Eric, since the book you mention, Motorcycle Identification, copyrighted 1986 by one Lee S Cole, is reported to contain "various errors" (not my words), I may be removing such data that is referenced to it. My reasoning is that I found, and am still looking for, some factory data that may be more reliable. My first example is service bulletin 641 that references 10001 as belonging to a Z-90. 3D10001H3, for the year 1973 models. Other SB's have referenced information that continue to lead me to believe the sequence numbers can not belong to multiple models of the same year.

The spread sheet notes such service bulletins in the far left column now. I will continue to research and edit as new concrete data is found.

 

I'm just stumbling onto this thread, and I LOVE databases. Will happily read through all this when I get a moment!

It sounds like questions I had about FXB production/build date/sequences - looking forward to checking out your spreadsheet.

 

I am also following this topic with great interest, without question...
There are many good and not-so-good books on this topic, and I have read some of them.

The ultimate work on paper will probably never exist, but that's precisely what makes the subject so enjoyable.
For Harley, the years after the 1930s are interesting, but I'm very cautious about Indian, I'd better not write anything; my only Indian was a 741b, an earlier army model that in later years was reworked into a kind of "Little Big Chief" with huge mudguards and an ugly paint job.
Sucher's book: "The Iron Redskin: History of the Indian Motor Cycle", and the paperback "Handbuch mit Anleitungen für den Richtigen Betrieb, die Wartung und Instandhaltung der Indian Scout, Indian Chief und Indian Big Chief" (With many old handwritten notes...)

That's all for now. I'm relying on your expertise. Thank you for your contributions and your patience. I'll gladly continue reading. Keep the facts coming; a lot more can never hurt...

Mike

 

I just ran into SB648 about the SS and SX models. The SB lists sequence numbers that could prove sequence numbers for each model. It gets confusing.

SB645 lists the sequence numbers individually as long as they do not pass three consecutive in a row...of which then they may group such numbers from "xxxxx to xxxxx". This "Group" seams to be easily interpreted as sequentially sequence numbers. If this is the case, it increases the affected bikes to 177 for both models.

The problem is that I found three numbers that are duplicated to other models. They are as follows;

sequence number 10895...both the 3C and a7C (golf cart)
sequence number 10999...both the 3C and a 6C (SR-100)
sequence number 12387...both the 3C and a 3D (Z-90)

Two things to consider. The three conflicting sequence numbers I mentioned above are singled out as a single sequence number. However, the large grouped sequence numbers (i.e. from xxxxx to xxxxx)...I am not able to understand if they are referring that all of the numbers in the group belonging to the Z-90, or just the sequence number inside that group that were assigned to the Z-90.

Language is important!!

Will be interesting to see how this plays out!

 

Eric, I am finally back to this info you posted. I got tied up with the Z-90, SS and SX SB data!!
I am at SB 650, which includes the 60000 number. What you mention above is what I ran into with the dirt bikes. I am starting to get some conflicting sequence numbers. I will continue to add such data.

 

Hi Bryan,

on the german "Aermacchi-Harley-Davidson" Wikipedia website, there are some interesting links to other websites that deal with, or have dealt with the topic
Link: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aermacchi-Harley-Davidson

Our sadly deceased german friend Gerd loved HD motorcycles, and Italian racers were always a hobby for him as well.
The man also had a heart for the "little" Italian "Rennsemmeln", as he called these bikes.
He often spoke about the "Aermacchi" motorcycles from that era and the collaboration with Harley-Davidson. But he focused on the racing versions, not necessarily on the models resulting from the two companies' cooperation at that time.

Besides his Harleys, the Laverda 750 was his passion; he built wonderful one-of-a-kind motorcycles by hand, and you had to wait 3 years for one of his Laverdas.
Laverda 750 SFC https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laverda_750_SFC

Mike

Thierry's Laverda 750 SFC Replica first ride:

 

Awesome Mike!!!! I will check into those!!!

Meanwhile I noticed some "language" in SB656, mentioned my Eric, that can shed some light on interpreting the "xxxxx to xxxxx" numbers language. It says that 28 bikes delivered to the US Army, and I quote: "3A71058 to 71086 H3"....and they equal 28 bikes!
However, I have some high 67xxx numbers that fall to some 2A and 2C bikes...that can conflict with other "xxxxx to xxxxx" similar language.

 

As I mentioned above, we know for certain it contains a lot of errors, including some that are exactly the same as those in a certain booklet used by the CHP back in the day. For example it indicates the even-odd code began in 1962 but that is wrong because it began with 1960 models. (And it then remained in use through 1969 models.)

Another error by Cole which is also found in the CHP booklet is that code numbers for crankcase production numbers (CPNs) were used for certain Big Twins such as the Model V and Model VH but that too is wrong because the code numbers being referred to were not introduced until 1948 models which is more than ten years after V-series machines were discontinued. If Cole understood these code numbers he would have realised the problem and he would also have figured out how the mistake was made in the first place and he could have corrected it. But he didn’t understand them. And he didn’t bother to check either. Instead he copied what had already been printed, regardless of whether he got it from the CHP booklet or elsewhere. Therefore everything else in Cole’s Motorcycle ID guide must also be scrutinised.

Another post to follow.
Eric

 

Normally when I think a VIN, serial number (SN) or CPN has a problem it is partly based on examples in my photo collection. Also for some start numbers and some ranges of numbers I refer to certain SBs, H-D motor specification sheets, H-D model layout sheets and Shop Dopes.

SB M-828 illustrates letters A–Z and it may have been trying to address those used in VINs for 1970–80 Shovels and Sportsters and 1970–73/74 Servi-Cars but some letters have variations which are not shown. The SB also illustrates numbers 0–9 and it mentions the 6 and 9 being interchanged but it doesn’t say what VIN ranges this occurred in. And I doubt that anyone at H-D could tell you how those two characters were used in VINs for the abovementioned machines. The only way I could find out what happened with the Posident 6 and 9 was to do my own research on the subject and the same goes for some of the other Posident numbers and letters.

One of the things I look for is whether or not the VIN, SN or CPN appears consistent with factory stamping. If it isn’t, it often gets a fail. Or, if I’m not sure about it, I may describe it in that manner when I put it in a folder.

Regarding 4A21000H2, yes I do think there is a problem with it. Let’s see what other folks decide? I wonder what they’ll say. Here’s a photo I have but the VIN does not appear consistent with factory stamping. Mistakes at the factory? I don’t know but I wouldn’t have it on the chart, even with comments about inaccuracy concerns.





And here’s the underneath of that case where the CPN would normally be. Not sure what’s going on there.





And for comparison of most of the engine VIN characters here’s an example that appears consistent with factory stamping. See the difference?





Here’s a photo I have of 2A18165H3 but it doesn’t appear consistent with factory stamping. Mistakes at the factory? I don’t know but I wouldn’t have it on the chart, even with comments about inaccuracy concerns.





And here’s an example for comparison of some characters.





You say 2C69069H3 is on your chart because no-one has offered any photos of such data to you. I already explained that only one of the 9s is the type I’d expect at that stage of numbering which of course suggests that something unusual was going on with the other 9. No need for a photo yet when the question is why are the 9s different to each other? Mistake at the factory? I don’t know but I wouldn’t have it on the chart.

There seems to have been a lot of mistakes with 1970s VINs stamped at the factory but when it happened with a full VIN it was lined out and Pete Simet from H-D explained it in a letter to the owner of a certain XLCR which received a new sequence number and a new model year. Sometimes a problem was noticed when only part of a VIN had been stamped but even then all the existing characters were lined out and they started again. But 4A21000H2, 2A18165H3 and 2C69069H3 show no sign of an attempt at correction.

Another thing to consider is that although the photos of 4A21000H2, 2A18165H3 and 2C69069H3 appear to show problems, there may be authentic-looking versions of them somewhere? Also for 1972 Sportsters sequence number 21000 may have originally been assigned to a bike stamped 3A (probably not to a bike stamped 4D). And for 1973 Shovelheads sequence number 18165 may have originally been assigned to a bike stamped 1A or 2C while sequence number 69069 may have originally been assigned to a bike stamped 1A or 2A.

As for 2A21995H3, in the photo I have it looks like someone attempted to tamper with the majority of it. Why? I do not know but I wouldn’t have it on the chart.

My advice is to only put a VIN on the chart if it appears consistent with factory stamping. If it doesn’t pass the test(s) then don’t include it.
Eric

 

Eric, great information and I will certainly get it noted. I will note all sources found and let others decide what they want. I will leave 21000H2 and the others on the list and note the concerns as well. I am able to link them to this forum post.

This is what we need to see so we can learn, THANKS!!

edit

information has been noted.