email us at: Oldbicycle@aol.com
NBHAA GUIDE TO CORRECTING THE CLASSICS
(NBHAA GTCC) !!
CORRECTIONS TO "EVOLUTION OF THE BICYCLE WITH PRICE GUIDE" (VOLUME #1) FOLLOW...
copyright © Leon Dixon/NBHAA 1999, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013. All rights reserved. CAUTION! WE ARE WATCHING, SO WATCH YOUR CREDIT LINE! THESE CORRECTIONS ARE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. If you use them without getting permission first, you are violating federal copyright laws. No part of these corrections may be republished, excerpted, referred to in print, used in any way unless written permission from the author has been obtained and acknowledgments are made.
Books on special bicycle subjects are always of interest. We bought this one years ago when they first came out. But OMG!!! We were deeply disappointed once we saw the result of this badly flawed "Evolution of The Bicycle" first volume edition.
While we believe that this publisher meant well and was only thinking of doing the hobby a positive service when this work was assembled. However... wow...it just has a lot of rather unforgivable errors. And if we had a dime for every time someone picked a fight with us because "...but it's gotta be right–I saw it in the Evolution books!.." Wow. Bad enough, but this volume also makes the mistake of NOT listing sources for items that indeed have been copied from older publications, but may appear purpose-made for THIS book.
The
"Evolution of The Bicycles With Price Guide"(volume one) has obviously sold very well (who doesn't have one?). But this book is so full of mistakes, chaotic editing, guesses and problems it is hard to know where to begin. One unlabeled page is Sears... the next Montgomery Ward...the next, who knows? Years are mis-labeled. Brands mixed. Dates out of sequence. Original literature is mis-identified as to what year it is (how do you do this?) And then there are the sections where people just sent in names and years and made up whatever "facts and information" they wanted to say–regardless of accuracy–or lack thereof.
Again, our usual test of a good historical book (especially on bicycles) is to open to a random page and begin reading. If we find a mistake on that page, our opinion of the book is lowered. If we find a BAD mistake on that page, our view of the book is lowered even further. We found several BAD mistakes on the very first page we read. Need we say more?
Of course, the excuse is that the book is merely a publication done based on info that was contributed. And contributors obviously were doing some wild-wild guessing here. But even some of the original literature reprinted inside is mis-identified and is often years off. Sad. If you are expecting THIS book to be an accurate history... don't. Allowing people to guess at years and posting this all in a book may make this a politically correct, popular work ... like "people's choice" trophies at car shows, but being popular is not what history is all about. History ought to be accurate to be worthwhile. Otherwise, have fun reading it. But don't take this book as a serious historical work.
However, in the interest of purely constructive corrections of items we noticed in this book, we'll attempt a few points here addressing serious errors. These are things one might seriously want to consider in promoting and referencing this volume. Of course, we would expect acknowledgement on the following corrections...
• Page 12... It is not stated at all here, but the nice bicycle chart you are looking at here was copied from the Island Cycle Catalogue of 1938. Nothing is mentioned of the source.
• Page 42... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 43... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at on the lower left is part of the bicycle section from a Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 43... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at on the lower right is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 46... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 47... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 48... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 49... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 50... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 51... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 52... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 54... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 55 lower half... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at on the LOWER HALF of the page is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 56 upper right quarter... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 56 lower right quarter... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 57 left page half... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 57 right page half... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 58... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 60 upper half... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue. And NOT "1936" as listed, but in fact 1935.
• Page 61 lower right quarter... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 61... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a (YEAR????) Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 62 left half... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 64 lower left quarter... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 65 lower... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue. AND the catalogue was NOT 1937 as stated, but actually 1935!
• Pages 66 through 69... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a 1938 Island Cycle wholesaler's catalogue.
• Page 73... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 75... YEAR????????
• Page 76... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 77... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is a Schwinn catalogue. AND it is from 1941, NOT 1939 as stated. Wow.
• Page 78 upper half... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 78 lower half... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is a Schwinn catalogue. AND it is from 1941, NOT 1939 as stated. Wow.
• Page 81... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 82... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 84... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is a Schwinn catalogue. AND it is from 1940, NO year is stated.
• Page 85... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is a Schwinn catalogue. AND it is from 1940, NO year is stated.
• Page 86 upper half... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is a Schwinn catalogue. AND it is from 1940, NOT 1941 as stated.
• Page 86 lower right quarter... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is a Schwinn catalogue. AND it is from 1940, NOT 1941 as stated.
• Page 96... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 97... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 98... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 99... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Western Auto catalogue.
• Page 100...It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Spiegle catalogue.
• Page 101... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Spiegle catalogue.
• Page 108... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Spiegle catalogue.
• Page 109... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 110... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 111... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 115... It is stated here that this is a "1957 catalog page." However, what you are really looking at is from 1955 ONLY.
• Page 118... It is stated here that this is a "1957 catalog page." However, what you are really looking at is from 1956 ONLY.
• Page 119... It is stated here that this is a "1957 catalog page." However, what you are really looking at is from 1955 ONLY.
• Page 122... It is stated here that this is a "1960s catalog page." A sufficeintly vague guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Schwinns are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1964 only.
• Page 123... It is stated here that this is a "1960s catalog page." A sufficeintly vague guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Western FLyers are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1959 only.
• Page 124... It is stated here that this is a "1960s catalog page." A sufficeintly vague guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Schwinns are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1964 only.
• Page 126... It is stated here that this is a "1960 catalog page." Bad guess, and hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Western Flyers are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1958 only.
• Page 127... It is stated here that this is a "1962 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1959 only. Wow.
• Page 128... It is stated here that this is a "1962 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1959 only. Wow again.
• Page 129... It is stated here that this is a "1962 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1959 only. Wow...again and again.
• Page 131... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 132... It is stated here that this is a "1963 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1965 only. Wow...again and again.
• Page 135... Okay. Now we're getting ridiculous. It is stated here that this is a "1965 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1962 only. Wow...again and again.
• Page 136 upper page half... Okay. We had ridiculous, now we're getting absurd. It is stated here that this is a "1965 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at on the upper half is from 1959 only. Wow...again and again.
• Page 136 lower page half...Okay. We had ridiculous, now we're getting absurd. It is stated here that this is a "1965 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at on the lower half is from 1962 only. Wow...again and again.
FOLKS! PLEASE. HOW CAN WE GET THE DATES THIS FAR WRONG USING ORIGINAL LITERATURE???
• Page 144... It is stated here that this is a "the Editor's Great Grandmother posing in Front Lawn of Ancestral Home..." However, what you are REALLY looking at is a copyrighted Richard Avedon photograph of the great Marilyn Monroe portraying the great Lillian Russell.
• Page 147 (upper left corner)... It is stated here that this is a "Western Flyer Mercury..." However, what you are REALLY looking at is a somewhat customized 1939 (by appearance) Western Flyer Rocket. FOLKS! A Mercury was a Mercury. A Western Flyer BASED on Murray-made parts was still a Western Flyer... and there WERE slight differences. This is a rampant mistake throughout the hobby to call any bicycle with parts from a certain make by the name of that maker's brands, but a bicycle branded Western Flyer is NOT a Mercury.
• Page 147 (lower right corner)... It is stated here that this is a "1950 Schwinn DX..." However the rear carrier is missing and this model did not have a Rocket Ray headlight as pictured.
• Page 148... It is stated here that this is a "Packard Colson 1936 Restored.." However, what you are REALLY looking at is a somewhat customized (by appearance) mid-1930s Packard BUILT BY Colson, not a "Colson." FOLKS! A Packard was a Packard. A Packard BASED on Colson-made parts was still a Packard or say a "Colson-built Packard"... and there WERE slight differences. This is a rampant mistake throughout the hobby to call any bicycle with parts from a certain make by the name of that maker's brands, but a bicycle branded Packard is NOT a Colson. Actually there were many different bicycle companies that made bicycles under the "Packard" name and you can read all about their history by contacting The Packard Club and ask for the back issue of their Packard Cormorant magazine that has the full story of Packard bicycles.
• Page 149 (lower right corner)... It is stated here that this is a "J.C.Higgins 100 1957 Original..." However while is is MOSTLY original, it certainly is not "original"... why? First is is a 1954 model, not 1957. Next, it has the wrong headlight (from 1957-58) and it is missing the complete front turn signal assembly that fit beside and at the base of the headlight...and the wiring for same. Hard to see but the pedals don't look right either. This may be THE most misunderstood J.C. Higgins model EVER. And for those of you who have the much-ballyhooed "J.C.Higgins book" (which is a collection of bad Xerox copies)... the bicycle pictured on page 100 and also listed in the contents as "J.C.Higgins 100" certainly is NOT a "100" at all. But this is the silly stuff that goes on in this hobby!
• Page 150 (upper left corner)... It is stated here that this is a "J.C. Higgins 1951 Columbia..." WHAT???However this model is from 1948 and could hardly be called a "Columbia." By the way, the company that made SOME of these bicycles was Westfield Mfg. Company... not "Columbia." Wow.
• Page 150 (upper right corner)... It is stated here that this is a "1939 Mercury Restored..." Only 2 years off, huh? However this model is from 1937 as shown. This bicycle was designed by Count Alexis de Sakhnoffsky and by 1939 the count was out and a whole new designer (Viktor Schreckengost) and a whole new design was being made. And for anyone arguing this bicycle is 1938... WRONG again... NOT with the horn button!! See our same model in the Oakland Museum Tour on NBHAA.com.
• Page 150 (middle left)... It is stated here that this is a "Hawthorne Rollfast 1949 Restored..." WHAT???However this model is certainly NOT from 1949 (it appears to be 1952-53) and could hardly be called a "Rollfast." By the way, the company that made SOME of these bicycles was the H.P. Snyder Mfg. Company... not "Rollfast." And again, a contract bicycle–especially in the case of this Hawthorne is NOT a model of another brand, nor of anything the company that made it may have marketed. A Hawthorne is a Hawthorne. Period. Wow.
• Page 150 (middle right)... It is stated here that this is a "1948 Hawthorne Restored..." WHAT???However this model is certainly NOT from 1948 (it appears to be 1951-52). And again, a contract bicycle–especially in the case of this Hawthorne is NOT a model of another brand, nor of anything the company that made it may have marketed. A Hawthorne is a Hawthorne. Period. Wow.
• Page 150 (lower right)... It is stated here that this is a "1953 Original Monarch Firestone Holiday..." WHAT???However while this bicycle indeed appears to be 1953 it could hardly be called a "Monarch" since it was made by MONARK and "Monarch" and Monark" were two completely different bicycle brands made by two different bicycle companies. And again, a contract bicycle–especially in the case of this Firestone is NOT a model of another brand, nor of anything the company that made it may have marketed. A Firestone is a Firestone. A Monark is a Monark. Period. By the way... those look like Roadmaster grips on there! Wow.
• Page 151 (middle left)... It is stated here that this is a "1939 Shelby Super Air flow..." However this model was only called "Speedline Airflow" by Shelby.
• Page 151 (middle right)... It is stated here that this is a "1938 wing Bar Monarch Silver King..." However this model was only called "SIlver King Model M137" by Monark (NOT "Monarch"–which was a completely different company. Also the "wingbar" was given to this bicycle by Leon Dixon and while it has stuck over the years, it was not a name used by the company that made it. A 1938 model would have had a different front fender and different chainguard.
• Page 151 (lower left)... It is stated here that this is a "Shelby Air flow 1953 Original..." However this model was only called "Airflo" by Shelby and it is a 1954-55 model, which is VERY different from 1953.
• Page 152 (upper left corner)... It is stated here that this is a "1952 Columbia 5 Star..." However this model is made up like an early 1950s version of this model, but the chainguard design is WAYYYYY older, latest possibility would be 1949 for this design type...and this one looks even earlier (they were used for many years).
• Page 152 (upper right)... It is stated here that this is a "1953 Monarch Super Deluxe..." Wayyyyy wrong. Even if we overlook the multitudinous parts swapping that has gone on here and the repoppadoo decals (originals were NEVER done with decals), as done, the latest it could be is 1951-52. And as we said before, "Monarch" and Monark were two different brands from two different companies. Tsk-tsk!
• Page 153 (upper rightt)... It is stated here that this is a "1939 Sears Elgin Dolly Bike..." However this model is somebody's full custom job and there never was an "Elgin Dolly Bike"...just a fantasy .
• Page 153 (lower left)... It is stated here that this is a "1948 Monark..." Wayyyy off again. However this model as shown could only be a 1952, with some incorrect parts, graphics and colors.
• Page 153 (lower right)... It is stated here that this is a "1948 Monark..." Off again. However this model as shown could only be a 1947, with some incorrect parts. A 1948 model had an entirely different rear carrier, red paint on the headlight and different rear reflector.
• Page 155 (upper left)... It is stated here that this is a "1984 Sherrell Classic..." Wayyyy off again. However this model as shown could only be a 1987. Want to know what kind of silliness such mistaken dates published in books lead to? The almighty Smithsonian in their nice, glossy magazine (see other mentions in NBHAA GTCC) decided to mention the Sherrell. Guess what date THEY published in their write-up? And guess where they got the date? Right out of this book! Heyyyy... it HAD to be right...right? It's in a book!!! And the bicycle hobby oughta know a date for a bicycle THIS NEW...right? RIGHT? WRONG!!!! We knew Dave Sherrell personally and we can assure you there was no such bicycle in 1984. Even the original brochures for the bicycle (YES, NBHAA HAS THEM) clearly state, "INTRODUCED IN 1987" so how does this one get to be 1984... or even the extra-crazy date of 1979 which has also been published by museums and magazines???? HUH? It is unfortunate, but there is rampant ignorance about the facts on this bicycle. And you books, museums and TV shows... SHAME on ya for not learning the facts! One source even went as far as to excuse the ignorance by saying, "well nobody knows any better anyhow!"That's the way. Let's just keep spreading stupidity.
• Page 163 (upper left)... It is stated here that this is a "1934 Silver King Montgomery Ward..." Wayyyy off again. However this model as shown could only be a 1936, with some incorrect parts. And it cannot be BOTH a SIlver King AND be from Montgomery Ward... since being from that store would make it a Hawthorne Duralium, not a Silver King.
WHEW!!!!! CORRECTING THIS BOOK IS A WORKOUT!!! THE LATTER SECTION OF THIS BOOK WITH PHOTOS SUBMITTED CONTAINS A HUGE AMOUNT OF MISINFORMATION. LARGELY BECAUSE THOSE SUBMITTING IT WERE EITHER GUESSING, UNINFORMED OR WERE SUBMITTING PHOTOS OF CUSTOMIZED THINGIES or FRANKENBIKES. ANYWAY, WE'RE TAKING A SECOND BREAK AND WILL CONTINUE AND COMPLETE THE HUGE AMOUNT OF CORRECTIONS SOON. IN THE MEANTIME, WE FIGURED WE WOULD POST THIS MUCH FOR YOU TO ENJOY. SO? ENJOY!ALSO WATCH FOR GTCC CORRECTIONS TO EVO 2 EDITION OF THIS BOOK. WISH WE COULD TELL YOU IT GETS BETTER...BUT IT DOESN'T. BUT? FINE EFFORT ANYWAY.
Happy Correcting and Collecting. Keep checking back for more.
Guide To Correcting The Classics will return in "Evolutions of the Bicycle #2" and auction catalogue MADness- COMING SOON!
We can identify almost any bicycle manufactured in North America between 1920 and 1970. We can also assist with bicycles made prior to this AND after this time. However, our era of specialty is between these dates. Also, since we primarily focus on American-made bicycles our involvement with non-domestic bicycles is limited. In some cases such as Raleigh and certain other imported makes, we do have a good amount of archival material. In other cases, we can advise you where to get information.
Click on the colored letters at right to : Send Email to NBHAA
This page, all design and contents, all photos unless otherwise noted are Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2007, 200, 2010, 2011, 2013 by Leon Dixon/NBHAA, All rights reserved. The information and photos on this website may not be reproduced in any form without expressed written permission of NBHAA or its curator.
Date of last update to this page: DECEMBER, 2013
Back of GTCC Sotheby's #1 Page
Back of GTCC Sotheby's #2 Page
• Page 81... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 82... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 84... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is a Schwinn catalogue. AND it is from 1940, NO year is stated.
• Page 85... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is a Schwinn catalogue. AND it is from 1940, NO year is stated.
• Page 86 upper half... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is a Schwinn catalogue. AND it is from 1940, NOT 1941 as stated.
• Page 86 lower right quarter... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is a Schwinn catalogue. AND it is from 1940, NOT 1941 as stated.
• Page 96... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 97... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 98... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 99... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Western Auto catalogue.
• Page 100...It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Spiegle catalogue.
• Page 101... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Spiegle catalogue.
• Page 108... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Spiegle catalogue.
• Page 109... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 110... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 111... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 115... It is stated here that this is a "1957 catalog page." However, what you are really looking at is from 1955 ONLY.
• Page 118... It is stated here that this is a "1957 catalog page." However, what you are really looking at is from 1956 ONLY.
• Page 119... It is stated here that this is a "1957 catalog page." However, what you are really looking at is from 1955 ONLY.
• Page 122... It is stated here that this is a "1960s catalog page." A sufficeintly vague guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Schwinns are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1964 only.
• Page 123... It is stated here that this is a "1960s catalog page." A sufficeintly vague guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Western FLyers are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1959 only.
• Page 124... It is stated here that this is a "1960s catalog page." A sufficeintly vague guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Schwinns are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1964 only.
• Page 126... It is stated here that this is a "1960 catalog page." Bad guess, and hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Western Flyers are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1958 only.
• Page 127... It is stated here that this is a "1962 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1959 only. Wow.
• Page 128... It is stated here that this is a "1962 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1959 only. Wow again.
• Page 129... It is stated here that this is a "1962 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1959 only. Wow...again and again.
• Page 131... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 132... It is stated here that this is a "1963 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1965 only. Wow...again and again.
• Page 135... Okay. Now we're getting ridiculous. It is stated here that this is a "1965 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1962 only. Wow...again and again.
• Page 136 upper page half... Okay. We had ridiculous, now we're getting absurd. It is stated here that this is a "1965 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at on the upper half is from 1959 only. Wow...again and again.
• Page 136 lower page half...Okay. We had ridiculous, now we're getting absurd. It is stated here that this is a "1965 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at on the lower half is from 1962 only. Wow...again and again.
FOLKS! PLEASE. HOW CAN WE GET THE DATES THIS FAR WRONG USING ORIGINAL LITERATURE???
• Page 144... It is stated here that this is a "the Editor's Great Grandmother posing in Front Lawn of Ancestral Home..." However, what you are REALLY looking at is a copyrighted Richard Avedon photograph of the great Marilyn Monroe portraying the great Lillian Russell.
• Page 147 (upper left corner)... It is stated here that this is a "Western Flyer Mercury..." However, what you are REALLY looking at is a somewhat customized 1939 (by appearance) Western Flyer Rocket. FOLKS! A Mercury was a Mercury. A Western Flyer BASED on Murray-made parts was still a Western Flyer... and there WERE slight differences. This is a rampant mistake throughout the hobby to call any bicycle with parts from a certain make by the name of that maker's brands, but a bicycle branded Western Flyer is NOT a Mercury.
• Page 147 (lower right corner)... It is stated here that this is a "1950 Schwinn DX..." However the rear carrier is missing and this model did not have a Rocket Ray headlight as pictured.
• Page 148... It is stated here that this is a "Packard Colson 1936 Restored.." However, what you are REALLY looking at is a somewhat customized (by appearance) mid-1930s Packard BUILT BY Colson, not a "Colson." FOLKS! A Packard was a Packard. A Packard BASED on Colson-made parts was still a Packard or say a "Colson-built Packard"... and there WERE slight differences. This is a rampant mistake throughout the hobby to call any bicycle with parts from a certain make by the name of that maker's brands, but a bicycle branded Packard is NOT a Colson. Actually there were many different bicycle companies that made bicycles under the "Packard" name and you can read all about their history by contacting The Packard Club and ask for the back issue of their Packard Cormorant magazine that has the full story of Packard bicycles.
• Page 149 (lower right corner)... It is stated here that this is a "J.C.Higgins 100 1957 Original..." However while is is MOSTLY original, it certainly is not "original"... why? First is is a 1954 model, not 1957. Next, it has the wrong headlight (from 1957-58) and it is missing the complete front turn signal assembly that fit beside and at the base of the headlight...and the wiring for same. Hard to see but the pedals don't look right either. This may be THE most misunderstood J.C. Higgins model EVER. And for those of you who have the much-ballyhooed "J.C.Higgins book" (which is a collection of bad Xerox copies)... the bicycle pictured on page 100 and also listed in the contents as "J.C.Higgins 100" certainly is NOT a "100" at all. But this is the silly stuff that goes on in this hobby!
• Page 150 (upper left corner)... It is stated here that this is a "J.C. Higgins 1951 Columbia..." WHAT???However this model is from 1948 and could hardly be called a "Columbia." By the way, the company that made SOME of these bicycles was Westfield Mfg. Company... not "Columbia." Wow.
• Page 150 (upper right corner)... It is stated here that this is a "1939 Mercury Restored..." Only 2 years off, huh? However this model is from 1937 as shown. This bicycle was designed by Count Alexis de Sakhnoffsky and by 1939 the count was out and a whole new designer (Viktor Schreckengost) and a whole new design was being made. And for anyone arguing this bicycle is 1938... WRONG again... NOT with the horn button!! See our same model in the Oakland Museum Tour on NBHAA.com.
• Page 150 (middle left)... It is stated here that this is a "Hawthorne Rollfast 1949 Restored..." WHAT???However this model is certainly NOT from 1949 (it appears to be 1952-53) and could hardly be called a "Rollfast." By the way, the company that made SOME of these bicycles was the H.P. Snyder Mfg. Company... not "Rollfast." And again, a contract bicycle–especially in the case of this Hawthorne is NOT a model of another brand, nor of anything the company that made it may have marketed. A Hawthorne is a Hawthorne. Period. Wow.
• Page 150 (middle right)... It is stated here that this is a "1948 Hawthorne Restored..." WHAT???However this model is certainly NOT from 1948 (it appears to be 1951-52). And again, a contract bicycle–especially in the case of this Hawthorne is NOT a model of another brand, nor of anything the company that made it may have marketed. A Hawthorne is a Hawthorne. Period. Wow.
• Page 150 (lower right)... It is stated here that this is a "1953 Original Monarch Firestone Holiday..." WHAT???However while this bicycle indeed appears to be 1953 it could hardly be called a "Monarch" since it was made by MONARK and "Monarch" and Monark" were two completely different bicycle brands made by two different bicycle companies. And again, a contract bicycle–especially in the case of this Firestone is NOT a model of another brand, nor of anything the company that made it may have marketed. A Firestone is a Firestone. A Monark is a Monark. Period. By the way... those look like Roadmaster grips on there! Wow.
• Page 151 (middle left)... It is stated here that this is a "1939 Shelby Super Air flow..." However this model was only called "Speedline Airflow" by Shelby.
• Page 151 (middle right)... It is stated here that this is a "1938 wing Bar Monarch Silver King..." However this model was only called "SIlver King Model M137" by Monark (NOT "Monarch"–which was a completely different company. Also the "wingbar" was given to this bicycle by Leon Dixon and while it has stuck over the years, it was not a name used by the company that made it. A 1938 model would have had a different front fender and different chainguard.
• Page 151 (lower left)... It is stated here that this is a "Shelby Air flow 1953 Original..." However this model was only called "Airflo" by Shelby and it is a 1954-55 model, which is VERY different from 1953.
• Page 152 (upper left corner)... It is stated here that this is a "1952 Columbia 5 Star..." However this model is made up like an early 1950s version of this model, but the chainguard design is WAYYYYY older, latest possibility would be 1949 for this design type...and this one looks even earlier (they were used for many years).
• Page 152 (upper right)... It is stated here that this is a "1953 Monarch Super Deluxe..." Wayyyyy wrong. Even if we overlook the multitudinous parts swapping that has gone on here and the repoppadoo decals (originals were NEVER done with decals), as done, the latest it could be is 1951-52. And as we said before, "Monarch" and Monark were two different brands from two different companies. Tsk-tsk!
• Page 153 (upper rightt)... It is stated here that this is a "1939 Sears Elgin Dolly Bike..." However this model is somebody's full custom job and there never was an "Elgin Dolly Bike"...just a fantasy .
• Page 153 (lower left)... It is stated here that this is a "1948 Monark..." Wayyyy off again. However this model as shown could only be a 1952, with some incorrect parts, graphics and colors.
• Page 153 (lower right)... It is stated here that this is a "1948 Monark..." Off again. However this model as shown could only be a 1947, with some incorrect parts. A 1948 model had an entirely different rear carrier, red paint on the headlight and different rear reflector.
• Page 155 (upper left)... It is stated here that this is a "1984 Sherrell Classic..." Wayyyy off again. However this model as shown could only be a 1987. Want to know what kind of silliness such mistaken dates published in books lead to? The almighty Smithsonian in their nice, glossy magazine (see other mentions in NBHAA GTCC) decided to mention the Sherrell. Guess what date THEY published in their write-up? And guess where they got the date? Right out of this book! Heyyyy... it HAD to be right...right? It's in a book!!! And the bicycle hobby oughta know a date for a bicycle THIS NEW...right? RIGHT? WRONG!!!! We knew Dave Sherrell personally and we can assure you there was no such bicycle in 1984. Even the original brochures for the bicycle (YES, NBHAA HAS THEM) clearly state, "INTRODUCED IN 1987" so how does this one get to be 1984... or even the extra-crazy date of 1979 which has also been published by museums and magazines???? HUH? It is unfortunate, but there is rampant ignorance about the facts on this bicycle. And you books, museums and TV shows... SHAME on ya for not learning the facts! One source even went as far as to excuse the ignorance by saying, "well nobody knows any better anyhow!"That's the way. Let's just keep spreading stupidity.
• Page 163 (upper left)... It is stated here that this is a "1934 Silver King Montgomery Ward..." Wayyyy off again. However this model as shown could only be a 1936, with some incorrect parts. And it cannot be BOTH a SIlver King AND be from Montgomery Ward... since being from that store would make it a Hawthorne Duralium, not a Silver King.
WHEW!!!!! CORRECTING THIS BOOK IS A WORKOUT!!! THE LATTER SECTION OF THIS BOOK WITH PHOTOS SUBMITTED CONTAINS A HUGE AMOUNT OF MISINFORMATION. LARGELY BECAUSE THOSE SUBMITTING IT WERE EITHER GUESSING, UNINFORMED OR WERE SUBMITTING PHOTOS OF CUSTOMIZED THINGIES or FRANKENBIKES. ANYWAY, WE'RE TAKING A SECOND BREAK AND WILL CONTINUE AND COMPLETE THE HUGE AMOUNT OF CORRECTIONS SOON. IN THE MEANTIME, WE FIGURED WE WOULD POST THIS MUCH FOR YOU TO ENJOY. SO? ENJOY!ALSO WATCH FOR GTCC CORRECTIONS TO EVO 2 EDITION OF THIS BOOK. WISH WE COULD TELL YOU IT GETS BETTER...BUT IT DOESN'T. BUT? FINE EFFORT ANYWAY.
Happy Correcting and Collecting. Keep checking back for more.
Guide To Correcting The Classics will return in "Evolutions of the Bicycle #2" and auction catalogue MADness- COMING SOON!
We can identify almost any bicycle manufactured in North America between 1920 and 1970. We can also assist with bicycles made prior to this AND after this time. However, our era of specialty is between these dates. Also, since we primarily focus on American-made bicycles our involvement with non-domestic bicycles is limited. In some cases such as Raleigh and certain other imported makes, we do have a good amount of archival material. In other cases, we can advise you where to get information.
Click on the colored letters at right to : Send Email to NBHAA
This page, all design and contents, all photos unless otherwise noted are Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2007, 200, 2010, 2011, 2013 by Leon Dixon/NBHAA, All rights reserved. The information and photos on this website may not be reproduced in any form without expressed written permission of NBHAA or its curator.
Date of last update to this page: DECEMBER, 2013
Back of GTCC Sotheby's #1 Page
Back of GTCC Sotheby's #2 Page
• Page 86 upper half... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is a Schwinn catalogue. AND it is from 1940, NOT 1941 as stated.
• Page 86 lower right quarter... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is a Schwinn catalogue. AND it is from 1940, NOT 1941 as stated.
• Page 96... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 97... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 98... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 99... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Western Auto catalogue.
• Page 100...It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Spiegle catalogue.
• Page 101... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Spiegle catalogue.
• Page 108... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Spiegle catalogue.
• Page 109... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 110... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 111... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 115... It is stated here that this is a "1957 catalog page." However, what you are really looking at is from 1955 ONLY.
• Page 118... It is stated here that this is a "1957 catalog page." However, what you are really looking at is from 1956 ONLY.
• Page 119... It is stated here that this is a "1957 catalog page." However, what you are really looking at is from 1955 ONLY.
• Page 122... It is stated here that this is a "1960s catalog page." A sufficeintly vague guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Schwinns are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1964 only.
• Page 123... It is stated here that this is a "1960s catalog page." A sufficeintly vague guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Western FLyers are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1959 only.
• Page 124... It is stated here that this is a "1960s catalog page." A sufficeintly vague guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Schwinns are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1964 only.
• Page 126... It is stated here that this is a "1960 catalog page." Bad guess, and hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Western Flyers are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1958 only.
• Page 127... It is stated here that this is a "1962 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1959 only. Wow.
• Page 128... It is stated here that this is a "1962 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1959 only. Wow again.
• Page 129... It is stated here that this is a "1962 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1959 only. Wow...again and again.
• Page 131... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 132... It is stated here that this is a "1963 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1965 only. Wow...again and again.
• Page 135... Okay. Now we're getting ridiculous. It is stated here that this is a "1965 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1962 only. Wow...again and again.
• Page 136 upper page half... Okay. We had ridiculous, now we're getting absurd. It is stated here that this is a "1965 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at on the upper half is from 1959 only. Wow...again and again.
• Page 136 lower page half...Okay. We had ridiculous, now we're getting absurd. It is stated here that this is a "1965 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at on the lower half is from 1962 only. Wow...again and again.
FOLKS! PLEASE. HOW CAN WE GET THE DATES THIS FAR WRONG USING ORIGINAL LITERATURE???
• Page 144... It is stated here that this is a "the Editor's Great Grandmother posing in Front Lawn of Ancestral Home..." However, what you are REALLY looking at is a copyrighted Richard Avedon photograph of the great Marilyn Monroe portraying the great Lillian Russell.
• Page 147 (upper left corner)... It is stated here that this is a "Western Flyer Mercury..." However, what you are REALLY looking at is a somewhat customized 1939 (by appearance) Western Flyer Rocket. FOLKS! A Mercury was a Mercury. A Western Flyer BASED on Murray-made parts was still a Western Flyer... and there WERE slight differences. This is a rampant mistake throughout the hobby to call any bicycle with parts from a certain make by the name of that maker's brands, but a bicycle branded Western Flyer is NOT a Mercury.
• Page 147 (lower right corner)... It is stated here that this is a "1950 Schwinn DX..." However the rear carrier is missing and this model did not have a Rocket Ray headlight as pictured.
• Page 148... It is stated here that this is a "Packard Colson 1936 Restored.." However, what you are REALLY looking at is a somewhat customized (by appearance) mid-1930s Packard BUILT BY Colson, not a "Colson." FOLKS! A Packard was a Packard. A Packard BASED on Colson-made parts was still a Packard or say a "Colson-built Packard"... and there WERE slight differences. This is a rampant mistake throughout the hobby to call any bicycle with parts from a certain make by the name of that maker's brands, but a bicycle branded Packard is NOT a Colson. Actually there were many different bicycle companies that made bicycles under the "Packard" name and you can read all about their history by contacting The Packard Club and ask for the back issue of their Packard Cormorant magazine that has the full story of Packard bicycles.
• Page 149 (lower right corner)... It is stated here that this is a "J.C.Higgins 100 1957 Original..." However while is is MOSTLY original, it certainly is not "original"... why? First is is a 1954 model, not 1957. Next, it has the wrong headlight (from 1957-58) and it is missing the complete front turn signal assembly that fit beside and at the base of the headlight...and the wiring for same. Hard to see but the pedals don't look right either. This may be THE most misunderstood J.C. Higgins model EVER. And for those of you who have the much-ballyhooed "J.C.Higgins book" (which is a collection of bad Xerox copies)... the bicycle pictured on page 100 and also listed in the contents as "J.C.Higgins 100" certainly is NOT a "100" at all. But this is the silly stuff that goes on in this hobby!
• Page 150 (upper left corner)... It is stated here that this is a "J.C. Higgins 1951 Columbia..." WHAT???However this model is from 1948 and could hardly be called a "Columbia." By the way, the company that made SOME of these bicycles was Westfield Mfg. Company... not "Columbia." Wow.
• Page 150 (upper right corner)... It is stated here that this is a "1939 Mercury Restored..." Only 2 years off, huh? However this model is from 1937 as shown. This bicycle was designed by Count Alexis de Sakhnoffsky and by 1939 the count was out and a whole new designer (Viktor Schreckengost) and a whole new design was being made. And for anyone arguing this bicycle is 1938... WRONG again... NOT with the horn button!! See our same model in the Oakland Museum Tour on NBHAA.com.
• Page 150 (middle left)... It is stated here that this is a "Hawthorne Rollfast 1949 Restored..." WHAT???However this model is certainly NOT from 1949 (it appears to be 1952-53) and could hardly be called a "Rollfast." By the way, the company that made SOME of these bicycles was the H.P. Snyder Mfg. Company... not "Rollfast." And again, a contract bicycle–especially in the case of this Hawthorne is NOT a model of another brand, nor of anything the company that made it may have marketed. A Hawthorne is a Hawthorne. Period. Wow.
• Page 150 (middle right)... It is stated here that this is a "1948 Hawthorne Restored..." WHAT???However this model is certainly NOT from 1948 (it appears to be 1951-52). And again, a contract bicycle–especially in the case of this Hawthorne is NOT a model of another brand, nor of anything the company that made it may have marketed. A Hawthorne is a Hawthorne. Period. Wow.
• Page 150 (lower right)... It is stated here that this is a "1953 Original Monarch Firestone Holiday..." WHAT???However while this bicycle indeed appears to be 1953 it could hardly be called a "Monarch" since it was made by MONARK and "Monarch" and Monark" were two completely different bicycle brands made by two different bicycle companies. And again, a contract bicycle–especially in the case of this Firestone is NOT a model of another brand, nor of anything the company that made it may have marketed. A Firestone is a Firestone. A Monark is a Monark. Period. By the way... those look like Roadmaster grips on there! Wow.
• Page 151 (middle left)... It is stated here that this is a "1939 Shelby Super Air flow..." However this model was only called "Speedline Airflow" by Shelby.
• Page 151 (middle right)... It is stated here that this is a "1938 wing Bar Monarch Silver King..." However this model was only called "SIlver King Model M137" by Monark (NOT "Monarch"–which was a completely different company. Also the "wingbar" was given to this bicycle by Leon Dixon and while it has stuck over the years, it was not a name used by the company that made it. A 1938 model would have had a different front fender and different chainguard.
• Page 151 (lower left)... It is stated here that this is a "Shelby Air flow 1953 Original..." However this model was only called "Airflo" by Shelby and it is a 1954-55 model, which is VERY different from 1953.
• Page 152 (upper left corner)... It is stated here that this is a "1952 Columbia 5 Star..." However this model is made up like an early 1950s version of this model, but the chainguard design is WAYYYYY older, latest possibility would be 1949 for this design type...and this one looks even earlier (they were used for many years).
• Page 152 (upper right)... It is stated here that this is a "1953 Monarch Super Deluxe..." Wayyyyy wrong. Even if we overlook the multitudinous parts swapping that has gone on here and the repoppadoo decals (originals were NEVER done with decals), as done, the latest it could be is 1951-52. And as we said before, "Monarch" and Monark were two different brands from two different companies. Tsk-tsk!
• Page 153 (upper rightt)... It is stated here that this is a "1939 Sears Elgin Dolly Bike..." However this model is somebody's full custom job and there never was an "Elgin Dolly Bike"...just a fantasy .
• Page 153 (lower left)... It is stated here that this is a "1948 Monark..." Wayyyy off again. However this model as shown could only be a 1952, with some incorrect parts, graphics and colors.
• Page 153 (lower right)... It is stated here that this is a "1948 Monark..." Off again. However this model as shown could only be a 1947, with some incorrect parts. A 1948 model had an entirely different rear carrier, red paint on the headlight and different rear reflector.
• Page 155 (upper left)... It is stated here that this is a "1984 Sherrell Classic..." Wayyyy off again. However this model as shown could only be a 1987. Want to know what kind of silliness such mistaken dates published in books lead to? The almighty Smithsonian in their nice, glossy magazine (see other mentions in NBHAA GTCC) decided to mention the Sherrell. Guess what date THEY published in their write-up? And guess where they got the date? Right out of this book! Heyyyy... it HAD to be right...right? It's in a book!!! And the bicycle hobby oughta know a date for a bicycle THIS NEW...right? RIGHT? WRONG!!!! We knew Dave Sherrell personally and we can assure you there was no such bicycle in 1984. Even the original brochures for the bicycle (YES, NBHAA HAS THEM) clearly state, "INTRODUCED IN 1987" so how does this one get to be 1984... or even the extra-crazy date of 1979 which has also been published by museums and magazines???? HUH? It is unfortunate, but there is rampant ignorance about the facts on this bicycle. And you books, museums and TV shows... SHAME on ya for not learning the facts! One source even went as far as to excuse the ignorance by saying, "well nobody knows any better anyhow!"That's the way. Let's just keep spreading stupidity.
• Page 163 (upper left)... It is stated here that this is a "1934 Silver King Montgomery Ward..." Wayyyy off again. However this model as shown could only be a 1936, with some incorrect parts. And it cannot be BOTH a SIlver King AND be from Montgomery Ward... since being from that store would make it a Hawthorne Duralium, not a Silver King.
WHEW!!!!! CORRECTING THIS BOOK IS A WORKOUT!!! THE LATTER SECTION OF THIS BOOK WITH PHOTOS SUBMITTED CONTAINS A HUGE AMOUNT OF MISINFORMATION. LARGELY BECAUSE THOSE SUBMITTING IT WERE EITHER GUESSING, UNINFORMED OR WERE SUBMITTING PHOTOS OF CUSTOMIZED THINGIES or FRANKENBIKES. ANYWAY, WE'RE TAKING A SECOND BREAK AND WILL CONTINUE AND COMPLETE THE HUGE AMOUNT OF CORRECTIONS SOON. IN THE MEANTIME, WE FIGURED WE WOULD POST THIS MUCH FOR YOU TO ENJOY. SO? ENJOY!ALSO WATCH FOR GTCC CORRECTIONS TO EVO 2 EDITION OF THIS BOOK. WISH WE COULD TELL YOU IT GETS BETTER...BUT IT DOESN'T. BUT? FINE EFFORT ANYWAY.
Happy Correcting and Collecting. Keep checking back for more.
Guide To Correcting The Classics will return in "Evolutions of the Bicycle #2" and auction catalogue MADness- COMING SOON!
We can identify almost any bicycle manufactured in North America between 1920 and 1970. We can also assist with bicycles made prior to this AND after this time. However, our era of specialty is between these dates. Also, since we primarily focus on American-made bicycles our involvement with non-domestic bicycles is limited. In some cases such as Raleigh and certain other imported makes, we do have a good amount of archival material. In other cases, we can advise you where to get information.
Click on the colored letters at right to : Send Email to NBHAA
This page, all design and contents, all photos unless otherwise noted are Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2007, 200, 2010, 2011, 2013 by Leon Dixon/NBHAA, All rights reserved. The information and photos on this website may not be reproduced in any form without expressed written permission of NBHAA or its curator.
Date of last update to this page: DECEMBER, 2013
Back of GTCC Sotheby's #1 Page
Back of GTCC Sotheby's #2 Page
• Page 96... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 97... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 98... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 99... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Western Auto catalogue.
• Page 100...It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Spiegle catalogue.
• Page 101... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Spiegle catalogue.
• Page 108... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Spiegle catalogue.
• Page 109... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 110... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 111... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Montgomery-Ward catalogue.
• Page 115... It is stated here that this is a "1957 catalog page." However, what you are really looking at is from 1955 ONLY.
• Page 118... It is stated here that this is a "1957 catalog page." However, what you are really looking at is from 1956 ONLY.
• Page 119... It is stated here that this is a "1957 catalog page." However, what you are really looking at is from 1955 ONLY.
• Page 122... It is stated here that this is a "1960s catalog page." A sufficeintly vague guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Schwinns are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1964 only.
• Page 123... It is stated here that this is a "1960s catalog page." A sufficeintly vague guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Western FLyers are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1959 only.
• Page 124... It is stated here that this is a "1960s catalog page." A sufficeintly vague guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Schwinns are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1964 only.
• Page 126... It is stated here that this is a "1960 catalog page." Bad guess, and hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Western Flyers are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1958 only.
• Page 127... It is stated here that this is a "1962 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1959 only. Wow.
• Page 128... It is stated here that this is a "1962 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1959 only. Wow again.
• Page 129... It is stated here that this is a "1962 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1959 only. Wow...again and again.
• Page 131... It is not stated at all here, but what you are looking at is part of the bicycle section from a Sears catalogue.
• Page 132... It is stated here that this is a "1963 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1965 only. Wow...again and again.
• Page 135... Okay. Now we're getting ridiculous. It is stated here that this is a "1965 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at is from 1962 only. Wow...again and again.
• Page 136 upper page half... Okay. We had ridiculous, now we're getting absurd. It is stated here that this is a "1965 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at on the upper half is from 1959 only. Wow...again and again.
• Page 136 lower page half...Okay. We had ridiculous, now we're getting absurd. It is stated here that this is a "1965 catalog page." Another BAD guess, but hardly worthy of a bicycle history book–especially when Roadmasters are SO easy to date! However, what you are really looking at on the lower half is from 1962 only. Wow...again and again.
FOLKS! PLEASE. HOW CAN WE GET THE DATES THIS FAR WRONG USING ORIGINAL LITERATURE???• Page 144... It is stated here that this is a "the Editor's Great Grandmother posing in Front Lawn of Ancestral Home..." However, what you are REALLY looking at is a copyrighted Richard Avedon photograph of the great Marilyn Monroe portraying the great Lillian Russell.
• Page 147 (upper left corner)... It is stated here that this is a "Western Flyer Mercury..." However, what you are REALLY looking at is a somewhat customized 1939 (by appearance) Western Flyer Rocket. FOLKS! A Mercury was a Mercury. A Western Flyer BASED on Murray-made parts was still a Western Flyer... and there WERE slight differences. This is a rampant mistake throughout the hobby to call any bicycle with parts from a certain make by the name of that maker's brands, but a bicycle branded Western Flyer is NOT a Mercury.
• Page 147 (lower right corner)... It is stated here that this is a "1950 Schwinn DX..." However the rear carrier is missing and this model did not have a Rocket Ray headlight as pictured.
• Page 148... It is stated here that this is a "Packard Colson 1936 Restored.." However, what you are REALLY looking at is a somewhat customized (by appearance) mid-1930s Packard BUILT BY Colson, not a "Colson." FOLKS! A Packard was a Packard. A Packard BASED on Colson-made parts was still a Packard or say a "Colson-built Packard"... and there WERE slight differences. This is a rampant mistake throughout the hobby to call any bicycle with parts from a certain make by the name of that maker's brands, but a bicycle branded Packard is NOT a Colson. Actually there were many different bicycle companies that made bicycles under the "Packard" name and you can read all about their history by contacting The Packard Club and ask for the back issue of their Packard Cormorant magazine that has the full story of Packard bicycles.
• Page 149 (lower right corner)... It is stated here that this is a "J.C.Higgins 100 1957 Original..." However while is is MOSTLY original, it certainly is not "original"... why? First is is a 1954 model, not 1957. Next, it has the wrong headlight (from 1957-58) and it is missing the complete front turn signal assembly that fit beside and at the base of the headlight...and the wiring for same. Hard to see but the pedals don't look right either. This may be THE most misunderstood J.C. Higgins model EVER. And for those of you who have the much-ballyhooed "J.C.Higgins book" (which is a collection of bad Xerox copies)... the bicycle pictured on page 100 and also listed in the contents as "J.C.Higgins 100" certainly is NOT a "100" at all. But this is the silly stuff that goes on in this hobby!
• Page 150 (upper left corner)... It is stated here that this is a "J.C. Higgins 1951 Columbia..." WHAT???However this model is from 1948 and could hardly be called a "Columbia." By the way, the company that made SOME of these bicycles was Westfield Mfg. Company... not "Columbia." Wow.
• Page 150 (upper right corner)... It is stated here that this is a "1939 Mercury Restored..." Only 2 years off, huh? However this model is from 1937 as shown. This bicycle was designed by Count Alexis de Sakhnoffsky and by 1939 the count was out and a whole new designer (Viktor Schreckengost) and a whole new design was being made. And for anyone arguing this bicycle is 1938... WRONG again... NOT with the horn button!! See our same model in the Oakland Museum Tour on NBHAA.com.
• Page 150 (middle left)... It is stated here that this is a "Hawthorne Rollfast 1949 Restored..." WHAT???However this model is certainly NOT from 1949 (it appears to be 1952-53) and could hardly be called a "Rollfast." By the way, the company that made SOME of these bicycles was the H.P. Snyder Mfg. Company... not "Rollfast." And again, a contract bicycle–especially in the case of this Hawthorne is NOT a model of another brand, nor of anything the company that made it may have marketed. A Hawthorne is a Hawthorne. Period. Wow.
• Page 150 (middle right)... It is stated here that this is a "1948 Hawthorne Restored..." WHAT???However this model is certainly NOT from 1948 (it appears to be 1951-52). And again, a contract bicycle–especially in the case of this Hawthorne is NOT a model of another brand, nor of anything the company that made it may have marketed. A Hawthorne is a Hawthorne. Period. Wow.
• Page 150 (lower right)... It is stated here that this is a "1953 Original Monarch Firestone Holiday..." WHAT???However while this bicycle indeed appears to be 1953 it could hardly be called a "Monarch" since it was made by MONARK and "Monarch" and Monark" were two completely different bicycle brands made by two different bicycle companies. And again, a contract bicycle–especially in the case of this Firestone is NOT a model of another brand, nor of anything the company that made it may have marketed. A Firestone is a Firestone. A Monark is a Monark. Period. By the way... those look like Roadmaster grips on there! Wow.
• Page 151 (middle left)... It is stated here that this is a "1939 Shelby Super Air flow..." However this model was only called "Speedline Airflow" by Shelby.
• Page 151 (middle right)... It is stated here that this is a "1938 wing Bar Monarch Silver King..." However this model was only called "SIlver King Model M137" by Monark (NOT "Monarch"–which was a completely different company. Also the "wingbar" was given to this bicycle by Leon Dixon and while it has stuck over the years, it was not a name used by the company that made it. A 1938 model would have had a different front fender and different chainguard.
• Page 151 (lower left)... It is stated here that this is a "Shelby Air flow 1953 Original..." However this model was only called "Airflo" by Shelby and it is a 1954-55 model, which is VERY different from 1953.
• Page 152 (upper left corner)... It is stated here that this is a "1952 Columbia 5 Star..." However this model is made up like an early 1950s version of this model, but the chainguard design is WAYYYYY older, latest possibility would be 1949 for this design type...and this one looks even earlier (they were used for many years).
• Page 152 (upper right)... It is stated here that this is a "1953 Monarch Super Deluxe..." Wayyyyy wrong. Even if we overlook the multitudinous parts swapping that has gone on here and the repoppadoo decals (originals were NEVER done with decals), as done, the latest it could be is 1951-52. And as we said before, "Monarch" and Monark were two different brands from two different companies. Tsk-tsk!
• Page 153 (upper rightt)... It is stated here that this is a "1939 Sears Elgin Dolly Bike..." However this model is somebody's full custom job and there never was an "Elgin Dolly Bike"...just a fantasy .
• Page 153 (lower left)... It is stated here that this is a "1948 Monark..." Wayyyy off again. However this model as shown could only be a 1952, with some incorrect parts, graphics and colors.
• Page 153 (lower right)... It is stated here that this is a "1948 Monark..." Off again. However this model as shown could only be a 1947, with some incorrect parts. A 1948 model had an entirely different rear carrier, red paint on the headlight and different rear reflector.
• Page 155 (upper left)... It is stated here that this is a "1984 Sherrell Classic..." Wayyyy off again. However this model as shown could only be a 1987. Want to know what kind of silliness such mistaken dates published in books lead to? The almighty Smithsonian in their nice, glossy magazine (see other mentions in NBHAA GTCC) decided to mention the Sherrell. Guess what date THEY published in their write-up? And guess where they got the date? Right out of this book! Heyyyy... it HAD to be right...right? It's in a book!!! And the bicycle hobby oughta know a date for a bicycle THIS NEW...right? RIGHT? WRONG!!!! We knew Dave Sherrell personally and we can assure you there was no such bicycle in 1984. Even the original brochures for the bicycle (YES, NBHAA HAS THEM) clearly state, "INTRODUCED IN 1987" so how does this one get to be 1984... or even the extra-crazy date of 1979 which has also been published by museums and magazines???? HUH? It is unfortunate, but there is rampant ignorance about the facts on this bicycle. And you books, museums and TV shows... SHAME on ya for not learning the facts! One source even went as far as to excuse the ignorance by saying, "well nobody knows any better anyhow!"That's the way. Let's just keep spreading stupidity.
• Page 163 (upper left)... It is stated here that this is a "1934 Silver King Montgomery Ward..." Wayyyy off again. However this model as shown could only be a 1936, with some incorrect parts. And it cannot be BOTH a SIlver King AND be from Montgomery Ward... since being from that store would make it a Hawthorne Duralium, not a Silver King.
WHEW!!!!! CORRECTING THIS BOOK IS A WORKOUT!!! THE LATTER SECTION OF THIS BOOK WITH PHOTOS SUBMITTED CONTAINS A HUGE AMOUNT OF MISINFORMATION. LARGELY BECAUSE THOSE SUBMITTING IT WERE EITHER GUESSING, UNINFORMED OR WERE SUBMITTING PHOTOS OF CUSTOMIZED THINGIES or FRANKENBIKES. ANYWAY, WE'RE TAKING A SECOND BREAK AND WILL CONTINUE AND COMPLETE THE HUGE AMOUNT OF CORRECTIONS SOON. IN THE MEANTIME, WE FIGURED WE WOULD POST THIS MUCH FOR YOU TO ENJOY. SO? ENJOY!ALSO WATCH FOR GTCC CORRECTIONS TO EVO 2 EDITION OF THIS BOOK. WISH WE COULD TELL YOU IT GETS BETTER...BUT IT DOESN'T. BUT? FINE EFFORT ANYWAY.
Happy Correcting and Collecting. Keep checking back for more.
Guide To Correcting The Classics will return in "Evolutions of the Bicycle #2" and auction catalogue MADness- COMING SOON!
We can identify almost any bicycle manufactured in North America between 1920 and 1970. We can also assist with bicycles made prior to this AND after this time. However, our era of specialty is between these dates. Also, since we primarily focus on American-made bicycles our involvement with non-domestic bicycles is limited. In some cases such as Raleigh and certain other imported makes, we do have a good amount of archival material. In other cases, we can advise you where to get information.
Click on the colored letters at right to : Send Email to NBHAA
This page, all design and contents, all photos unless otherwise noted are Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2007, 200, 2010, 2011, 2013 by Leon Dixon/NBHAA, All rights reserved. The information and photos on this website may not be reproduced in any form without expressed written permission of NBHAA or its curator.
Date of last update to this page: DECEMBER, 2013
Back of GTCC Sotheby's #1 Page
Back of GTCC Sotheby's #2 Page