similar looking. How thick should the # pad be.

Guys I’ve been following this thread and I just got to chime in. Forget the odds and evens and production numbers for a minute and get down to the basics. With my limited knowledge I will put forth the following. First Luke. The numbers are to perfect. Up until 64 (I’m doing this off the top of my head) The year was struck with a single die. This was done at another part of the factory. The year for the most part will be a lighter indentation do to the fact they were punching two numbers at the same time. The FL(H) and numbers were punched in down the line. They had no guide when they did this. The letters and numbers were all over the place. The year on the other hand was always placed nice and neatly. The pad is to thin in my book. Notice the pitting on the pad. This is a dead give away of bad heliarc. 62Pan. Forget about it. That vin is so bad, I’m surprised it wasn’t on the back of a flat bed already with a State Trooper standing next to it. To everybody here. You’d be amazed what you can do with glass beader to blend things. Every meet I go to I study numbers and take pictures for my data base. Guys remember the year number thing first. Go out and look at a few vins and you will see what I'm putting fourth. Just my thirteen cents. Ride safe lads. Bob L

[62pan]

62Pan. Forget about it. That vin is so bad, I’m surprised it wasn’t on the back of a flat bed already with a State Trooper standing next to it.

Sorry, I most emphatically disagree with you. I have looked at quite literally hundreds of cases in my time and there is nothing wrong with my VIN. I bought the bike in Colorado and had to have it inspected by the CHP in order to register it here in the Peoples Republic of California. I can assure you the officer that inspected it checked it over with a fine tooth comb as he was pissed off at me for getting into an accident with his wife day before (but that's another story).

[Robert Luland]

62Pan. Forget about it. That vin is so bad, I’m surprised it wasn’t on the back of a flat bed already with a State Trooper standing next to it.

Sorry, I most emphatically disagree with you. I have looked at quite literally hundreds of cases in my time and there is nothing wrong with my VIN. I bought the bike in Colorado and had to have it inspected by the CHP in order to register it here in the Peoples Republic of California. I can assure you the officer that inspected it checked it over with a fine tooth comb as he was pissed off at me for getting into an accident with his wife day before (but that's another story).

No way! It's the wrong six for the year and dosn't even match its sister number. As I said earlier, they were stamped as a set. I don't care if your pastor looked at them. There no good!

[Robert Luland]

Luke I don't want you to lose sleep over this. I went on the photo you posted. Pitting for me is one hundred percent suspect. It's rare to see it on a vin pad but shit happens at the factory. Your number could be ok but with that photo, I have questions and stand by the reasons I stated earlier. E-mail me a straight on shot in sun light no flash. bob@newenglandhvacservices.com Bob L

[62pan]

Sorry dude, don't know where you are getting your info, but the 6's are straight backed. Not to say that some of them didn't have the round type, but most are straight. both my 67 and 69 shovels had the very same straight back font. I don't have a copy of Palmers book, but I would invite someone who does to look it up.

[Robert Luland]

Sorry dude, don't know where you are getting your info, but the 6's are straight backed. Not to say that some of them didn't have the round type, but most are straight. both my 67 and 69 shovels had the very same straight back font. I don't have a copy of Palmers book, but I would invite someone who does to look it up.

I studdied this a little while longer. The six is wrong as well as the two and the letters are not Harley fonts. Take the info for what it is.

[62pan]

According to Bruce Palmer's book, 1960 and 1961 bikes have a round backed 6 in the year portion of the motor number. He also mentions that some 1959 models have a round backed 9 in the year portion of the motor number. No mention of a round backed 6 in any other years. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen.


You may want to check your information sources...................

[Speeding Big Twin]

Luke, as some others have indicated, it's possible for a 1962 Panhead serial number to have five sequential characters. Also, when that happens, the first two of those five, when read as one number, should constitute an even number due to the even-odd code used by Harley for 1960=1969. And the serial number in your photo complies with that code.

However, although my examples indicate two types of 6 (round back; and straight back) and two types of 2 (sans serif; and seriffed) were used in the 1962 year portion, my examples so far only include a straight back 6 and a seriffed 2 in the sequential portion for a 1962 Panhead, regardless of the types of 6 and 2 used in the year portion.

Can you post a better photo (straight on, etc) as Bob requested. Also clear photos of the belly numbers. And a photo showing more of that left case. Eric

[Speeding Big Twin]

Bob, I have some questions for you. You stated: "The numbers are to perfect. Up until 64 (I'm doing this off the top of my head) The year was struck with a single die. This was done at another part of the factory. The year for the most part will be a lighter indentation do to the fact they were punching two numbers at the same time. The FL(H) and numbers were punched in down the line. They had no guide when they did this. The letters and numbers were all over the place."

1. If the year was struck with a single die up until 64, what year did that practice begin?
2. Was that practice strictly adhered to for every year it was in place?
3. Was that practice strictly adhered to for every serial number of every year it was in place?
4. You stated:"This was done at another part of the factory." I've heard this before but I don't have it in my books or notes so can you please advise where your info is from.
5. What happened after 64? Single die? No?
6. You also stated: "Every meet I go to I study numbers and take pictures for my data base." So can you please post several photos of 1962 Panhead serial numbers. Eric

[Cotten]

Mr. P!

That link logs me out instantly, on two different computers (the same two that won't stay logged).

Meanwhile,
Here is a font study started by FHP forum member "Fran-6" of France.

hdstmps3.jpg (124.39 KiB) Viewed 1406 times

I seriously doubt that there was any limitation on how much a production (belly) serial can exceed a VIN serial .
It is generally accepted that the VIN should be lower, and certainly not match, however a replacement case may have made it possible.

1940 was the first obvious production where the year digits were on a single stamp.
It may be premature, however, to declare all productions through '64 to be so.

Still, the '62 example with the straight-backed 6 in the year, with a round-back 6 in the serial, is a loser.
The mystery becomes: if the production numbers are '62, then why was the year portion of the VIN fudged?

...Cotten