PLERR
Finally riding a big boys bike
Personally, I think this process is a blast. I really enjoy being wonky about all the details. I live by the scientific method, isolating and examining variables, cross referencing, creating hypotheses, and forming conclusions. Then discovering new info and doing it all over again. I do it because I enjoy it, I love to learn, and I want to leave something here that will help other hobbyists. I also really enjoy assimilating the input from others.
I can say that nothing was dismissed, conveniently or otherwise, I was just doing my best to get to an answer mostly on my own. There's a big difference between someone saying "it's this and here's why" and "I think it's this" with no further explanation. By instinct and by training I put the latter comments to the side. I don't dismiss them, but they must receive a greater level of skepticism as opposed a clear answer with supporting evidence.
One reason I didn't consider the suffix was that, according to the CWC chart, there was no J in the ACw and Cw years. And, yes, I should have sanded all the way across to be sure. My bad.
So I just went out to the garage to sand the rest of the BB and lo and behold there was an ACw lurking over there. So, both my date and the CWC chart are wrong.
Now I would have to say at this point it's a very late 1951 stamping making it an early 1952 model year bike. I would still subscribe to it being a Luxury Liner, unless someone can show me another CWC produced bike from that year that had the straight bar.
I can't track down anything that clearly states when the Luxury Liner was a middleweight and when it was a balloon-tired bike. In fact, I can't find much info about that bike at all, surprisingly. Lots of pics and anecdotes, but not hard data. When I look at the pics they all look balloon to me. I've never seen one in person. I have 26x2.125 tires on it now and, aside from the narrow Huffy fenders it's currently sporting, they fit with room to spare. I know that's not a definitive balloon / middleweight determination, I'm just saying that's what I have here to go on.
More feedback is always welcome.
E=-)
I can say that nothing was dismissed, conveniently or otherwise, I was just doing my best to get to an answer mostly on my own. There's a big difference between someone saying "it's this and here's why" and "I think it's this" with no further explanation. By instinct and by training I put the latter comments to the side. I don't dismiss them, but they must receive a greater level of skepticism as opposed a clear answer with supporting evidence.
One reason I didn't consider the suffix was that, according to the CWC chart, there was no J in the ACw and Cw years. And, yes, I should have sanded all the way across to be sure. My bad.
So I just went out to the garage to sand the rest of the BB and lo and behold there was an ACw lurking over there. So, both my date and the CWC chart are wrong.
Now I would have to say at this point it's a very late 1951 stamping making it an early 1952 model year bike. I would still subscribe to it being a Luxury Liner, unless someone can show me another CWC produced bike from that year that had the straight bar.
I can't track down anything that clearly states when the Luxury Liner was a middleweight and when it was a balloon-tired bike. In fact, I can't find much info about that bike at all, surprisingly. Lots of pics and anecdotes, but not hard data. When I look at the pics they all look balloon to me. I've never seen one in person. I have 26x2.125 tires on it now and, aside from the narrow Huffy fenders it's currently sporting, they fit with room to spare. I know that's not a definitive balloon / middleweight determination, I'm just saying that's what I have here to go on.
More feedback is always welcome.
E=-)