When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

1880's child's high wheel photo comparison

-

redline1968

Riding a '38 Autocycle Deluxe
IMG_3596.JPG
IMG_3595.JPG
IMG_3597.JPG
Awhile ago I bought a child's high wheel and I wasn't sure about it if it was a made up bike or junk. Just recently I found a photograph of a child next to a high wheel that bears a extreamly strong resemblance to mine other than the size looks like a smaller version. Sorry about the pics n mine it's packed in the back. Thought I'd post and and see if I can get some feed back on it.
 
Your bike looks real to me. It has an open head tube and spokes that do not cross over each other, both of which are characteristics of the early type of Ordinary. However, it is not the same make as the one in the old photo. If you study the forks, you will see that the ones in the photo taper gradually towards the hub, while yours are not tapered but straight all the way down. By the way, the fork on your bike looks bent near the top.
 
Your bike looks real to me. It has an open head tube and spokes that do not cross over each other, both of which are characteristics of the early type of Ordinary. However, it is not the same make as the one in the old photo. If you study the forks, you will see that the ones in the photo taper gradually towards the hub, while yours are not tapered but straight all the way down. By the way, the fork on your bike looks bent near the top.

Tangent spokes were available as early as 1880. Radial does not make a bike early, and tangent does not make it late. Open heads were available at least as late as 1888 in Columbia's case. I'd like to see better pictures of the bike in question, but it looks like it is mostly original parts to me, with the exception of the top of the neck and the handlebars, and the cranks and pedals, which look at least late 1890's to me
 
I wasn't trying to put a date to the bike, but rather was trying to say is it has features that existed in the 1880s. If someone were to make a reproduction (like the Boneshaker brand) they would probably use more modern features like an enclosed head tube and tangential spokes. It would be easier to use an existing modern hub when faking an old bike than machine a copy of an early 1880s hub. But to add to what you were saying about inconsistency in bicycle evolution, when it comes to kids bikes especially you could see all kinds of things. It would be logical to use outdated inventory on kids bikes to keep the cost down and save the most recent innovations for the high end adult bikes.
 
Thanks.. your right it's not exact but the representation of the bike is close to my example. yes it is bent and some parts like the pedals and the extra brackets are welded on later for a larger person to ride it. Some one tried to save it many years ago and It's a good candidate for a resto down the line.. as far as dating it would be a good guess as I'm not sure. Could they have been made for photos only or is it a production bike? At least I found some picture close to help in a date/Id. I'll post better pics.
 
The bike is a low grade model which means it was intentionally heavily built for rough and tumble kids. Parts that were used on kids bikes like this are not necessarily outdated inventory but rather designed as such. I would date the bike about 1884-1886. Could be a Western Wheel Works or a St. Nicholas. The cranks and pedals are late 1890's replacements.
 
Wow thank you for your input. Makes a lot of sense built for abuse for kids. Earlier than I thought. Still I'll post some more pics
 
Yea..the front needs work but I doubt very much the rear is made up.. reason is why would some one forge a complete rear piece on this when it takes so much time to do it not to mention the added costs and not repair the front. It doesn't make sense...you can see it's a toy and not a "professional adult bike" made to use and abuse by children. The photo also shows a cheap toy bike for kids not adults. I don't get it.
 
Back
Top