Dubious VIN

Identifaction of VIN, case numbers and cylinder heads
Post Reply
panhead
Site Admin
Posts: 2549
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2001 9:17 pm
Bikes: 1954 FL
Location: Holland
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Dubious VIN

#1

Post by panhead » Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:26 pm

Another dubious VIN, 50FL0312 (on eBay):
50FL0312.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



caschnd1
Posts: 606
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:45 pm
Bikes: 1949 FL Chopper
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Dubious VIN

#2

Post by caschnd1 » Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:29 pm

panhead wrote:Another dubious VIN, 50FL0312 (on eBay):
50FL0312.jpg
Wow... amazing the ignorance of people who do these number jobs. Not only the wrong stamps but you never had set of number after the FL < 1001 (or 1000).

RUBONE
Moderator
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:09 am
Bikes: Multiple H-D, Ducati, BMW, Triumph, BSA,...
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 498 times

Re: Dubious VIN

#3

Post by RUBONE » Sat Apr 09, 2011 10:02 pm

The sad part is, is that some other fool will buy it!
Robbie

BCOWANWHEELS
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:05 am
Bikes: 1959 PAN CHOPPER
Location: TENNESSEE
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Dubious VIN

#4

Post by BCOWANWHEELS » Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:29 am

COULDNT THIS BE REPLACEMENT H/D CASE THEN STAMPED WITH THE CORRECT INFO ?

RUBONE
Moderator
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:09 am
Bikes: Multiple H-D, Ducati, BMW, Triumph, BSA,...
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 498 times

Re: Dubious VIN

#5

Post by RUBONE » Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:03 am

COULDNT THIS BE REPLACEMENT H/D CASE THEN STAMPED WITH THE CORRECT INFO ?
Factory replacement cases don't have grinder marks on them! And no H-D number starts with a zero. So no, it couldn't be!
Robbie

norush
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 1:41 pm
Location: Schuylkill Haven, PA

Re: Dubious VIN

#6

Post by norush » Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:55 am

The first digit of the VIN should be an odd number for an even year date of manufacture.

RUBONE
Moderator
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:09 am
Bikes: Multiple H-D, Ducati, BMW, Triumph, BSA,...
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 498 times

Re: Dubious VIN

#7

Post by RUBONE » Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:30 pm

The first digit of the VIN should be an odd number for an even year date of manufacture.
Not in 1950. You are confusing your rules, that did not start until ten years later! But the lowest digit used was a 1.
Robbie

Speeding Big Twin
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:29 am
Bikes: H-D
Location: Western Australia
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Dubious VIN

#8

Post by Speeding Big Twin » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:49 am

norush wrote:The first digit of the VIN should be an odd number for an even year date of manufacture.
norush, as indicated above:
No general production H-D Panhead serial number sequence portion begins with the number 0.
For 1950, the first Panhead was number 1000.
The even-odd code began with the 1960 models.

You stated: "The first digit of the VIN should be an odd number for an even year date of manufacture."

However, using the 1960-69 even-odd code, your statement could only apply when there are FIVE characters in the sequence portion—for example, 60FL10123. And it could only be number 1 in that first position, nothing higher.

Your statement could apply to an example such as 60FL11234 but then it would be a problem because that serial number does NOT comply with the even-odd code because the first two sequence characters (11), when read as one number, constitute an odd number instead of constituting an even number such as 10.

And when there are FOUR characters in the sequence portion of an even year serial number which comes under the CODE YEARS then the FIRST of those four characters should be even, NOT odd—for example, 60FL2345. If it was something like 60FL1234 then it would be considered suspect because that serial number does NOT comply with the 1960-69 even-odd code.

Please state where your information is from. A book? Web site? Other? Eric

norush
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 1:41 pm
Location: Schuylkill Haven, PA

Re: Dubious VIN

#9

Post by norush » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:11 pm

Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways! The info I provided was an assumption based on the VIN of my '62. (62FLH10177) I wasn't aware the numbering system changed in 1960 although I did know no VIN's began with 0...

Post Reply

Return to “VIN / Cases / Heads”