Dating an Early Schwinn Admiral

[New Mexico Brant]

Possibly....Seems like a truss is a truss?? The frame style/descriptions don't seem to be very cohesive early on.

In the 1917 catalog the World Model 1761 is still advertised as a Motorbike but described as an Arch Truss yet the Model 1758 is advertised as a Truss frame but is similar to the Double Bar

The Double Bar reminds me more of a Lovell Diamond than a Schwinn. I wonder if there are any out there?

Lovell Diamond Age Estimate Needed | Antique Bicycles Pre-1933

Picked up this neat 20" Iver recently. It's missing it's 28" wheelset. Serial: 347535 Based on info here posted by Bill Smith it would be early 1920's. Is this an accurate assessment? https://thecabe.com/forum/threads/iver-johnson-serial-number-list.79061/ Does anyone have more info on this...

thecabe.com

Nah, you are working from an Iver mindset. Other companies were offering additional braced frames and called them “trussed.” There are endless types of architectural trusses and that is where the term originates. The 1915 date maybe significant as Westfield, and others, could not secure rights to license the Iver arched “truss bridge” frame patent? Some were doing "arch ribbed" frames that were just different enough to maybe get a pass with the US Patent office. Others only occur only after the “bridge truss” patent expires. My guess is they were playing with the term as a trusses can look so very different.

 

[dasberger]

True... Just like building trusses....I was about to post a similar pic of trusses before my battery died

 

[dasberger]

Interested to see any markings on the crank

 

[bobcycles]

interesting to note that Schwinn produced the largest numbers just after the turn of the century
in the world, as they claim, then yet why is it so few turn of the century Schwinns turn up ? Yet
it seems that most other mfgs machines are fairly plentiful (considering the time period etc. and being antiques)?

 

[Archie Sturmer]

I'd like to see the patent drawing (392,972)!

The article might have had a typo?

I thought that the suit was about the Smith National patent # 392,973. (Colorado?).

Basically a picture of a safety frame with a bottom bracket crank hanger, perhaps the one pictured in artwork that is sold today.

 

[cyclingday]

 

[Freqman1]

View attachment 1959629

This isn't a split bottom bracket. Going back to Brant's Admiral I'm not so sure this is a Schwinn. Fork looks more Pope, serial number on seat tube? (most Schwinn I've seen on bottom bracket), and I don't ever recall seeing a Schwinn with a split bottom bracket. Curious where the research leads us.

 

[DrRumack80]

Great bike, Brant, would love to see images of the entire bike.

 

[cyclingday]

This isn't a split bottom bracket. Going back to Brant's Admiral I'm not so sure this is a Schwinn. Fork looks more Pope, serial number on seat tube? (most Schwinn I've seen on bottom bracket), and I don't ever recall seeing a Schwinn with a split bottom bracket. Curious where the research leads us.

Yeah, I agree.
The only thing that looks Schwinn on this bike, is the headbadge.
I just posted the Smith patent drawing, so that it could easily be seen within the context of this thread.
I think the dispute over the bottom bracket infringement wasn’t about the split type bottom bracket.
It was over the one piece crank, type bottom bracket shell, which Schwinn had been using since their inception.
I don’t really see the point of a split type bottom bracket shell, unless you’re using it as an eccentric chain tensioner.

 

[cyclingday]

This, from the 1899 catalog.

Bam!
Take that, Mr. Pope!