Help ID'ing a frame (again) =-)

[PLERR]

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=-)

 

[mrg]

I don't know about the #'s but that looks like a late 50's middleweight upper rear fender bridge, fits those skinny MW peaked fenders.

 

[Freqman1]

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=-)

View attachment 1476350

The ACW definitely changes the game. This appears to be late 1951 serial and I would expect to see a year if it were later than '52. I do agree with Mark though that there are a lot of indications that this is later. A look at the seat binder would be helpful. V/r Shawn

 

[PLERR]

Inside-to-inside dimension between the chain stays at the face of the rim is 3 3/8", at the seat stays it's 3 1/4".

Also included a pic of the kick stand attachment.

I'll have to remove the rack for at better seat binder pic. I have to run out now. If better pics are needed I can supply those later today.

Thanks all.

E=-)

 

[Archie Sturmer]

I live by the scientific method,
… unless someone can show me another CWC produced bike from that year that had the straight bar.

Not quite the scientific method (follows), but one may perform a search for 1951+CWC and perhaps see examples of CWC tall tank or straight tube models with various head badges, besides AMF/CWC Road Master.

And one may also find much similarity to bicycles a year or two or three earlier or later than 1951; (i.e., not many changes).

One might then find examples of other models, such as MW Hawthorne, WA Western Flyer, JM Fleet Wing, WB Speed King, and perhaps more.

I would encourage members to perform more research, (even the scientist ones).

The peculiar chain ring sprocket with 3-arms and 3-holes might be a defining characteristic, (unless it was swapped).

 

[PLERR]

...

E=-D

 

[mrg]

Later style upper fender bridge, seat clamp & the lower kickstand/fender bracket takes the sharper peeked MW fenders so still don't know about those #'s.