# Elgin or Iver Johnson?



## TheBicycleJungle

Isn't this an Elgin or Iver Johnson?  There's no headbadge there.  I guess it's a 1930's bike. The drop stand is missing.


----------



## Gordon

*elgin or ?*

I don't think the welds look like Elgin, but I don't know if it is an Iver either.


----------



## TheBicycleJungle

Thanks Gordon,  anybody else can help us out?  The previous owner said he believes that is an iver johnson.  I'm not sure about that.  Iver johnson tend to have curved frame in 1930's? the paintings are similar with Elgins but the sprocket that is different.  ??


----------



## ejlwheels

I think it might have been made by Iver.
I have an identical frame with a Montgomery Wards badge.


----------



## phenolic

if the paint is original it looks like an Iver...


----------



## pnfkwfl

Hi All,

I am going to stick my neck out here and ask if anyone else has noticed the chain ring?  Considering that AND the paint I think she is a Pierce.  I am by no stretch of the imagination a bicycle god - BUT in the past I had a Pierce (others call them Pierce Arrows).   This set up with the aluminum fenders, chain ring, paint and truss rod support brackets all lead me to speculate… she is a Pierce.  

It would appear the only pictures I have of my Pierce are on a backup drive buried someplace in the data.  This quest is not adequate to motivate enough to dig through it all and find them.

Maybe another reader will have some pictures of a Pierce ballooner with this paint layout.  The web is filled with 28 inch pierce pictures but I found none from the later Baloon period.  That should be enough to motivate some kid to finds us some pictures.

Tell me are there any remnants of gold tone decals on the top or bottom tube?  

Who made the hubs and are they script?

A quick measurement of the holes from the former badge on the head tube would help.  Then we can find the measurements of the original badge.

Later,

KW Scott


----------



## Classicriders

I am almost positive that it's a Hawthorne Super Flyer.  This is the H.P. Snyder built version versus the Cleveland Welding built one.  The triple plate top of the fork is the primary give away as to the manufacturer.

SB


----------



## catfish

Classicriders said:


> I am almost positive that it's a Hawthorne Super Flyer.  This is the H.P. Snyder built version versus the Cleveland Welding built one.  The triple plate top of the fork is the primary give away as to the manufacturer.
> 
> SB




I have to agree with SB. Snyder built bike.


----------



## 37fleetwood

I had a 26" Hawthorne that looked exactly like this. I ended up trading it off for a 1976 Datsun 280Z which I still have. 
the Hawthorne I had had metal clad wooden clincher rims in 26". very cool.
Scott


----------



## RMS37

I concur with the Hawthorne by H.P. Snyder assessment. 

I?ll elaborate as some of this following information may be useful. 

In answering the question ?who made this bike?? I try first try to determine which of the bicycle companies actually produced the frame (the heart and soul of the machine).  This is because virtually all bicycles were an assembly of parts from several companies, suppliers and distributors. In some cases even the forks were produced by an outside supplier.

The bicycle in the photo has a Moto-Bike style frame which became popular in the early teens and became the dominant standardized design by the 1920?s.  As this bike is built around 26? balloon wheels (I generalize these bikes as Moto-Balloons) it can be more closely dated as no earlier than 1933 and not reasonably later than 1937.

Moto-Balloon frames have the fewest styling deviations of any Pre-War balloon class. 

Back to our Photograph, the details important to answering the question are the specific details of the frame?s construction, the joints, the tube shapes, the exact shape of the rear drops, the seat binder, the location and style of the serial number, on and on, etc.

Unless the paint and the badge and the components are unquestionably original to the bicycle, they can lead you in false directions. 

Many of the above points are hard to determine from the photo, but the salient points I see are first, the general geometry of the frame, and second, the seat binder pinch bolt through the seat stays.  In addition the chainring, fork crown, truss-rods, lower truss-rod plate, the fender stay-drop stand bracket combo and the paint pattern taken together all say Hawthorne by Snyder.

In addition, I would expect that the upper fender bridge is curved rather than straight and that the crank hanger has small lugs reinforcing the junctures with the seat and down tubes. 

Snyder may have produced more Moto-Balloons than any other manufacturer as they seem to be more common today than any of the other leading maker?s similar models.

Hawthorne was probably the largest single outlet for Snyder production and I believe that all steel Moto-Balloons sold by MW were Snyder built.  (Early aluminum Monarks are essentially Moto-Balloons and Cleveland welding entered the picture later and never produced a true Moto-Balloon frame).

Both Iver Johnson and Emblem (Pierce) produced Moto-Balloons but in much smaller numbers.

Iver Johnson perhaps came closer than any other manufacturer to full in-house production and their bikes abound in unique features, most notably their two piece crank and a Packard radiator shaped fork crown.

Emblem Moto-Balloon frames (often? always?) have a fish mouth joint at the ends of the lower top tube and the one I have has chrome plated steel as opposed to stainless steel rain gutter fenders. In addition the fork crown is a two plate affair with built in truss rod supports and the rods form a drooping bow above the supports. Great pictures of an Emblem Piece can be found on Dave Stromberger?s site.

One final semi-related point. Pre-War Cleveland Welding produced Hawthorns also generally use a triple plate crown fork. The CWC Shock master fork was used on both Snyder and CWC frames and I believe, later (still pre-war), the plunger style (Snyder) fork replaced it on all sprung Hawthornes regardless of the frame source.

Lotta text...

Moto-Balloons are an interesting class. If anyone would like to discuss any of these tangents further we could start a fresh thread or two.

Phil


----------



## 37fleetwood

I am very interested in a moto-balloon thread! though technically they would belong in the Classic Balloon Tire Bicycles 1933-1965 forum I suppose.
Scott


----------



## Classicriders

*One final semi-related point. Pre-War Cleveland Welding produced Hawthorns also generally use a triple plate crown fork. The CWC Shock master fork was used on both Snyder and CWC frames and I believe, later (still pre-war), the plunger style (Snyder) fork replaced it on all sprung Hawthornes regardless of the frame source.*

The plunger style, or vertical spring Snyder fork was offered on Hawthorne into the early fifties.  http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/144.htm
The triple plate fork crown was a Snyder signature just like the Shock Master was a CWC signature.  I have never seen a CWC triple plate fork crown.  They had several different truss forks that eventually ended in the blade style fork legs similar to Schwinn.  
As for for Snyder making more bikes for Hawthorne than anyone else?  I respectfully disagree with that.  Snyder was a producer of Hawthorne bicycles for Montgomerey Wards but definitely not it's sole producer as CWC was their other producer.  
I believe that H.P. Snyder manufactured more bicycles for D.P. Harris/Rollfast than any other distributor as they were the sole producer of all D.P. Harris bicycles.
Please keep in mind that I mean no disrespect in the least with your post as there is a lot of very helpful information there.  These are just two minor points that I felt might be a little inaccurate.  
I am no expert and will never claim to be, I just have a fair amount of experience with H.P. Snyder MFG bikes.  

S.B.


----------



## RMS37

Hi, thanks to everyone for the posts

I?m happy to see some activity related to yesterday?s posts. I am posting here and in a new thread on the 1933-1965 forum which is where this subject is moving. If you have interest in this tangent to the original post please follow this thread to the new location.

I do want to clarify one point with respect to my use of the term Moto-Balloons. 

Moto-Balloon as used here is not meant to be a direct reference to any specific past use of the term. It is rather my own modern, personal definition as it has come to set with me over the years.  

I have framed the definition tightly for my own use to reference the bikes that need it the most, that is, those with out streamlining that are often the most easily misidentified. As a modern, personal definition I offer it up for whatever use it may be to others.  If you have another working definition for this type of bicycle or favor a broader classification that is fine and I would enjoy posts relating to your own bicycle classification definitions.  

I also should add that the words ?moto-bike? and ?motorbike? (and variations) were used frequently and somewhat generically during the period to describe some bicycles that fit my definition and some that don?t.  If a manufacturer calls a bike a Moto-bike then that is what it is in the context of the original manufacturer?s definition. The intended context of my definition is not to dispute this in any way but as a modern tool that I use for differentiation and description. 

While my definition excludes many early transition bikes I think their inclusion in this discussion is very appropriate as they define the outer edges of this class much like the first semi-balloon and balloon tires define the beginning of the period.

I?ll post once more here in response to Greg comments

Thanks

Phil


----------



## RMS37

Hi Greg,

I?m glad to have you in this discussion. I consider you to be the ?Snyder Guy? and despite any claims or lack there-of, I respect the depth of your knowledge on and your experience with the subject. 

Furthermore I know from your postings that you take Balloon history seriously so certainly I would never infer disrespect from your comments but rather look forward to what additional understanding of the subject will become public domain from the interaction.

I became interested in Snyder as a tangent to my interest in Cleveland Welding. The two intersect heavily at Hawthorne.

So, regarding my comment: 

?Hawthorne was probably the largest single outlet for Snyder production and I believe that all steel Moto-Balloons sold by MW were Snyder built. (Early aluminum Monarks are essentially Moto-Balloons and Cleveland welding entered the picture later and never produced a true Moto-Balloon frame).?

And your response: 

?As for for Snyder making more bikes for Hawthorne than anyone else? I respectfully disagree with that. Snyder was a producer of Hawthorne bicycles for Montgomerey Wards but definitely not it's sole producer as CWC was their other producer. 
I believe that H.P. Snyder manufactured more bicycles for D.P. Harris/Rollfast than any other distributor as they were the sole producer of all D.P. Harris bicycles.?

As my interest is primarily in Pre-war balloon bicycles most of my comments are refer to that period only and aren?t meant to be taken more broadly or expess anything about Pre-1933 or Post-War production.  

I will clarify my observation to read: I believe Snyder was the sole producer of Montgomery Ward bicycles in 1933 and 1934.  In 1935 Monark aluminum bicycles were added to the mix.  Cleveland Welding did not begin to produce bicycles until sometime in 1935 and I have seen CWC Hawthornes that probably date to 1936 though CWC models do not appear in the Catalogs before 1938 (which is about the end of the Pre-war relationship with Monark).  From 1938-1942 both Snyder and CWC produced several models for Montgomery Ward. 

CWC never produced a Moto-Balloon frame.

From all of the above I reach the conclusion that all steel Hawthorne Moto-Balloon frames (1933-1937) were produced for M-W by Snyder.

I realize that this is not a point you were directly disputing but I felt my statements were unclear.

The difference of opinion on the overall volume of production may also be based on a lack of clarity on my part.  

My observation was in reference to the number of bicycles (1933-1942) I have seen that Snyder produced that were badged Hawthorne compared to the number from the same period that Snyder produced that had any other single specific badge such as Rollfast, Trailblazer, or any other individual badges that Harris distributed.  I don?t know what specific percentage of Snyder?s 1933-1942 production passed through a MW store but I would guess it may have been greater than 30%.  Anyway this is just my guess and my observations are obviously swayed by what I have seen on eBay and at swap meets here in my locale.

Since this post is off topic and already to long I?ll break here and post my comments about the fork issue separately (and on the Balloon forum)

Thanks,

Phil


----------



## Classicriders

Phil,
I greatly appreciate not only our input and knowledge on this subject but just as importantly, your candor and understanding as to the nature of these discussions.  
This is an excellent example of how we all can learn and benefit from each others knowledge and experience.  The best part is that there is great mutual respect being displayed in a discussion where there was a difference of opinion.  No bruised or fragile egos.  Just good healthy discussion the way it should be.  
I am no expert, but I do know a few things about a few things, and I am always willing to share anything I have learned along the way.  Even more importantly, I am always looking to learn more.


----------



## RMS37

Thanks Greg, I agree heartily that sharing and pooling the bits of information that we individually hold will benefit all of us in the hobby and that building these discussions as a cooperative search for the facts is one of the best uses of the forum.  I?m another person with a fair amount of information in some areas that I can share and looking to learn more about the many areas where I?ve drawn blanks.

I?m sitting back now to try to pull together some relevant information on the subject of forks. As I said earlier, I?ll start a new thread for this in the Balloon forum.

Phil


----------



## sensor

37fleetwood said:


> I am very interested in a moto-balloon thread! though technically they would belong in the Classic Balloon Tire Bicycles 1933-1965 forum I suppose.
> Scott
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow that looks really close to my dayton.......
> 
> 
> 
> (of course the bars, grips,& pedals arent the originals but i do have them along with the fenders stashed away!and yeah the tank isnt stock....i just made one for it cuz i like tanks) was wondering if it really was a dayton bike and now im sure
> ill post my #'s when ive got some batteries charged


----------



## RMS37

Hi, 

This thread, as concerned with Moto-Balloons, (opposed to the earlier single-tube type Motobikes) has moved to the 1933-1965 forum.

My last post there was asking if anyone had any information the type of bicycle you have!

It appears you have the exceedingly rare 1934-1935 Dayton with straight rear stays. The stories I have heard are that only a small number of these bicycles were produced when Huffman re-entered the bicycle manufacturing business. Production quickly evolved to the frame style with the curved rear stays like Scott?s bike.  However many were actually made, I have been led to believe that there are probably less than 20 known to the Hobby currently. 

A complete original bike like yours with an original tank belonged to Steve Castelli at one time and was pictured in the Evolution II book. That same bike is now in the New Bremen Bicycle Museum.You can find a picture (listed as a 1935 Dayton) at the following link

http://www.bicyclemuseum.com/alpha.htm

It?s great to see another rare bike surface. I'm looking forward to 

Phil Marshall


----------



## RMS37

Cliffhanger... I'm looking forward to seeing the serial number...

Phil


----------

