# is it original or not?



## 37fleetwood (Jul 27, 2006)

I have been looking at a bike on another web site for a little while and quite frankly admiring it too, but I have one concern, is it really original? I don't mind someone putting a bike together the way they like it, I'm all for that. I don't mind someone putting a bike together as best they can afford. I do have a problem with someone putting something together that they know is not correct and using rare parts on a rare bike and pushing it off as original when they know they made it. the bike in question is kinda a mythical creature that hasn't been seen before. in fact most knowledgeable folks will tell you it was never made, yet there it is in all it's glory for all the world to see. being what it is makes it almost impossible for a guy to critique remember it is mythical after all. who's to say it came with this or that? what exactly is correct or not? if I'm correct in my guess even the frame has been fabricated. no one has ever seen one and yet here one shows up as an original on this site like no big deal. why didn't anyone say "Oh my God that is the only one in existence!!!" it kinda shakes my faith in the other super rare oddities like the shaft drive Robin, or the Huffman "Death Bike". has some clever welder put the things together and faked the original status of them? this one would have gone undetected for the most part except for the fanatics of these bikes like me and a few others. here are the possibilities. the guy is pulling a fast one and the thing is a phoney. the guy had a fast one pulled on him and the thing is a phoney. the guy found this ultra rare frame and didn't do his research well enough to get it as perfectly correct as he needed to when gathering parts. the bike is as it has been for around 70 years and was modified when near new and the guy didn't choose or know how to correct it. don't get me wrong, I have been truly admiring the thing for days now. it is truly beautiful and quite convincing except for a few things. there is the chance I'm wrong, but in that case more fuss needs to be made over this one of a kind, only one in existence that I know of bicycle! let me know how you guys feel.


----------



## militarymonark (Jul 27, 2006)

hmm you have my ears perked I kinda want to see what bike of course I have no intentions of buying any bikes IM in the process of selling. BUt what type of bike does he say it is?But it could be the only one inexistance but I'd ask for pictures of the rare specs on the bike so that you can make a comparisson of other bikes that may have the same parts. Especially the frame. I'd check weld points, check for any "modifications" and ask if there is any pre-resoration pictures. That may give the best clues to finding out what is original or not.


----------



## sam (Jul 27, 2006)

Hope your not talking about my Bentley.From the kind of bikes you normally talk about I don't think so---and the fact that the site(BRnK)says it's a bike that never was.
  Do you know how hard it is to make a bike that "never was" ---almost impossable.O,it's easy enough to add some springer fork or odd seat off a M/C and call your Kustom an Indian bike or what ever,but try and build a bike that never was and make it look like it came from a factory.A real bicycle that could have been done by (schwinn/dayton/colson/raleigh)??If someone has done one that you are having troble telling if it real or not---they did the Impossible(almost)!
would like to see it too----sam


----------



## 37fleetwood (Jul 27, 2006)

Ok, I'm a little hesitant about identifying the bike because I really like the bike and don't want hard feelings. its not the Bentley though. I just wanted to get an idea about how people feel about the idea of building something unusual. should you be honest and divulge all the details about a bike or is it ok to be less forthcomming and keep everyone guessing. I guess the problem I have is protraying it as original when it seems not to be, or am I wrong and have I missed something? do I even have the right to scrutinize someones stuff? what if it is really correct, or at least is thought to be correct by most? I'm sure the guy didn't put photos on the web just to be ripped apart by some yo yo like me. maybe I'm the only one who really cares whether it's real or not. so here goes, take a look at the bike of the month on www.nostalgic.net and tell me what you think. I have a bunch of questions about this bike because it is very different from the others I have seen. maybe dave can help put my mind at ease.


----------



## militarymonark (Jul 28, 2006)

your talking about the dayton streamline thats on the page.


----------



## 37fleetwood (Jul 28, 2006)

exactly. I have been told by lots of guys that they never made that frame. all the ones you see are like mine with the straight rear bars or are the earlier non tank type. the one like that one is only ever found as a drawing in ads. also I've been told that all the originals found so far with headbadges intact have been Firestones and so all people assume that that is all they made. Huffman was a fairly new company at that point while Firestone was huge. it stands to reason that most of them would be Firestones and possibly all the SS bikes. I have been watching these things closely and truly all originals I've seen turn up have been just like mine with minor variations. they were made in 1937 and 1938 and the 2 years have subtle differences, but none have aluminum fenders, that rack is not seen ever on these bikes and as far as I know was only an after market piece. the tank was only chrome in 1938 and the bike is supposed to be a 1937 the front "gils" are different also and these look like the later style (half of my tank was rusted out and I was going to use a different half when I noticed the difference) the chain guard should be painted or at best chrome that one is a stainless steel repop. one guy even went so far as to notice that the wear pattern on the paint is not consistent with normal wear and looks fatigued intentionally. the head tube is all scratched up where the truss rods would have protected it, and the rear end is almost perfect when it should show signs of being drug across things. there is wear on the sides of bars protected by the chainguard and not on top of the bars where the sun would have damaged it. how many of you have seen an original paint tank bike that doesn't have marks where the tank has vibrated on the frame and scratched it. the front fork is different from all the '30s Huffman bikes I've ever seen and looks more like the one on my 1954 Customliner. the truss rod arms are too thick as they head toward the fork, mine are flat. the bike looks scratched and faded while the ashtray and speedo look to be flawless. maybe I'm being too critical, but I watch these so I can get an idea how mine should be. I realize that they don't all match the ads but there are certain limits I'll allow for factory varieties. you'll never see a Mustang with Chevy II hubcaps from the factory. you'll also never see a 1964 Mustang with model A wheels from the factory. I guess I feel the bike cannot be original if it was pieced together and especially if reproduction parts were used. the main thing to me is whether the frame is real, the rest looks to be made from parts. I don't have a problem with that except when it is called an original, and efforts are made to make it look original. the web site says it's original, what does the owner claim? we'll go from there I guess.


----------



## militarymonark (Jul 28, 2006)

yeah I think this could be a genuine critique so dont feel bad to lay out every detail I want to know now


----------



## sam (Jul 29, 2006)

I'd like to point out only that Huffmann by 1937 was not a "new"company.True they had just re-started building bicycles again in or about 1935,but had been building bikes before 1900 as the Davis Sewing Machine company,they had consolidated several other bicycle companies into their opperation,and had built a factory and town or subdivision to house workers all by this time.They also made several other products(auto supplies stoves etc)Point being they had resources to to things like limited models if they wanted.
I'm not saying this bike is correct or that Scott is wrong in anything he says about the bicycle.I think it's wonderfull that Scott took the time to compair and look clost at what's being said.We may not have answers ,but at least we got questions---now!---sam


----------



## 37fleetwood (Jul 29, 2006)

Hi again, Davis Sewing Machine Company folded up in 1922. Horace Huffman who aparently worked for them since 1900, was put in charge of liquidating the machinery. he used the procedes from the sale to start up Huffman Manufacturing Co. in 1924. He sold the left over Davis stuff through 1925. Huffman made non bike products until 1928 when they incorporated for the purpose of building bicycles. It wasn't until Oct. 1934 that the bikes came out, so it wasn't really the same company or even the same factory or equipment. The only link between Davis bikes and Huffman bikes was Huffman himself. Somehow he ended up with the rights to the names used by Davis including oddly Davis Flyer. So Huffman started making bikes in Oct. '34 and was the main supplier for Firestone by '35. the bike in question is a '37 so Huffman was only 2 1/2 to 3 years old when it was made. Though they would have had some carry over by using the old Davis names, Firestone would have most likely made up a very large part of their sales for several years.

Strangely another one of these bikes has showed up on ebay right now and is dressed up as a Western Flyer! I am doubtful that Huffman made Westerns bikes for them that early.


----------



## sam (Jul 30, 2006)

Think about what your saying,Horace Huffmann was "put in charge" and "used the money to start his company".He was General Manager of Davis,and as such knew how to build bicycles/run a company.But he could not have just used the procedes(money) unless most of Davis all ready belonged to him---which it did.
He did move/start huffmann in Dayton(I beleave) and did not build bicycles again till 34 as you pointed out.Sure the workers that built the frames,the factory where they were built,the tools etc were all different---but the knowlage to run a bicycle factory came from Davis.Horace Huffmann had the resorces and knowlage to produce bicycles long before 1934---sam


----------



## shutterbugKELLY (Jul 30, 2006)

It's so hard sometimes to determine what is factory original, period customization, or fabrication.  Though I don't recall ever seeing a 1937 Streamline with aluminum fenders, a torpedolite, and a chrome tank.  The grips also don't look factory original.  Not to say that it wasn't a special option, or even dressed up by the original owner with parts the following year.  Sort of like the 1963 Corvette owners who replaced their split-windows with a solid window available in 1964.  To me, the rest of the bicycle looks just like the 1937 brochures.

Also, all of the Dayton Streamlines I've ever seen have the curved rear bars and the Firestones have straight bars.  Here's an example from the 2004 Copake bicycle auction






and an example from the 2006 Copake bicycle auction.





Even the Dayton Streamline shown above has a different saddle, stem, pedals, rack, etc. from the 1937 Dayton brochure, though it's said to be a "correct older restoration."

I do agree with you Scott.  I don't mind a bicycle being restored / customized, but I don't like it when it's being called original if it's not and especially if it is painted to look like it still has it's 60+ year old paint.

A side note - I've always had issues with one of the twin-flexes, on the same site, that is supposed to be made up of all original parts.  To me, it appears to have been originally a Firestone Twin-Flex, and not a Huffman Twin-Flex.


----------



## 37fleetwood (Jul 30, 2006)

ok here are a few of the Huffman documents I have. the first one from feb. 1938 shows very limited substitutions.



next is a list from march of 1938 showing many more substitutions including aluminum fenders and chrome tanks etc..






last is one from april 1939


----------



## 37fleetwood (Jul 30, 2006)

odd all the photos were the same size, I don't know why it shrank the two. I don't have anything from 1937. I would love to have one of the curved frame bikes, in fact I had thought about making one. I have an extra '37 regular mens frame and could easily make one since I have the Firestone to use as a pattern. all I would have to do is curve the upper bars, the rest looks the same. the Copake bike is interesting but has been restored and therefore isn't exactly proof of its authenticity, though it is fairly correctly done except for the fact that it is a 1938 with a 1937 chain guard and sprocket and it has the wrong stem altogether. I could easily fake one very convincingly and restore it. the thing about the one on Dave's site is it would have been the only original that I have seen. I have another photo of one that is just a frame but again it has been re-painted. Does anyone have one of these that they know for a fact has not been home made? even just the frame.


----------



## New Mexico Brant (Apr 6, 2017)

shutterbugKELLY said:


> Also, all of the Dayton Streamlines I've ever seen have the curved rear bars and the Firestones have straight bars. Here's an example from the 2004 Copake bicycle auction




Does anyone have a picture of the Copake 2004 Super Streamline they can please post??

Many thanks!  Brant


----------



## fordmike65 (Apr 6, 2017)

New Mexico Brant said:


> Does anyone have a picture of the Copake 2004 Super Streamline they can please post??
> 
> Many thanks!  Brant


----------



## 37fleetwood (Apr 6, 2017)




----------



## New Mexico Brant (Apr 6, 2017)

Thank you Scott!


----------



## 37fleetwood (Apr 6, 2017)

New Mexico Brant said:


> Thank you Scott!



you're welcome, I'll send you the bill...
kinda digging way back though aren't you?


----------



## New Mexico Brant (Apr 6, 2017)

37fleetwood said:


> you're welcome, I'll send you the bill...
> kinda digging way back though aren't you?




Yep, trying to read it all!


----------



## 37fleetwood (Apr 6, 2017)

as long as you remember there was a rather long learning curve which started somewhere around this post.


----------



## catfish (Apr 7, 2017)

WOW. 11 year old post coming back to life.


----------



## fordmike65 (Apr 7, 2017)

catfish said:


> WOW. 11 year old post coming back to life.


----------



## partsguy (Apr 7, 2017)

Geez, this is so old, it's before I joined the board!


----------



## rustjunkie (Apr 7, 2017)

Would be great if the pictures that were removed were replaced, w/o them the thread has lost its research value.


----------



## catfish (Apr 7, 2017)

Necropost


----------



## Joe Buffardi (Apr 7, 2017)

Or we can madlib the whole thread and put on random pictures of kittens and cats.


----------



## bikewhorder (Apr 7, 2017)

Anybody remember what it sold for 13 years ago?


----------



## Autocycleplane (Apr 7, 2017)

Are the reproduction parts on it considered original yet?


----------



## 37fleetwood (Apr 7, 2017)

37fleetwood said:


> Ok, I'm a little hesitant about identifying the bike because I really like the bike and don't want hard feelings. its not the Bentley though. I just wanted to get an idea about how people feel about the idea of building something unusual. should you be honest and divulge all the details about a bike or is it ok to be less forthcomming and keep everyone guessing. I guess the problem I have is protraying it as original when it seems not to be, or am I wrong and have I missed something? do I even have the right to scrutinize someones stuff? what if it is really correct, or at least is thought to be correct by most? I'm sure the guy didn't put photos on the web just to be ripped apart by some yo yo like me. maybe I'm the only one who really cares whether it's real or not. so here goes, take a look at the bike of the month on www.nostalgic.net and tell me what you think. I have a bunch of questions about this bike because it is very different from the others I have seen. maybe dave can help put my mind at ease.




you guys are asking a lot of my poor memory. I think it was this bike we were discussing at the time:
http://www.nostalgic.net/bicycle463

a little historical background might be in order. not too long before this, I bought a Firestone Fleetwood Supreme. I contacted NBHAA aka Leon Dixon who was no help at all. I then contacted Jerry Peters Jr., who was very friendly, but not too knowledgeable. it was he who told me that they only made the Firestone types and the curved rear ends had only been found on a couple girls bikes. this led to me suspecting, because there were rumors, that someone had taken a mens bike and put the rear end off of a girls frame onto it. this bike was owned by Jerry berg and the story was, he was approached by someone who had the frame and fork in what was supposed to be original paint. he bought it and then assembled it from parts and advice he got from others.
as of today, I've actually seen and touched this bike. it lives out here in California, I'm still hesitant about it's provenance, some aspects look right, some don't. as with so many bikes, it's just too hard to tell what the actual story is, after all, it's not like it was found as an original and we knew where it came from. it's since been refined and corrected a bit, and looks great.


----------



## Fltwd57 (Apr 7, 2017)

37fleetwood said:


> I have been looking at a bike on another web site for a little while and quite frankly admiring it too, but I have one concern, is it really original? I don't mind someone putting a bike together the way they like it, I'm all for that. I don't mind someone putting a bike together as best they can afford. I do have a problem with someone putting something together that they know is not correct and using rare parts on a rare bike and pushing it off as original when they know they made it. the bike in question is kinda a mythical creature that hasn't been seen before. in fact most knowledgeable folks will tell you it was never made, yet there it is in all it's glory for all the world to see. being what it is makes it almost impossible for a guy to critique remember it is mythical after all. who's to say it came with this or that? what exactly is correct or not? if I'm correct in my guess even the frame has been fabricated. no one has ever seen one and yet here one shows up as an original on this site like no big deal. why didn't anyone say "Oh my God that is the only one in existence!!!" it kinda shakes my faith in the other super rare oddities like the shaft drive Robin, or the Huffman "Death Bike". has some clever welder put the things together and faked the original status of them? this one would have gone undetected for the most part except for the fanatics of these bikes like me and a few others. here are the possibilities. the guy is pulling a fast one and the thing is a phoney. the guy had a fast one pulled on him and the thing is a phoney. the guy found this ultra rare frame and didn't do his research well enough to get it as perfectly correct as he needed to when gathering parts. the bike is as it has been for around 70 years and was modified when near new and the guy didn't choose or know how to correct it. don't get me wrong, I have been truly admiring the thing for days now. it is truly beautiful and quite convincing except for a few things. there is the chance I'm wrong, but in that case more fuss needs to be made over this one of a kind, only one in existence that I know of bicycle! let me know how you guys feel.






37fleetwood said:


> Ok, I'm a little hesitant about identifying the bike because I really like the bike and don't want hard feelings. its not the Bentley though. I just wanted to get an idea about how people feel about the idea of building something unusual. should you be honest and divulge all the details about a bike or is it ok to be less forthcomming and keep everyone guessing. I guess the problem I have is protraying it as original when it seems not to be, or am I wrong and have I missed something? do I even have the right to scrutinize someones stuff? what if it is really correct, or at least is thought to be correct by most? I'm sure the guy didn't put photos on the web just to be ripped apart by some yo yo like me. maybe I'm the only one who really cares whether it's real or not. so here goes, take a look at the bike of the month on www.nostalgic.net and tell me what you think. I have a bunch of questions about this bike because it is very different from the others I have seen. maybe dave can help put my mind at ease.






37fleetwood said:


> exactly. I have been told by lots of guys that they never made that frame. all the ones you see are like mine with the straight rear bars or are the earlier non tank type. the one like that one is only ever found as a drawing in ads. also I've been told that all the originals found so far with headbadges intact have been Firestones and so all people assume that that is all they made. Huffman was a fairly new company at that point while Firestone was huge. it stands to reason that most of them would be Firestones and possibly all the SS bikes. I have been watching these things closely and truly all originals I've seen turn up have been just like mine with minor variations. they were made in 1937 and 1938 and the 2 years have subtle differences, but none have aluminum fenders, that rack is not seen ever on these bikes and as far as I know was only an after market piece. the tank was only chrome in 1938 and the bike is supposed to be a 1937 the front "gils" are different also and these look like the later style (half of my tank was rusted out and I was going to use a different half when I noticed the difference) the chain guard should be painted or at best chrome that one is a stainless steel repop. one guy even went so far as to notice that the wear pattern on the paint is not consistent with normal wear and looks fatigued intentionally. the head tube is all scratched up where the truss rods would have protected it, and the rear end is almost perfect when it should show signs of being drug across things. there is wear on the sides of bars protected by the chainguard and not on top of the bars where the sun would have damaged it. how many of you have seen an original paint tank bike that doesn't have marks where the tank has vibrated on the frame and scratched it. the front fork is different from all the '30s Huffman bikes I've ever seen and looks more like the one on my 1954 Customliner. the truss rod arms are too thick as they head toward the fork, mine are flat. the bike looks scratched and faded while the ashtray and speedo look to be flawless. maybe I'm being too critical, but I watch these so I can get an idea how mine should be. I realize that they don't all match the ads but there are certain limits I'll allow for factory varieties. you'll never see a Mustang with Chevy II hubcaps from the factory. you'll also never see a 1964 Mustang with model A wheels from the factory. I guess I feel the bike cannot be original if it was pieced together and especially if reproduction parts were used. the main thing to me is whether the frame is real, the rest looks to be made from parts. I don't have a problem with that except when it is called an original, and efforts are made to make it look original. the web site says it's original, what does the owner claim? we'll go from there I guess.






37fleetwood said:


> odd all the photos were the same size, I don't know why it shrank the two. I don't have anything from 1937. I would love to have one of the curved frame bikes, in fact I had thought about making one. I have an extra '37 regular mens frame and could easily make one since I have the Firestone to use as a pattern. all I would have to do is curve the upper bars, the rest looks the same. the Copake bike is interesting but has been restored and therefore isn't exactly proof of its authenticity, though it is fairly correctly done except for the fact that it is a 1938 with a 1937 chain guard and sprocket and it has the wrong stem altogether. I could easily fake one very convincingly and restore it. the thing about the one on Dave's site is it would have been the only original that I have seen. I have another photo of one that is just a frame but again it has been re-painted. Does anyone have one of these that they know for a fact has not been home made? even just the frame.






37fleetwood said:


> you guys are asking a lot of my poor memory. I think it was this bike we were discussing at the time:
> http://www.nostalgic.net/bicycle463
> 
> a little historical background might be in order. not too long before this, I bought a Firestone Fleetwood Supreme. I contacted NBHAA aka Leon Dixon who was no help at all. I then contacted Jerry Peters Jr., who was very friendly, but not too knowledgeable. it was he who told me that they only made the Firestone types and the curved rear ends had only been found on a couple girls bikes. this led to me suspecting, because there were rumors, that someone had taken a mens bike and put the rear end off of a girls frame onto it. this bike was owned by Jerry berg and the story was, he was approached by someone who had the frame and fork in what was supposed to be original paint. he bought it and then assembled it from parts and advice he got from others.
> as of today, I've actually seen and touched this bike. it lives out here in California, I'm still hesitant about it's provenance, some aspects look right, some don't. as with so many bikes, it's just too hard to tell what the actual story is, after all, it's not like it was found as an original and we knew where it came from. it's since been refined and corrected a bit, and looks great.




Paragraphs, sentence structure and upper-case letters at the beginning of sentences are your friends. For the benefit of readers, please don't be afraid to use them. 

Thank you.


----------



## Fltwd57 (Apr 7, 2017)

Joe Buffardi said:


> Or we can madlib the whole thread and put on random pictures of kittens and cats.


----------



## catfish (Apr 7, 2017)

bikewhorder said:


> Anybody remember what it sold for 13 years ago?


----------



## catfish (Apr 7, 2017)




----------



## rustjunkie (Apr 7, 2017)

I remember in the 1990s a friend got a Streamline frame with straight-tube rear end. We thought it was très bien, but were still on the lookout for one with curved rear tubes. They were known, but not easy to get.


----------

