62FL case # ?
-
- Inactive member
- Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:25 am
- Bikes: 47 knuck
59 pan
62 pan
64 pan
68 Triumph t100r
73 Triumph t140v - Location: Saint Louis
Re: 62FL case # ?
So does anyone have a legitimate answer to why there are A's at the end of the belly numbers. I inspected the shit out of these and they have not been messed with? Any answers other than guesses?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:29 am
- Bikes: H-D
- Location: Western Australia
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 310 times
Re: 62FL case # ?
Tim and Luke, thanks for posting the A photos. Earlier on, I couldn't recall seeing any letters apart from the E but after viewing your pictures I went through my collection and found three As, although I don't know what they represent. One example showed 11A only, but that was on a 1950 WR (Flathead racer) and I think that would explain why its belly number was so short overall.
The first photo below is of a Panhead left case and appears to show 249-6++5 A. The other one shows 41-6++7 A on a Knucklehead right-hand case.
Luke, did you get a photo yet showing more of that left crankcase? Eric
The first photo below is of a Panhead left case and appears to show 249-6++5 A. The other one shows 41-6++7 A on a Knucklehead right-hand case.
Luke, did you get a photo yet showing more of that left crankcase? Eric
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:29 am
- Bikes: H-D
- Location: Western Australia
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 310 times
Re: 62FL case # ?
Quote from Robbie: "Timmy V, That difference likely has to do with the odd-even year thing. If the belly numbers were sequential and the year was stamped as an odd or even only number they would eventually be very far apart. IMHO"
Tim, I agree with Robbie. The even-odd code was used for 1960-1969 serial numbers. But my examples indicate that the code didn't apply to the belly numbers and they (the belly numbers) continued as usual. Eric
Tim, I agree with Robbie. The even-odd code was used for 1960-1969 serial numbers. But my examples indicate that the code didn't apply to the belly numbers and they (the belly numbers) continued as usual. Eric
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:29 am
- Bikes: H-D
- Location: Western Australia
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 310 times
Re: 62FL case # ?
Bob, thanks for your reply but you didn't mention a start year for the practice of using one stamp for the year portion. Above, Cotten mentioned: "1940 was the first obvious production where the year digits were on a single stamp." (thanks, Cotten)
Do you agree with 1940?
Also, disregarding the 6 in 62pan's serial number, you stated: "... the two and the letters are not Harley fonts. Take the info for what it is."
I read that your stuff is scattered over three hard drives right now but can you provide a couple of 1962 Panhead examples ASAP to demonstrate the differences in the 2, the F, the L and the H, if indeed there are any. Eric
Do you agree with 1940?
Also, disregarding the 6 in 62pan's serial number, you stated: "... the two and the letters are not Harley fonts. Take the info for what it is."
I read that your stuff is scattered over three hard drives right now but can you provide a couple of 1962 Panhead examples ASAP to demonstrate the differences in the 2, the F, the L and the H, if indeed there are any. Eric
-
- Inactive member
- Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:25 am
- Bikes: 47 knuck
59 pan
62 pan
64 pan
68 Triumph t100r
73 Triumph t140v - Location: Saint Louis
Re: 62FL case # ?
Speeding Big Twin wrote:Tim and Luke, thanks for posting the A photos. Earlier on, I couldn’t recall seeing any letters apart from the E but after viewing your pictures I went through my collection and found three As, although I don’t know what they represent. One example showed 11A only, but that was on a 1950 WR (Flathead racer) and I think that would explain why its belly number was so short overall.
The first photo below is of a Panhead left case and appears to show 249-6++5 A. The other one shows 41-6++7 A on a Knucklehead right-hand case.
Luke, did you get a photo yet showing more of that left crankcase? Eric
I can snap a few. What part would you like? The bottom (underneath) or any other specific area?
-
- Inactive member
- Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:25 am
- Bikes: 47 knuck
59 pan
62 pan
64 pan
68 Triumph t100r
73 Triumph t140v - Location: Saint Louis
Re: 62FL case # ?
On a side note have you seen this?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Harley-D ... ccessories
They say they can stamp the cases with HD style numbers per your request.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Harley-D ... ccessories
They say they can stamp the cases with HD style numbers per your request.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:29 am
- Bikes: H-D
- Location: Western Australia
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 310 times
Re: 62FL case # ?
Luke, I'd like to see what the rest of the left case looks like extending down from where your first photo left off. Eric
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:56 pm
- Bikes: 1922 J, 1922 JD, 1937 ULH, 1946FL 1948FL, 1957FL, 1960FLH, 1965XLCH, 1995 FLHT
- Location: Hoboken, NJ
- Been thanked: 121 times
- Contact:
Re: 62FL case # ?
First off I'm not a number pro as I stated before but hear me out on the 62. The six was restamped. The rest of numbers and letters, if you go by Tom's chart are close but no cigar. You can clearly see they weren't stamped dead on but at an angle upward. In my book the F is to close to the 2 and who ever did it tried to make it to perfect. Notice there all in a nice clean line. Look at the top of the vin pad. It looks to be on face value? File marks. The A on the tail of Luke's belly number? Could this just be an inspectors stamp? Hell there all over motor cases. I can see any reason you couldn't have one there. Just guessing?Speeding Big Twin wrote:Bob, thanks for your reply but you didn't mention a start year for the practice of using one stamp for the year portion. Above, Cotten mentioned: "1940 was the first obvious production where the year digits were on a single stamp." (thanks, Cotten)
Do you agree with 1940?
Also, disregarding the 6 in 62pan's serial number, you stated: "... the two and the letters are not Harley fonts. Take the info for what it is."
I read that your stuff is scattered over three hard drives right now but can you provide a couple of 1962 Panhead examples ASAP to demonstrate the differences in the 2, the F, the L and the H, if indeed there are any. Eric
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 534
- Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:20 pm
- Bikes: Two Schwinns, a Hercules, and a Hiawatha
- Location: Underground in Illinois
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
Re: 62FL case # ?
Dear everybody,
A could have stood for Arnold for all we know.
And fonts are futile. 4 digits with an open back instead of an open top are bogus but were used in belly numbers but whos to say that they never picked up that stamp for a vin? Rounded back sixes and nines were swapped in and out on purpose we all know.
Stupid AMCA says now they will now blackball from judging anything they dont like.
Like they were there.
No r'spect,
A could have stood for Arnold for all we know.
And fonts are futile. 4 digits with an open back instead of an open top are bogus but were used in belly numbers but whos to say that they never picked up that stamp for a vin? Rounded back sixes and nines were swapped in and out on purpose we all know.
Stupid AMCA says now they will now blackball from judging anything they dont like.
Like they were there.
No r'spect,
-
- Inactive member
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1400
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 5:54 am
- Bikes: -
- Location: north florida
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re: 62FL case # ?
What !NightShift wrote:Dear everybody,
A could have stood for Arnold for all we know.
And fonts are futile. 4 digits with an open back instead of an open top are bogus but were used in belly numbers but whos to say that they never picked up that stamp for a vin? Rounded back sixes and nines were swapped in and out on purpose we all know.
Stupid AMCA says now they will now blackball from judging anything they dont like.
Like they were there.
No r'spect,
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6937
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2002 2:30 am
- Bikes: -
- Location: Central Illinois
- Has thanked: 112 times
- Been thanked: 310 times
Re: 62FL case # ?
Here's a brief synopsis from a post to the AMCA forum:fourthgear wrote:What ! :shock:
The other area of concentration for the judges is going to be "good numbers," as in, detecting restamps and otherwise "bogus" VINs. This is already leading to heartache for some members who put their hearts and sweat and tears into their prides-and-joys, only to bring them to the judging this morning and be told their bike was disqualified, for bearing "incorrect VIN numbers."
One was a really pretty late-30s 45 WL Harley, that was obviously the recipient of a great deal of attention and a loving restoration. This was the first showing of the bike, and the owners obviously had great hopes.
The first thing the judges look at is to match the VIN on the motor to the number on the judging sheet. Someone should have told the owner long ago that Harley never used a "round top 3" in the 1930s. The Chief Judge was consulted, the number examined, photographed and compared to a club chart of Harley number examples, and the bike left the judging field, unjudged.
The other example was maybe more telling, and wrenching. It was certainly more of a surprise. A post-WWII Harley EL 61 was presented that already had collected three previous judging sheets; a Junior Second, a Junior First, and on the right side of the fork by the headlight already was an AMCA Senior Award emblem.
Examining the old judging sheets, you could see that the bike had been steadily improved, the owner correcting many, then fewer, and fewer, discrepencies found by three judging teams, starting with the Junior Second, Junior First, through the Senior, and now the owner, I imagine, was fully expecting admittance to the Winners' Circle of Excellence.
First look at the VIN was a shocker. It was a a provably bogus number-stamping. The initial "4" of the year was not like anything the Harley factory ever used. There was no horizontal "foot" across the bottom, and the vertical was not full-height, as the "open-topped" number four adopted in 1943. All of the numbers were stamped with a hardware store stamp set.
It has won Senior First, meaning that three AMCA judging teams either ignored, or passed on, or just failed to recognize the fact that it was a number job. It just didn't fool the fourth team, today, to the owner's chagrin. He took it pretty well, in public, at least. We had no shouting matches or threats of violence all day.
Respectfully submitted,
--"Sarge," Gerry Lyons, AMCA #607, field judge since 1982
..Cotten
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:29 am
- Bikes: H-D
- Location: Western Australia
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 310 times
Re: 62FL case # ?
Bob, in your first post you stated: "Up until 64 ... The year was struck with a single die."
Therefore, the inference was that you knew what year the practice started. But it now seems you don't? And for the record, neither do I. My opinion is that even in years when a single stamp was in use, it wasn't used on every engine.
From your latest post: "The rest of numbers and letters, if you go by Tom's chart are close but no cigar. You can clearly see they weren't stamped dead on but at an angle upward.’
Yes, some characters were not struck dead on but that happened on lots of engines so that cannot be used as conclusive evidence one way or the other. And regarding the types of characters, any given character can look slightly different to another of the same type due to the way it is applied. If you see specific differences which present a problem then please point them out.
You also stated: "In my book the F is to close to the 2 ..."
I disagree. Sometimes the characters are close together and sometimes they aren't. Look at the 1951 example below and see how close the E is to the 1 (and if you think 51EL34++ is non-factory then please say so):
Furthermore, just because serial number characters appear in a nice clean line that doesn't automatically mean something untoward has happened. Sometimes the characters are applied neatly and sometimes they aren't. Look at the 1960 example below and you'll see it was neatly done. But it looks factory to me. You'll also notice the year 6 appears to have been more lightly applied than the 0. But again, it looks factory to me. Eric
Therefore, the inference was that you knew what year the practice started. But it now seems you don't? And for the record, neither do I. My opinion is that even in years when a single stamp was in use, it wasn't used on every engine.
From your latest post: "The rest of numbers and letters, if you go by Tom's chart are close but no cigar. You can clearly see they weren't stamped dead on but at an angle upward.’
Yes, some characters were not struck dead on but that happened on lots of engines so that cannot be used as conclusive evidence one way or the other. And regarding the types of characters, any given character can look slightly different to another of the same type due to the way it is applied. If you see specific differences which present a problem then please point them out.
You also stated: "In my book the F is to close to the 2 ..."
I disagree. Sometimes the characters are close together and sometimes they aren't. Look at the 1951 example below and see how close the E is to the 1 (and if you think 51EL34++ is non-factory then please say so):
Furthermore, just because serial number characters appear in a nice clean line that doesn't automatically mean something untoward has happened. Sometimes the characters are applied neatly and sometimes they aren't. Look at the 1960 example below and you'll see it was neatly done. But it looks factory to me. You'll also notice the year 6 appears to have been more lightly applied than the 0. But again, it looks factory to me. Eric
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:56 pm
- Bikes: 1922 J, 1922 JD, 1937 ULH, 1946FL 1948FL, 1957FL, 1960FLH, 1965XLCH, 1995 FLHT
- Location: Hoboken, NJ
- Been thanked: 121 times
- Contact:
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6937
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2002 2:30 am
- Bikes: -
- Location: Central Illinois
- Has thanked: 112 times
- Been thanked: 310 times
Re: 62FL case # ?
The single-stamp year thing will remain a mystery,
Here is a '40 where the outline shows the stamp was integral: Yet here is a study of the 1936-7 font change, and '37 year stampings are remarkably uniform. How do we know they didn't just tape two stamps together?
Please note how much the appearance of the same stamp can vary, due to a human hand on the hammer. Some of the sixes and nines seem almost curved.
Note also that although the letter font dropped the serifs between Big Twin #1760 and #1765, they returned to the old font for #1953!
It was no big deal to them.
In 1973, they gave the wrong stamps to a new employee (so the Ill. State Police told me) and several dozen stupidglides went out with not only the wrong fonts, but a bizarre coding as well!
Whenever a VIN "could have been" legitimate, it should be considered so: Innocent until proven guilty.
However the AMCA is planning on carving their beliefs in granite.
Many legitimate machines will be compromised.
.....Cotten
Here is a '40 where the outline shows the stamp was integral: Yet here is a study of the 1936-7 font change, and '37 year stampings are remarkably uniform. How do we know they didn't just tape two stamps together?
Please note how much the appearance of the same stamp can vary, due to a human hand on the hammer. Some of the sixes and nines seem almost curved.
Note also that although the letter font dropped the serifs between Big Twin #1760 and #1765, they returned to the old font for #1953!
It was no big deal to them.
In 1973, they gave the wrong stamps to a new employee (so the Ill. State Police told me) and several dozen stupidglides went out with not only the wrong fonts, but a bizarre coding as well!
Whenever a VIN "could have been" legitimate, it should be considered so: Innocent until proven guilty.
However the AMCA is planning on carving their beliefs in granite.
Many legitimate machines will be compromised.
.....Cotten
-
- Inactive member
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1400
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 5:54 am
- Bikes: -
- Location: north florida
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re: 62FL case # ?
So, I know we are all only human,but there are so many numbers that may or may not conform to the "judge of the day's" judgement of what they think is or is not a real number.Cotten wrote:Here's a brief synopsis from a post to the AMCA forum:fourthgear wrote:What !
The other area of concentration for the judges is going to be "good numbers," as in, detecting restamps and otherwise "bogus" VINs. This is already leading to heartache for some members who put their hearts and sweat and tears into their prides-and-joys, only to bring them to the judging this morning and be told their bike was disqualified, for bearing "incorrect VIN numbers."
One was a really pretty late-30s 45 WL Harley, that was obviously the recipient of a great deal of attention and a loving restoration. This was the first showing of the bike, and the owners obviously had great hopes.
The first thing the judges look at is to match the VIN on the motor to the number on the judging sheet. Someone should have told the owner long ago that Harley never used a "round top 3" in the 1930s. The Chief Judge was consulted, the number examined, photographed and compared to a club chart of Harley number examples, and the bike left the judging field, unjudged.
The other example was maybe more telling, and wrenching. It was certainly more of a surprise. A post-WWII Harley EL 61 was presented that already had collected three previous judging sheets; a Junior Second, a Junior First, and on the right side of the fork by the headlight already was an AMCA Senior Award emblem.
Examining the old judging sheets, you could see that the bike had been steadily improved, the owner correcting many, then fewer, and fewer, discrepencies found by three judging teams, starting with the Junior Second, Junior First, through the Senior, and now the owner, I imagine, was fully expecting admittance to the Winners' Circle of Excellence.
First look at the VIN was a shocker. It was a a provably bogus number-stamping. The initial "4" of the year was not like anything the Harley factory ever used. There was no horizontal "foot" across the bottom, and the vertical was not full-height, as the "open-topped" number four adopted in 1943. All of the numbers were stamped with a hardware store stamp set.
It has won Senior First, meaning that three AMCA judging teams either ignored, or passed on, or just failed to recognize the fact that it was a number job. It just didn't fool the fourth team, today, to the owner's chagrin. He took it pretty well, in public, at least. We had no shouting matches or threats of violence all day.
Respectfully submitted,
--"Sarge," Gerry Lyons, AMCA #607, field judge since 1982
..Cotten
If you just look at the many variations of number blocks & numbers in the Vin Photo's , they could all be bad or good . Doesn't matter if its a perfect number or not , its as it is here , the interpitation of who's doing the lookings feelings, not truly if it is or not.