Silver King Monark Coupe DeVille - Year? Help please?

[NBHAA]

also to note, Monark ceased production of bicycle December 31, 1957 when the bicycle production was sold to Huffman, aka Huffy, tooling was relocated to Huffy and production of Monark branded Huffy's started February 1, 1958, according to the general sales manager, R.E. Utz of Huffman Manufacturing at the time.

Hello...

The stories about Monark and Silver King online and in the hobby as it is today are... wow! From this posting it is obvious that someone read the article in the bicycle trades of that era and misunderstood what was really being said. This apparently has been repeated over and over. I sometimes think this press release was intended to not be fully understood. And the post predictably indicates a word-for-word understanding. But this is not exactly what happened at all.

• First: Monark and Silver King were (at least for most of the company's history) two different bicycles, two different brands. Nearly everyone (including people in the industry and literature copywriters) confused (and continues to confuse) or mixes one with the other. Bad idea.

• Monark-Silver King, Inc. continued making bicycles and tricycles after the date given above– no matter what the article, press release, or company letter to dealers might have seemed to say.

• What happened at the end of 1957 was that the Chicago manufacturing division of Monark-Silver King, Inc. shut down and sold their tooling to Huffman. However, what was not said here is that the Western Wheelcraft Division of Monark-Silver King, Inc. in California very well DID continue making bicycles and tricycles. And other juvenile vehicles. A long and complicated story... and yes, that operation also eventually fell to Huffman.

• Serial numbers for Monarks, Silver Kings (MSK), and other brands made by Monark-Silver King are not as this hobby today believes. Yes, some switched over to Huffman numbers when indeed they were produced by Huffman. This became increasingly true as time when on. However... Monarks and Rockets (some of them) had been produced by the Western Wheelcraft Division for years. These bicycles had a completely different numbering system and method for numbering. Even the parts on these bicycles were slightly different– even if they may appear alike in photos and literature. You really need to intimately know which is which in order to identify and date which is which. The serial number guesses online and throughout the hobby are just that: guesses. Even if it doesn't seem that way because somebody, somewhere found a serial number list from one retailer... and it got copied and printed into a serial number guide. And re-copied and re-copied. Things went wild from there.

• The Coupe DeVille model line was not created in 1957. It was created in 1955 and appeared in the 1956 Silver King catalogue. Keep in mind that there was both a 1955 MONARK catalogue and a 1955 Silver King catalogue... no matter how much people today want to mix the two together. Yes, I have both catalogues and the dealer's price list.

• One needs to understand that differences on the actual bicycles were not always shown in literature. Sometimes yes, often no. MSK in particular had a nasty habit of making things one way, but showing them quite another. They used artists's conceptions or re-used photos and art from the previous year– even when changes had taken place. They never envisioned that one day people would be analyzing their bicycles and literature... much less using illustrations to determine years.

Yes, the Coupe DeVille pictured here was shown in the 1959 and 1960 Catalogues. National Bicycle History Archive of America (NBHAA.com) has every Silver King and Monark catalogue (sales and parts) from the beginning up until the Huffman takeover. NBHAA also has Monark catalogues for many of the Huffman/Huffy years. Huffy gave up and officially blended Monartk and Silver King as "Monark Silver King." The most recent of the latter Huffy-made MSK bicycle catalogues I have is 1976, including BMX and 10-speeds. Also have the full dealer's price list for same.

Monark and Silver King bicycle history is a bit different than people today think it is.

Leon Dixon
National Bicycle History Archive of America (NBHAA.com)

 

[Avanti]

Thanks for the ad! I saw a Monark Americana for sale on Ebay a while back and posted it looking for information, without getting much response. If Monark built these, it must have been just at the end of production.

What is this Monark? | Stuff on eBay, Craigslist, Facebook etc.

From what I gather, Huffy bought Monark at the end of 1957, about the same time as Schwinn's patent on the Cantilever frame expired, so Monark never built a cantilever frame. This could be a re-badged Huffy, but it doesn't look like the Huffy frames I'm familiar with. What is this...

thecabe.com

They didn't. It was built by Huffy.

 

[Oilit]

They didn't. It was built by Huffy.

Thank you, I was wondering about that. It doesn't look like the later cantilever Huffys, this design must have been short-lived.

 

[Glassguy1965]

Hello...

The stories about Monark and Silver King online and in the hobby as it is today are... wow! From this posting it is obvious that someone read the article in the bicycle trades of that era and misunderstood what was really being said. This apparently has been repeated over and over. I sometimes think this press release was intended to not be fully understood. And the post predictably indicates a word-for-word understanding. But this is not exactly what happened at all.

• First: Monark and Silver King were (at least for most of the company's history) two different bicycles, two different brands. Nearly everyone (including people in the industry and literature copywriters) confused (and continues to confuse) or mixes one with the other. Bad idea.

• Monark-Silver King, Inc. continued making bicycles and tricycles after the date given above– no matter what the article, press release, or company letter to dealers might have seemed to say.

• What happened at the end of 1957 was that the Chicago manufacturing division of Monark-Silver King, Inc. shut down and sold their tooling to Huffman. However, what was not said here is that the Western Wheelcraft Division of Monark-Silver King, Inc. in California very well DID continue making bicycles and tricycles. And other juvenile vehicles. A long and complicated story... and yes, that operation also eventually fell to Huffman.

• Serial numbers for Monarks, Silver Kings (MSK), and other brands made by Monark-Silver King are not as this hobby today believes. Yes, some switched over to Huffman numbers when indeed they were produced by Huffman. This became increasingly true as time when on. However... Monarks and Rockets (some of them) had been produced by the Western Wheelcraft Division for years. These bicycles had a completely different numbering system and method for numbering. Even the parts on these bicycles were slightly different– even if they may appear alike in photos and literature. You really need to intimately know which is which in order to identify and date which is which. The serial number guesses online and throughout the hobby are just that: guesses. Even if it doesn't seem that way because somebody, somewhere found a serial number list from one retailer... and it got copied and printed into a serial number guide. And re-copied and re-copied. Things went wild from there.

• The Coupe DeVille model line was not created in 1957. It was created in 1955 and appeared in the 1956 Silver King catalogue. Keep in mind that there was both a 1955 MONARK catalogue and a 1955 Silver King catalogue... no matter how much people today want to mix the two together. Yes, I have both catalogues and the dealer's price list.

• One needs to understand that differences on the actual bicycles were not always shown in literature. Sometimes yes, often no. MSK in particular had a nasty habit of making things one way, but showing them quite another. They used artists's conceptions or re-used photos and art from the previous year– even when changes had taken place. They never envisioned that one day people would be analyzing their bicycles and literature... much less using illustrations to determine years.

Yes, the Coupe DeVille pictured here was shown in the 1959 and 1960 Catalogues. National Bicycle History Archive of America (NBHAA.com) has every Silver King and Monark catalogue (sales and parts) from the beginning up until the Huffman takeover. NBHAA also has Monark catalogues for many of the Huffman/Huffy years. Huffy gave up and officially blended Monartk and Silver King as "Monark Silver King." The most recent of the latter Huffy-made MSK bicycle catalogues I have is 1976, including BMX and 10-speeds. Also have the full dealer's price list for same.

Monark and Silver King bicycle history is a bit different than people today think it is.

Leon Dixon
National Bicycle History Archive of America (NBHAA.com)

WoW!! Very interesting information indeed. It's crazy how muddy things were back in the day and how the information is perceived in today's bicycle world. With myself being new to this hobby, everything is so confusing at this point so information like this is extremely helpful. And as you stated, I don't think any of the manufacturers back in the day envisioned the level of depth and exploration of their records as they are from today's hobbyists. Thank you Leon for taking the time to put this out there...valuable information for sure. It looks like the Coupe DeVille that I posted in this thread is pretty rare. So far, I have only seen 2, and many of the veteran hobbyists that I have talked to have never seen one before. I am loving this highly addictive hobby!!

 

[NBHAA]

WoW!! Very interesting information indeed. It's crazy how muddy things were back in the day and how the information is perceived in today's bicycle world. With myself being new to this hobby, everything is so confusing at this point so information like this is extremely helpful. And as you stated, I don't think any of the manufacturers back in the day envisioned the level of depth and exploration of their records as they are from today's hobbyists. Thank you Leon for taking the time to put this out there...valuable information for sure. It looks like the Coupe DeVille that I posted in this thread is pretty rare. So far, I have only seen 2, and many of the veteran hobbyists that I have talked to have never seen one before. I am loving this highly addictive hobby!!

Hello... You are most welcome. And while the Coupe DeVille was not made in huge numbers, there were still quite a few made. This Monark history and the numbers of Coupe DeVilles are not nearly as rare as you may imagine. And "veteran hobbyists" you may have talked to could only have been collecting how long? And know how much actual history? The Coupe DeVille you have just hasn't developed enough fans yet to make it appear as an in-demand top item today. Tons of these have been parted out (I've been on eBay since it started and a LOT of them in parts have been on there) or passed over and left to rot in junkpiles. Parts piranhas find one of these bicycles and almost instantly yank it apart and sell the bits. After all, somebody is almost always willing to buy a tank– even when they don't know what it goes to.

I was the first person collecting and restoring Elgin Bluebirds (1935-1937 version). When I brought my Bluebirds out to show in the 1970s, people turned their noses up at the things. All they wanted or cared about was what a lot of them called "Schwinn "fanthumbs." Years later, when Bluebirds got the seal of approval and were finally declared the "in" thing by this crazy hobby, people were proclaiming incredibly minute numbers existed. One guy who claimed to be an "expert" on Bluebirds (no idea how this happened) told everyone there were only ten ( I had said that years earlier when no one paid attention). Then there were twelve. I personally have owned well over 25 in my life... and pieces for a lot more. Today? Another Bluebird turns up every few months and there are several folks proclaiming expertise on them today. This is how it works.

And Coupe DeVilles such as yours? Believe me, I've seen quite a few of them over the years. So never forget– all vintage American bicycle knowledge is not on the internet. And communal groups of people will likely never guess their way to the actual history of all these bicycles or the companies that made them.

By the way... MSK borrowed the name "Coupe DeVille" from Cadillac automobiles. Coupe DeVille was originally a two-door hardtop very popular in the Cadillac line during the 1950s. MSK borrowed other Cadillac model names like "Eldorado" too!

Like so many other things in our world, once the knowledge is lost, it remains lost. There are people today still trying to guess how to translate some ancient languages... or who actually believe all ancient pyramids were tombs. This is what happens with the human condition. When it came down to the last guy who understood certain languages like Mayan, well ...you know what they did to him, right?

Most of this bicycle history like Monark and Silver King is indeed known– at least to somebody. It is not nearly as muddy as some may imagine today. It only appears this way. But this history and the inside stories are not on the internet or in brochure-Xerox-copy "books." And groups of folks can't guess it together. So? It may seem "muddy"... but it just seems muddy.

I had a relative who got a new Monark Super Deluxe in the 1940s. I fell in love with them then. I also knew an old guy who had a bicycle shop in Detroit that went back to the 1930s and HE was collecting Silver Kings in his basement when I was a kid! He had tons of them still in the 1960s. He taught me a lot. In the 1950s I began saving every paper Item I could find on Monark and Silver King. In the 1970s I interviewed Monark's surviving senior people including the chief engineer of the company. So while everyone in the hobby today doesn't know this stuff on a general basis, it is indeed known history.

Here is more history on Monark that is unknown in the hobby to this day. And I may still have someone gleefully willing to argue over it because they read this or that. Or because their buddy or a Monark "expert" told them otherwise...

 

[Adamtinkerer]

Whenever companies merged or were taken over, the surviving bikes will show how they used up existing stock of parts. Note the jeweled guard on the OP's bike, similar or same as the Monark Holiday models. You also see this on Shelby badged bikes after the AMF buyout, and Evans/Colson transition era bikes.

 

[NBHAA]

Whenever companies merged or were taken over, the surviving bikes will show how they used up existing stock of parts. Note the jeweled guard on the OP's bike, similar or same as the Monark Holiday models. You also see this on Shelby badged bikes after the AMF buyout, and Evans/Colson transition era bikes.

This thinking is an easy-to-conclude belief. It is often professed online today in this bicycle hobby, and in some cases may be partially true. However it was not necessarily the case– especially for Monark >>> Huffy.... and Shelby >>> AMF. I interviewed senior people in those companies back in the 1970s. I asked particular questions about the changeovers.

In both of these acquisitions there was tooling involved. Very expensive tooling... along with design signatures and shapes for components. I can assure you that nobody, but nobody wanted to toss that tooling in dumpsters! Acquiring existing tooling was one of the big bonus benefits of absorbing a manufacturing company. And there were also vendor contracts for companies that sub-contracted certain components. Those contracts did not merely evaporate with the sale or merger. As in the auto industry back in those days, tooling was one of the most expensive aspects of manufacturing. So they were not merely "using up existing stocks of parts" but rather making new ones off of old tooling.

Also consider, in many cases, existing spare parts were already painted, chromed, assembled– as in Monark's "cheese grater" rear carrier. No way were they going to take time and labor to take that carrier back apart and re-paint it then reassemble and re-pack. Also, many of the "existing stock of parts" were already out at distributors, wholesalers and district warehouses (I know, I was still buying them in the 1970s). No way were they going to pack all that stuff back up and send it back to the manufacturer... and then re-finish and re-assemble and re-pack. To do so would have cost a fortune. No. And even on chrome parts like chain guards, there were brackets that usually changed... graphics, etc. Yessss... the Monark plastic crown medallions that the hobby seems to love today (they end up on bicycles and parts where they never were originally) may have been leftover stock. But again that tooling/molds were already long amortized so why not make all they wanted? For as long as they wanted? Why toss this expensive stuff?

Brooks Stevens, who designed the AMF-Shelby bicycles told me many years ago (and yes I still have my correspondence files with Brooks) about Shelby and AMF. He said that AMF basically grafted the rear end of the AMF frames to the front end (seatpost forward) of the Shelby frames. Tanks and carriers tooling was slightly modified and they went forward. They weren't using much existing stock. They were simply making more... that looked similar.

AMF had even planned to have two versions of the fantastic aluminum "Skylark" they called "Bicycle of The Future." One would have been Shelby, the other Roadmaster. I have the original prototype that once sat in AMF's lobby in Cleveland and then Little Rock, Arkansas. I last displayed this prototype aluminum Roadmaster many years ago at the Oakland Museum in Oakland, California. I once owned both original aluminum prototypes but one was stolen many years ago. I have photos of both and original design images in color.

I also have color snapshot photos of Denny Coughlin (Shelby's president) standing on a beach in Florida (after the Shelby/AMF combine) with one of the new hybrid designs. I will attempt to attach a snapshot to show you a modified Roadmaster rear carrier on a hybrid AMF/Shelby frame. And of course I have all of the Shelby catalogues and dealer portfolios for each year (pre- and post-AMF). Likewise have all of the original Cleveland Welding Company, AMF and Roadmaster catalogues from beginning to end.

Regarding Evans-Colson (E-C)... While Evans acquired Colson manufacturing equipment, tooling and some parts (and I know this because I talked with people who accompanied some of the stuff on the way back from Elyria to Detroit), E-C wiped much of the slate clean. Nearly everything Colson was changed in one way or another– no matter how similar it may look in photos and on paper. Even the first carry-over Evanaction cushion forks were so heavily modified that they were not that same as any "existing leftover stock."

I also interviewed people who did the design and tooling work for E-C, so I know this for sure. This is in addition to having ALL Colson and Evans-Colson literature. Including change-over sheets to inform Colson retailers and dealers what would be different.

It is easy to conclude certain things that may have happened with these bicycles and their components, but easy conclusions were rarely what actually happened. Sometimes yes, but more often, no.

I'm attaching Shelby images, Colson images and Evans-Colson images. The Evans-Colson photo I show here was a design prototype that never reached production. The Colson-Packard and Evans-Colson photos were destined for my book that nobody wanted to publish back in the 1970s and 1980s. One company sent me a big rejection letter in 1982 saying they were not interested in doing anything but car books. Then 12 years later the same company went on to publish a very bad imitation of the manuscript I sent them... never mentioning me. And they needed TWO imitators to do it! Huh? A lot of you out there bought that imitation of my book and marveled at the "genius" and wonder of it all... and that's the way it works.

But where else can you see this stuff and get the facts?

 

[Adamtinkerer]

This thinking is an easy-to-conclude belief. It is often professed online today in this bicycle hobby, and in some cases my be partially true. However it was not necessarily the case– especially for Monark >>> Huffy.... and Shelby >>> AMF. I interviewed senior people in those companies back in the 1970s. I asked particular questions about the changeovers.

In both of these acquisitions there was tooling involved. Very expensive tooling... along with design signatures and shapes for components. I can assure you that nobody, but nobody wanted to toss that tooling in dumpsters! Acquiring existing tooling was one of the big bonus benefits of absorbing a manufacturing company. And there were also vendor contracts for companies that sub-contracted certain components. Those contracts did not merely evaporate with the sale or merger. As in the auto industry back in those days, tooling was one of the most expensive aspects of manufacturing. So they were not merely "using up existing stocks of parts" but rather making new ones off of old tooling.

Also consider, in many cases, existing spare parts were already painted, chromed assembled– as in Monark's "cheese grater" rear carrier. No way were they going to take time and labor to take that carrier back apart and re-paint it then reassemble and re-pack. Also, many of the "existing stock of parts" were already out at distributors, wholesalers and district warehouses (I know, I was still buying them in the 1970s). No way were they going to pack all that stuff back up and send it back to the manufacturer... and then re-finish and re-assemble and re-pack. To do so would have cost a fortune. No. And even on chrome parts like chain guards, there were brackets that usually changed... graphics, etc. Yessss... the Monark plastic crown medallions that the hobby seems to love today (they end up on bicycles and parts where they never were originally) may have been leftover stock. But again that tooling/molds were already long amortized so why not make all they wanted? For as long as they wanted? Why toss this expensive stuff?

Brooks Stevens, who designed the AMF-Shelby bicycles told me many years ago (and yes I still have my correspondence files with Brooks) about Shelby and AMF. He said that AMF basically grafted the rear end of the AMF frames to the front end (seatpost forward) of the Shelby frames. Tanks and carriers tooling was slightly modified and they went forward. They weren't using much existing stock. They were simply making more... that looked similar. I also have color snapshot photos of Denny Coughlin (Shelby's president) standing on a beach in Florida (after the Shelby/AMF combine) with one of the new hybrid designs. I will attempt to attach a snapshot to show you a modified Roadmaster rear carrier on a hybrid AMF/Shelby frame. And of course I have all of the Shelby catalogues and dealer portfolios for each year (pre- and post-AMF). Likewise have all of the original Cleveland Welding Company, AMF and Roadmaster catalogues from beginning to end.

Regarding Evans-Colson (E-C)... While Evans acquired Colson manufacturing equipment, tooling and some parts (and I know this because I talked with people who accompanied some of the stuff on the way back from Elyria to Detroit), E-C wiped much of the slate clean. Nearly everything Colson was changed in one way or another– no matter how similar it may look in photos and on paper. Even the first carry-over Evanaction cushion forks were so heavily modified that they were not that same as any "existing leftover stock."

I also interviewed people who did the design and tooling work for E-C, so I know this for sure. This is in addition to having ALL Colson and Evans-Colson literature. Including change-over sheets to inform Colson retailers and dealers what would be different.

It is easy to conclude certain things that may have happened with these bicycles and their components, but easy conclusions were rarely what actually happened. Sometimes yes, but more often, no.

I'm attaching Shelby images, Colson images and Evans-Colson images. The Evans-Colson photo I show here was a design prototype that never reached production. The Colson-Packard and Evans-Colson photos were destined for my book that nobody wanted to publish back in the 1970s and 1980s. One company sent me a big rejection letter in 1982 saying they were not interested in doing anything but car books. Then 12 years later when on to publish a bad imitation of the manuscript I sent them... never mentioning me. Huh?

View attachment 1782008

View attachment 1782009

View attachment 1782010

View attachment 1782011

View attachment 1782012

View attachment 1782013

View attachment 1782023

As a longtime hobbyist, I'm always open to new information! Sometimes, 10+ year old posts resurface, and I have to correct my own comments! In this case, I stand corrected. Your vast knowledge far outweighs anyone else in the hobby! All due respect, especially finding all those people in the pre-digital era!

 

[johneconomos]

Thanks to the wholly under-appreciated (over the years) zeal and rigor of Leon's research and the expanse of his collection, I discovered him (his work that is) 30 years ago when I started to collect and restore Monarks and Silver Kings when he was the man. He is yet, obviously, still the man. And I blame him for inspiring to me to acquire much more than I can reasonably afford to store. Fortunately, at 78 years old, I have just enough saved to keep 30 bikes safe until I expire at 125 (give or take). Yasou, Leon!