# Jeffrey and Gromully tandem



## Artweld (Jan 7, 2018)

Was told that this tandam was a possible Jeffery and gromully built racing tandam frame, cranks sprockets shifter and wheels were added later not correct to the frame, any idea on if that's possible, thanks


----------



## willswares1220 (Jan 7, 2018)

A closeup of the fork would also help


----------



## Artweld (Jan 7, 2018)

willswares1220 said:


> A closeup of the fork would also help



Fork is also not correct, but was told that it was a one year issue? Balloon fork 





Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rambler (Jan 7, 2018)

Front fork appears to be 1940's Colson. Cranks, sprockets, wheels are from some other 1940-50's era bicycles. I have three Gormully & Jeffery Rambler tandems and even though a few of the pointed frame lugs on your frame bear a resemblance to G & J the overall frame construction does not. I personally do not believe this tandem frame is G & J. I'm not sure what it is but my gut feeling is not G & J.


----------



## Artweld (Jan 7, 2018)

Rambler said:


> Front fork appears to be 1940's Colson. Cranks, sprockets, wheels are from some other 1940-50's era bicycles. I have three Gormully & Jeffery Rambler tandems and even though a few of the pointed frame lugs on your frame bear a resemblance to G & J the overall frame construction does not. I personally do not believe this tandem frame is G & J. I'm not sure what it is but my gut feeling is not G & J.
> 
> View attachment 734966



Ok thanks, I was also informed that it may have been a custom made to order frame from G & J that's why it won't show up in a catalog, it's that something that was done back then by the manufacturer? I'm attaching a pic of the BB which I never seen before, the outside bearing cup are egg shaped the bottom nuts and bolts are loosen to make the BB adjustable for proper chain adjustment, I moved the rear BB to show how it works, loosen the bolt rotate forward or backwards for chain tension, any Info would help as I would like to do a better restoration on it, would also like to badge it, thanks again 







Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rambler (Jan 8, 2018)

Artweld said:


> Ok thanks, I was also informed that it may have been a custom made to order frame from G & J that's why it won't show up in a catalog, it's that something that was done back then by the manufacturer? I'm attaching a pic of the BB which I never seen before, the outside bearing cup are egg shaped the bottom nuts and bolts are loosen to make the BB adjustable for proper chain adjustment, I moved the rear BB to show how it works, loosen the bolt rotate forward or backwards for chain tension, any Info would help as I would like to do a better restoration on it, would also like to badge it, thanks again ATTACH=full]735002[/ATTACH]




The style of crank housing on your frame among many other frame characters is why I do not believe your frame is G & J. The overall frame design and crank housings are nothing like anything I ever saw G & J use on any of their bicycles. Again, aside from a couple pointed lugs your frame bears no resemblance to G & J bicycles and tandems I have seen. Since frame lugs could be ordered through supplier catalogs by bicycle manufacturers and frame builders I truly suspect your frame is some manufacturer other than G & J.


----------



## Rambler (Jan 8, 2018)

I believe I found your tandem frame. This frame looks to me to be an exact match. Angle of frame tubes look correct to me. I strongly believe this is your tandem. Even what I can see of your rear wheel dropouts look more like the Armstrong Moth than anything G & J ever built.




Built in 1936 at the Sherbourne Street factory in Birmingham.


----------



## sam (Jan 8, 2018)

Not a Moth ---wrong type head set.


----------



## Rambler (Jan 8, 2018)

Possibly not a Moth but certainly closer than G & J.  I believe the tandem is later than 1890's based on construction. If Artweld would post a detailed photo or two of the rear wheel dropouts that may help narrow the decade in which the frame was built and also possibly help identify the manufacturer.


----------



## dnc1 (Jan 8, 2018)

Certainly not an Armstrong 'Moth', almost certainly not English at all, headset, style of bottom bracket/chainsets etc are all typically American in design and wouldn't fit an English frameset. Probably American made, could be anytime from the '20s to the '50s judging by the frame design, pretty standard design.


----------



## Artweld (Jan 8, 2018)

Rambler said:


> Possibly not a Moth but certainly closer than G & J.  I believe the tandem is later than 1890's based on construction. If Artweld would post a detailed photo or two of the rear wheel dropouts that may help narrow the decade in which the frame was built and also possibly help identify the manufacturer.



I I'll get some more pics of the rear drop outs tonight and any other pics that might be helpful, thanks for you input on this matter, its interesting to know that CABE MEMBERS are willing to help out other members with research, thanks again 

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## Artweld (Jan 8, 2018)

Rambler said:


> Possibly not a Moth but certainly closer than G & J.  I believe the tandem is later than 1890's based on construction. If Artweld would post a detailed photo or two of the rear wheel dropouts that may help narrow the decade in which the frame was built and also possibly help identify the manufacturer.



Here are a few more pics, hope they can help in some way, rear stay pic, more of bottom crank housing and some of the nickel plate parts that I believe are original to the frame, that moth so far seems almost identical other then the front head set area the middle bar seems a little tighter and lower and the rear wheel to the rear seat post tube is much closer, I been told the the reason the distance between the rear wheel and rear seat post is greater on this frame is that it was built for long distance racing, any truth to that? Thanks again 


















Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rambler (Jan 9, 2018)

Artweld said:


> Here are a few more pics, hope they can help in some way, rear stay pic, more of bottom crank housing and some of the nickel plate parts that I believe are original to the frame, that moth so far seems almost identical other then the front head set area the middle bar seems a little tighter and lower and the rear wheel to the rear seat post tube is much closer, I been told the the reason the distance between the rear wheel and rear seat post is greater on this frame is that it was built for long distance racing, any truth to that? Thanks again ]




Rear wheel dropouts are definitely not G & J or Moth. Not sure what it is but I'll keep looking. The dropout design looks a little familiar to me but can't place it at the moment.

I don't know regarding your question "distance between the rear wheel and rear seat post is greater on this frame is that it was built for long distance racing" possibly a CABE member knowing something about racing bicycle geometry can answer that one.


----------



## dnc1 (Jan 10, 2018)

Racing frames don't usually have dropouts drilled for mudguard mountings. Racing tandems tend to be shorter wheelbase than regular tandem frames and lighter in weight also. I would have thought that would be even more relevant for long distance events as you wouldn't want to be pushing any more weight than necessary.
Nice detail photos @Artweld though.
Still a mystery!


----------



## Artweld (Jan 10, 2018)

dnc1 said:


> Racing frames don't usually have dropouts drilled for mudguard mountings. Racing tandems tend to be shorter wheelbase than regular tandem frames and lighter in weight also. I would have thought that would be even more relevant for long distance events as you wouldn't want to be pushing any more weight than necessary.
> Nice detail photos @Artweld though.
> Still a mystery!



Now things are starting to make sense, I had thought about this, the holes in the rear dropouts and the other two mounting holes makes me believe it's possible that it's a touring model, I would have to agree with you on that and not the racing frame theory, I'm still confused about the crank housing on the frame as I never seen that style on any other frame, the two halves that hold the bearing seem to be pressed together and won't come apart so I can get a better look inside the crank frame area, any thoughts on this? Or any ideal on the manufacturer? 

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rambler (Jan 10, 2018)

After many hours spent searching for Artweld's tandem, I am still at a loss to identify it. However from my searching I am inclined to believe (based on various characteristics) that this tandem was likely produced sometime between WW1 and WW2 with the 1930's being the most likely time period.

Also, while this tandem may not have been produced in Europe, the frame geometry/design bares a remarkable resemblance to manufacturers such as; Sun, Alworth, Chater-Lea, Hercules, James, Maclean, Stephens, etc. So whomever the manufacturer was, it seems that they were at the very least influenced by tandems from the other side of the pond. 

I do hope someone else comes forward with a positive ID because I have exhausted my resources and am very curious who did manufacture Artweld's tandem.


----------



## Artweld (Jan 10, 2018)

Rambler said:


> After many hours spent searching for Artweld's tandem, I am still at a loss to identify it. However from my searching I am inclined to believe (based on various characteristics) that this tandem was likely produced sometime between WW1 and WW2 with the 1930's being the most likely time period.
> 
> Also, while this tandem may not have been produced in Europe, the frame geometry/design bares a remarkable resemblance to manufacturers such as; Sun, Alworth, Chater-Lea, Hercules, James, Maclean, Stephens, etc. So whomever the manufacturer was, it seems that they were at the very least influenced by tandems from the other side of the pond.
> 
> I do hope someone else comes forward with a positive i.d. because I have exhausted my resources and am very curious who did manufacture Artweld's tandem.



Thank you so much for your time in trying to identify this tandam your research is greatly appreciated, I myself have been trying for a couple of years to identify it always searching photos, buying vintage bicycle books, online research etc... I'm thinking that the bottom crank housing is perhaps the key to the manufacturer along with the rear dropouts style,                                       it's always great to learn more info on the CABE from fellow members, perhaps someone has the answer to its origin as I would like to restore it to its original style, thanks 

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## corbettclassics (Jan 10, 2018)

My first impression when I saw this was “Thor” b/b


----------



## Artweld (Jan 10, 2018)

corbettclassics said:


> My first impression when I saw this was “Thor” b/b



Thor b/b? I'll research that 

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## corbettclassics (Jan 10, 2018)

Several bicycle manufacturers used Thor bottom brackets.


----------



## dnc1 (Jan 11, 2018)

Thanks to @corbettclassics for the 'Thor' heads up.
Found these @Artweld on a thread on here from 2013 (search for "Toc Thor tandem").
Images originally posted by @fordsnake.



 

 
I'm constantly amazed at the wealth and breadth of knowledge on here, thanks!
Still none the wiser of a manufacturer though, but I totally agree with @Rambler regarding overall European influence as to frame geometry/design; It's very similar to many of the British manufacturer's output.


----------



## Artweld (Jan 11, 2018)

dnc1 said:


> Thanks to @corbettclassics for the 'Thor' heads up.
> Found these @Artweld on a thread on here from 2013 (search for "Toc Thor tandem").
> Images originally posted by @fordsnake.
> View attachment 736460 View attachment 736461
> ...



Thanks dnc1 for your input on this subject, but I'm sure that the "THOR" is not the same crank housing on this tandam, the overall appearance and style is very different then the THOR, I'm leaning to believe that the tandem is perhaps pre 1900's or TOC just by the design and shape of the crank housing,

The original color was black when I received it, than was sent out for painting so I never got a chance to see the bare metal frame for reference which was my mistake,  just wondering if a bare frame can lead to help identify the manufacturer in anyway? Thanks 

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## Artweld (Jan 11, 2018)

Rambler said:


> After many hours spent searching for Artweld's tandem, I am still at a loss to identify it. However from my searching I am inclined to believe (based on various characteristics) that this tandem was likely produced sometime between WW1 and WW2 with the 1930's being the most likely time period.
> 
> Also, while this tandem may not have been produced in Europe, the frame geometry/design bares a remarkable resemblance to manufacturers such as; Sun, Alworth, Chater-Lea, Hercules, James, Maclean, Stephens, etc. So whomever the manufacturer was, it seems that they were at the very least influenced by tandems from the other side of the pond.
> 
> I do hope someone else comes forward with a positive i.d. because I have exhausted my resources and am very curious who did manufacture Artweld's tandem.



If time permits I'm going to pull out the cranks and post a few pics of the crank housing, hopefully someone can identify it then, once again thanks for your research 

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rambler (Jan 11, 2018)

Artweld said:


> If time permits I'm going to pull out the cranks and post a few pics of the crank housing, hopefully someone can identify it then, once again thanks for your research




Removing the cranks may actually tell us something. What I am very curious to know is if the crank housing adapters appear to be original to the tandem or if they were created or modified sometime later in order to adapt a later style crank to this tandem frame?  Single piece crank arms such as this type typically didn't start appearing on bicycles until around 1910.





Only similar crank examples I have been able to find to date. Similar in concept but not the same as your tandem.

Pierce


 

Columbia


 

Another unknown manufacturer


----------



## Artweld (Jun 11, 2018)

Rambler said:


> Removing the cranks may actually tell us something. What I am very curious to know is if the crank housing adapters appear to be original to the tandem or if they were created or modified sometime later in order to adapt a later style crank to this tandem frame?  Single piece crank arms such as this type typically didn't start appearing on bicycles until around 1910.
> 
> View attachment 736656
> 
> ...


----------



## Artweld (Jun 11, 2018)

Rambler said:


> Removing the cranks may actually tell us something. What I am very curious to know is if the crank housing adapters appear to be original to the tandem or if they were created or modified sometime later in order to adapt a later style crank to this tandem frame?  Single piece crank arms such as this type typically didn't start appearing on bicycles until around 1910.
> 
> View attachment 736656
> 
> ...



Was able to get a chance to remove the cracks on the tandam  sorry it took so long I'm hoping that someone will still be able to help identify the manufacturer of the frame


----------



## Artweld (Jun 11, 2018)

Also noticed that the bottom bracket bearing races are stamped in the inside that faces the bearings two are marked OL and the other two are marked OR, cranks are marked WALD and I still don't know if any of these parts are original to the frame  In order to remove both cranks both bearing cups need to be removed on the non sprocket side then the cranks pop out very easily, thanks


----------



## fat tire trader (Jun 12, 2018)

Hello,
You have a very interesting tandem. The Wald cranks are not original. The narrow Thor style bottom bracket shell makes me think this was made in the late 1890s.


----------



## Artweld (Jun 12, 2018)

fat tire trader said:


> Hello,
> You have a very interesting tandem. The Wald cranks are not original. The narrow Thor style bottom bracket shell makes me think this was made in the late 1890s.



Any idea if the bb can be removed from the frame as I would like to get a better look at the inside frame area, looks like two sides of the BB are pressed together or hopefully screwed together? You mentioned thor style bb... would that be the maker of the BB and then sold to different frame manufacturers so they can install? 

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## fat tire trader (Jun 13, 2018)

The bottom bracket should come out when you remove the screw at its bottom. Yes, bottom bracket shells and other frame parts were manufactured and sold to frame builders.


----------



## Artweld (Jun 13, 2018)

fat tire trader said:


> The bottom bracket should come out when you remove the screw at its bottom. Yes, bottom bracket shells and other frame parts were manufactured and sold to frame builders.



When the bottom screw is removed the bb wont come out of the frame as far as I can tell that screw sets the tension on the chain, it's almost like the two bb are pressed together but that wouldn't make any sense, can't tell unless I probably remove the paint from the bb to see what's under the paint I'm hoping that they are perhaps screwed together, would that make more sense on a install such as this... 

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## fat tire trader (Jun 13, 2018)

Artweld said:


> When the bottom screw is removed the bb wont come out of the frame as far as I can tell that screw sets the tension on the chain, it's almost like the two bb are pressed together but that wouldn't make any sense, can't tell unless I probably remove the paint from the bb to see what's under the paint I'm hoping that they are perhaps screwed together, would that make more sense on a install such as this...
> 
> Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk



remove the paint


----------

