Something is not quite right here - eBay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tintin said:
L.A.B. said:
Either 230935 was the last production 750 or it wasn't, and absolutely nothing to do with whether there were some 750s built with numerically higher serial numbers or not.
Click to expand...

Well, it depends a bit on the perspective, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Your perspective perhaps - certainly not mine.

Tintin said:
Off course I can't offer a more accurate account of facts, that is not my point.
Click to expand...

I thought not.

Tintin said:
Maybe I simply understood the Bacon statement wrong but given what I know - or don't know - by now if the statement of 230935 being the last 750 produced is only based on that no being the last one in the books present at that time it is relatively meaningless IMHO. Or is there any kind of offical documentation about 230935, even if it's only a comment in the records or something?
Click to expand...

Why do you keep blaming Bacon? It's the official line held by the NOC as far as I'm aware and hasn't been disputed?



Tintin said:
I don't think anybody would dispute the fact that a certain number of 235 long-stroke machines exist - only that there appears to be no surviving records: therefore they do not exist "officially".
Click to expand...
Sorry, but if I'm not completely mistaken by now you just contradict yourself here: You consider the 235 short strokes to be "offical" but the 235 long-strokes not? Is there a reocrd of the 235 short strokes?
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, the short stroke engines and 750 short stroke Commandos are at least "known" of, officially (as they both appear in the '73 brochure) so I may be wrong and you can call that a contradiction if you like? http://www.classicbike.biz/Norton/Broch ... LineUp.pdf

Tintin said:
Regarding your outer Hebrides theory vs. missing book(s) theory vs. customs/tax fraud theory:
Click to expand...

The "Outer Hebrides factory" was, of course intended as a joke, (although the Tomos factory in what was Yugoslavia at the time did produce some Tomos TN 750 Commandos) and the missing books customs/tax fraud theory wasn't mine.
 
L.A.B. said:
Why do you keep blaming Bacon?
Click to expand...

I don't blame anybody, I don't think that its anybody's fault or anything like this. Could you please try to understand that I'm just thinking about facts and assumptions here and try to make my own picture. Nothing more nothing less. And even if I thing the NOC/Bacon/whoever view in this case does not reflect mine I don't think that is a problem. It is not as if the western hemisphere's fate depends on mid-70ies Commandos with funny nos.

It's the official line held by the NOC as far as I'm aware and hasn't been disputed?
Click to expand...

Well, we both know someone who has some insight in this subject and AFAIK doesn't consider the NOC view to be correct, don't we?

As far as I'm aware, the short stroke engines and 750 short stroke Commandos are at least "known" of, officially (as they both appear in the '73 brochure) so I may be wrong and you can call that a contradiction if you like? http://www.classicbike.biz/Norton/Broch ... LineUp.pdf
Click to expand...

Ah, and because the 750 "long strokes" are not mentioned in this brochure they are unofficial .... okay, if you want to view it this way I might agree, however as I don't care too much about sales literature when it comes to hard facts I still don't really see the point in this official/unofficial thing. Is there anything in any "sufficenly offical" Norton records or maybe even tax, customs or registration authorities records which clearly states the all short-strokes are 235 nos? Can you be absolutely sure that there are no 231,232,233,234 short strokes? According to Joe he has seen at least 231,232,233,234 long-stroke 750ies.

I'm really not sure about any of this and that's way I'd be tempted to regard all bikes which are not in the remaining database as equally official or unofficial. If a bike in question has any kind of title with it I'd really not care about what might have happened more than three decades ago. That's all. And I certainly don't demand that you or anybody else follows my view.

The "Outer Hebrides factory" was, of course intended as a joke, ....
Click to expand...

Hence the smiley in my answer ...

EOT4me.


Tim
 
Tintin said:
I don't blame anybody, I don't think that its anybody's fault or anything like this. Could you please try to understand that I'm just thinking about facts and assumptions here and try to make my own picture. Nothing more nothing less. And even if I thing the NOC/Bacon/whoever view in this case does not reflect mine I don't think that is a problem. It is not as if the western hemisphere's fate depends on mid-70ies Commandos with funny nos.
Click to expand...


Said previously:

Tintin said:
L.A.B. said:
Tintin said:
Therefore the "statement that the last 750 is 230xyz" by the NOC/Bacon is definetly wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you can say that is "definitely wrong" unless you have access to more information than the NOC?
Click to expand...

Well, are there 750ies with nos higher than the one in the Bacon book or not?
Click to expand...

When it was pointed out to you that the 235 serial 750s were almost certainly produced some months prior to the last standard 750 Commando you appeared to realise you had committed something of a faux pas and backpedalled furiously in order to change your "perspective".



Tintin said:
Well, we both know someone who has some insight in this subject and AFAIK doesn't consider the NOC view to be correct, don't we?
Click to expand...

Do we?

Tintin said:
Can you be absolutely sure that there are no 231,232,233,234 short strokes? According to Joe he has seen at least 231,232,233,234 long-stroke 750ies.
Click to expand...

No, I've never said that, and wouldn't dispute it.
 
L.A.B. said:
When it was pointed out to you that the 235 serial 750s were almost certainly produced some months prior to the last standard 750 Commando you appeared to realise you had committed something of a faux pas and backpedalled furiously in order to change your "perspective".
Click to expand...

It might have appeared to you like that but all I realized is that all this evolved around was the meaning of "last". To me that last number is the numerically last 750 in the range and I don't really care whether they were build in a chronological order or not. And thanks, but I don't backpedal, if I'm wrong I don't have a problem to admit to that.

BTW, please have a look at your post from 04 July 2008. Obviously you were under the impression that a number higher than 230935 would also mean a later manufacture back then at least I get the impression from your post but that might be a linguistic thing.

Again EOT4me, I don't see a point in this any further.


Tim
 
Tintin said:
L.A.B. said:
When it was pointed out to you that the 235 serial 750s were almost certainly produced some months prior to the last standard 750 Commando you appeared to realise you had committed something of a faux pas and backpedalled furiously in order to change your "perspective".
Click to expand...

It might have appeared to you like that but all I realized is that all this evolved around was the meaning of "last". To me that last number is the numerically last 750 in the range and I don't really care whether they were build in a chronological order or not. And thanks, but I don't backpedal, if I'm wrong I don't have a problem to admit to that.
Click to expand...

"Last" obviously means last built chronologically, how can you interpret that to mean anything else?



Tintin said:
BTW, please have a look at your post from 04 July 2008. Obviously you were under the impression that a number higher than 230935 would also mean a later manufacture back then at least I get the impression from your post but that might be a linguistic thing.
Click to expand...

I think in fact it is just a feeble attempt by you to try and trip me up, but what I said back in 2008 when we (or, if you prefer, I) knew considerably less about these 235 serial number Commandos than I/we do now, and long stroke "235" serial 750s had simply not cropped up in discussions at that time as far as I can remember?
The discussion was about a "235" 850.

L.A.B. said:
04 Jul 2008, 14:46

As far as I know, all 850s had 300000-on serial numbers? And 235- being far outside of '73 750 production, the last known 750 being number 230935.
Just a long-shot, but is there any chance that this "850" is one of those 200 or so "750" 850s - the short stroke 750cc version of the 850?
Click to expand...
 
L.A.B. wrote
"Why do you keep blaming Bacon? It's the official line held by the NOC as far as I'm aware and hasn't been disputed?"

My view point is I paid $50 for Roy's book that is title "Norton Twins Restoration". The author has an obligation to vet the information, not just publish questionable information in pocession of the NOC and expect to get paid for it. Hate to be harsh as I really appreciate Roy's publications. The reality is consumer expectation is the author will present accurate data.
 
illf8ed said:
My view point is I paid $50 for Roy's book that is title "Norton Twins Restoration". The author has an obligation to vet the information,
Click to expand...

Vet the information, how? What would he check it against?


illf8ed said:
not just publish questionable information in pocession of the NOC and expect to get paid for it.
Click to expand...


I know that certain information has subsequently come to light (usually as a result of discussions on this forum) which may cast some doubt on that original Bacon Twin Restoration book information, however I believe the book was written in good faith with what information was available at that time.

With the advent of the Internet I think we have all got used to having much more information at our fingertips and our expectations are much higher than when the book was originally written 25 years ago, it would have been a very useful book then, and it it still a useful book now, in my opinion.
 
I shall be at the VMCC next month and will attempt to photograph the surviving ledgers so that anyone interested can see on what basis the information published in 1979 (by the NOC) and 1987 (by Roy Bacon) were arrived at.

The NOC 'Service Notes' state 'Last 750 (unless you know better) which is a little cryptic but it was compiled with the knowledge of Tim Stevens who was at the factory until 1974 and John Hudson who was there to the end. John in particular, as anyone who met him will know, had a photographic memory for details and parts numbers.

I don't believe that there is a 'missing ledger' between the last of the 750s and the first of the 850s and I think that either Tim or John would have mentioned the fact if they were aware of later 750 production.

As LAB has said, the internet has allowed us to compare notes right across the world but twenty-five years ago, the only sources of information were the, to all intents and pursposes, inaccessible records then in the Science Museum, backed up by the memories of factory personnel.

If the extra numbers were the result of deliberate subterfuge then I don't think that any authors can be blamed for publishing incomplete information.

There is no doubt that there was a substantial 'black' economy in the midlands during the 1970s and furthermore, that the rules relating to production racing were being flaunted was an open secret. Either of these could be an explanation. In the meantime, unless some paperwork turns up, all we can do is keep recording the information in the hope that a pattern emerges.
 
79x100 said:
The NOC 'Service Notes' state 'Last 750 (unless you know better) which is a little cryptic but it was compiled with the knowledge of Tim Stevens who was at the factory until 1974 and John Hudson who was there to the end. John in particular, as anyone who met him will know, had a photographic memory for details and parts numbers.

I don't believe that there is a 'missing ledger' between the last of the 750s and the first of the 850s and I think that either Tim or John would have mentioned the fact if they were aware of later 750 production.
Click to expand...

The NOC Service Notes also lists changes in numerical order, thus the "230935 Last 750 Commando..." entry immediately precedes: "300001 April '73 first 850 MkI....." . However, according to Wilson/Bacon/NOC, "230935 - Last 750" was built in October '73 so there was some months of overlap between the start of 850 production and the end of 750 production.

The NOC restricted access page containing model and year numbers also includes another two 750 serial number date points, the numbers suggesting that not many 750s were being assembled by that time - which is logical considering the factory ought have been concentrating on 850 model production and not the "old" 750 model.
 
L.A.B. said:
illf8ed said:
My view point is I paid $50 for Roy's book that is title "Norton Twins Restoration". The author has an obligation to vet the information,
Click to expand...

Vet the information, how? What would he check it against?


illf8ed said:
not just publish questionable information in pocession of the NOC and expect to get paid for it.
Click to expand...


I know that certain information has subsequently come to light (usually as a result of discussions on this forum) which may cast some doubt on that original Bacon Twin Restoration book information, however I believe the book was written in good faith with what information was available at that time.

With the advent of the Internet I think we have all got used to having much more information at our fingertips and our expectations are much higher than when the book was originally written 25 years ago, it would have been a very useful book then, and it it still a useful book now, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Now I'm sorry I went there. I do enjoy Roy's publications, but don't believe everything in print. 235xxx numbers are a good discussion.
 
I Have joined this forum to address my listing on ebay that some of you seem to doubt, the high rider had a drum until 1974 have a look at your factory brochures, the idea behind my bike was simply this, - an early looking bike but with the better later features of the later faster 750, i can assure you all the milage is real it came from a barn in New Mexico as a High Rider which personally i do not like the look of so i went about making look like a bike I wanted to ride - which i thought norton owners were all about. I have the original receipts and facts of the motorcycle. as for it being a 6000 bitsa stuck in 3rd gear well, I have changed the following - rear light - had a big square one on the back as per 1973, instrument cups where later black ones, i also changed the headlight, handle bars, seat ,tank and side covers to steel original ones, and i did change gear once in 2010, otherwise it is stock. I asked bib from Socal Norton owners about the numbers and took it to him when i got a few years back - he said, some late 750 where built to order and they got stamped in sequence with the early 850 hence the high number, sounds good to me but i am no expert either on Norton numbers, but i can say i am not in the business of stamping cases or trying to sell things dishonestly. It does amaze me the mean things people write in these forums about other books and property, roy bacon's books are a guide not a bible, not all his facts are correct but as a rule his numerous books are very helpful to many including me. My bike has made me happy and I hope the new owner to, i priced it a 7000 - not far off what i have into it, seemed fair to me as a friend had just sold two basket cases for 5500 each. There are no claims it turns water into wine, it is just a nice old motorcycle that runs great with low milage that i changed some stuff on, why some of you find that hard to believe i am not sure. Tim Green
 
Welcome greenie.
I was the one who mentioned that it "may be a bit of a bitsa" and that i would pay $6000 for it. I also mentioned that it looked like a winner to me and i would love to own it.

My bike, however, is a total bitsa. I can say with almost certainty that there is nothing on my bike that is original to the frame number of which it is registered.

Worth is relative. I now what i have into my bike and I will never get that amount out of it. Anyone who can get what they have into it, much less exceed that amount as you did, is very fortunate indeed. That being said, I believe my quote of $6000 is right on. But i digress, worth is relative.

Heartbreak is real. I cannot help thinking that you are somewhat heartbroken. I had to sell my first Norton under undesirable circumstances. This may not be your situation but you must be feeling loss to some extent even though your monetary status has suddenly improved. For this loss I am truly sorry.

Peter
 
I've looked further at the Norton records held by the VMCC (although perhaps not as much as I should have). However, they offer a few clues relating to these 235 series machines.

The records there do not include any ledgers for this range of numbers. The documents surviving appear to be carbon copies of the forms sent by NVT to the UK dealers that would enable them to register the machines as new vehicles.

I found the following, all with matching engine and frame numbers:-

235016 - SYX 167M - Hi-Rider 745cc registered to Norton Villiers Europe - 01/Feb/1974
235142 - OGT 474L - Hi-Rider 745cc registered to Norton Villiers Europe - 11/Jul/1973
235155 - SYX 157M - Hi-Rider 745cc registered to Norton Villiers Europe - 01/Sep/1973
235328 - PTF 851M - Hi-Rider 745cc - Black - registered to Sports Motorcycles - 01/Sep/1973
235387 - SYV 362M - Hi-Rider 745cc registered to Norton Villiers Europe - 01/Aug/1973
235399 - SYV 363M - Hi-Rider 745cc registered to Norton Villiers Europe - 01/Aug/1973
235435 - SYX 158M - Hi-Rider 745cc registered to Norton Villiers Europe - 01/Sep/1973

and finally - a real oddity...

Frame 235610 - Engine 830018 - Roadster 850cc Red, Supplied to Gus Kuhn and registered as GYE 832N on 17/Jan/1975

Probably a little bit of a factory special in this last one...

So it looks as if this sequence was officially built by NVT and the few UK machines with the exception of the odd Gus Kuhn bike were all Hi-Riders. Only one of these bikes was registered to a dealer so the rest were probably test fleet machines. That they were registered as 745cc would suggest although not confirm that they were the standard 750cc unit.

There is obviously nothing in these sparse details to indicate why the number seems to relate to Hi-Riders. I'm as puzzled as when I started...
 
Good info, thanks.

The Hi-Rider pattern was beginning to emerge from the previous 235xxx number list. At least we know that the 235xxx 750's were genuine factory built machines.
PTF 851M - 235328 is the only one that shows up on the DVLA database which seems a little odd? PTF 851M untaxed since 1996.
 
I wonder what the fate was of the factory test bikes ? Quite possibly dismantled and not sold on ? If they didn't survive the 1970s then they won't have made it onto the DVLA computer.

It did occur to me to check for photographs in period publications but no 1973 UK road test of a Hi-Rider comes to mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top