Headlamp identification

That is definitely not a headlight that Norton ever put on one of it's bikes, and in this day and age when it is so easy to find photographs of Norton motorcycles, I don't know how anyone would ever think that it could be.

Nice one Ben, up to your usual standard. An arrogant, belittling, reply. Just the thing to encourage new members!

It looks like a late BSA one to me, possibly BSA Lightning or suchlike. Not Norton anyway. Gordon.

Previously wrote:

Nice one Ben, up to your usual standard. An arrogant, belittling, reply. Just the thing to encourage new members!

Spot on John, I've felt the same about this guy for a couple of years after having been subject to one of his rantings, though I had to smile when a few months later he got it completely wrong with his details of the 'ss' models, saying that 'none of these models were fitted with a particular part' (can't remember which part) when in fact all 'ss' models had it fitted. He was immediately corrected in a very pleasant manner by another member, and he replied stating that it was a 'typo error' (his words), but it sounds more like an operator error to me.

I don't wish to be accused of hijacking this thread so I've attached a picture of the headlamp of my 1959 '88' and I believe that these were used for most of the featherbed models,

Rob.

The headlight for a 1964 model probably wouldn't have a speedo in it - I may be wrong. And if I am, I am sure that Ben will point it out to me in the nicest possible manner as always...

Previously wrote:

Please can someone identify the headlamp I have attached . I think it is off a 650SS, and I think a 1964. Am I right on both counts?

Thanks Mick

Hi Mick,

please don't judge all Americans by Ben Gradler, most of us are quite nice & very willing to help without the degrading.

I have seen that headlamp before, there were called Lucas "flatback" headlamps, some were plain like yours, some had 3 holes drilled in the top for warning lights. They were used on A65,A70,R3 BSA bikes as well as T120,TR6, T150 Triumphs.

They had a big rubber piece on the back where the wires came through . Yje Lucas headlamp type was MCH69.

You can find them on eBay all the time, perhaps you can sell it & use the funds to apply to get the correct shell?

Good luck to you,

Skip Brolund

Previously wrote:

Please can someone identify the headlamp I have attached . I think it is off a 650SS, and I think a 1964. Am I right on both counts?

Thanks Mick

Hi Mick,

I used that photo because it was better than the photo i have of a friend's 1964 650ss (see attachment) which shows the same type headlamp, the switches being later versions. An optional rev counter if required was mounted on the to of the right-hand fork leg (didn't look very tidy but that was how it was),

Regards, Rob.

ps. I hope that this reply is posted this time and not a copy of my previous posting.

The speedo was outside the shell on the earliest 1950's bikes - (those with the pilot light underneath) - and on the late 1960's bikes from maybe about 1967. But the majority of the Dommies have the speedo in the four-hole shell - with matching holes for light switch upper left, ammeter upper right, and small hole for Lucas badge top centre.

The light in Michael's picture might well have come off a 650ss but I'm fairly certain Norton didn't put in on in the first place. The correct shells aren't easy to find - like most tinware.

Howdy Chris !! Good to have you back, sorry I didn't make it to the rally to see you, as it was the same weekend as another M/C event

I found a pic of the MCH61, which is what my book says you should have:

http://www.vintage-motorcycle.com/index.php?language=en&site=4&pid=250&id=15909&limit=0

I am not sure if yours should be chrome or painted though?

Skip Brolund

Well spotted Skip! The hole in front of the speedometer hole looks unfamiliar though - I would have expected one for an ammeter and one for a light switch. Who knows? Gordon.

Skip - looks like Commando not Dommie. Dommies had two, 2 inch holes side by side as well as the speedo hole, and didn't have funny little lights (unless maybe the final few did when they overlapped with early Commando - Mercury perhaps?)

Previously wrote:

Please can someone identify the headlamp I have attached . I think it is off a 650SS, and I think a 1964. Am I right on both counts?

Thanks Mick

Hi Mick,

I've attached another pic of the 1964 '650ss' front end of my friend's bike. He bought it early in 1965 (as a previous year's model, ie 1964) and the picture was taken sometime during 1966. The machine was purchased from a dealer in London (Tottenham Court road) and remained unaltered while he owned it. The headlamp is clearly the same as that on my bike with the exception of the headlamp switch which would probably be a later version Lucas item. It is painted black (chrome plating may have been an option), and the bezel on the ammeter looks a little wider than that on my bike. If you are intending to renovate your bike to 1964 factory spec you could do no better than closely examine this pic of a bog-standard 1964 '650ss' taken about 12 months after purchase. Also, if this bike is still around maybe someone could post a pic or other details as the first owner would love to know what happened to it,

Regards, Rob.

Regular Commandos never came with a flat-back headlamp they had a regular bullet type. Rocket III bikes and other's did though.

U.K. SS bikes used the headlamp buckets with the speedo integrated a year or two later than U.S. spec bikes did. After the Chronometrics went away during 1963, A shell was used with a grey-face stuck in it, but minus the plastic Lucas Lion medallion in front of the speedo. The speedo and tach sitting up proud into the wind was part of the American influenced styling along with high-rise bars, small tanks etc. that a lot of British bikes got in the 60s.

Assumption is not worth anything a half a century later, I bought a matching #s SS bike with the wrong headlight on it before, it is a vulnerable part that is easily bent up or smashed of course.

The absolute worst place for you to get information is on internet forums like this(or Ebay LOL). Incredible damage has been done to the history of Norton motorcycles, and many hours of people's time has been wasted because simply throwing in two cents and their ego seems to be more important to forum members and take precedence over offering any real facts.

The very best advice anyone can get on this or any British Bike forum is to look here dead last for information. Anyone restoring an old Norton should always look for factory parts books and manuals first, period brochures and periodicals secondly, and thirdly well-known books on the subject written with the the help of old Norton employees. There is no information from any source that does not have to be cross-checked in at least against at least two other sources.

Absolutely right Ben. There is one tiny caveat I would like to add however. There are some of us out there who just ride the things and aren't too fussed about perfect restorations. This is where the forum can be helpful. However, I am with you all the way when it comes to getting things right. Go to the primary source first. Always best. Gordon.

If I am interested in preserving the history and information of Norton motorcycles, then logically I would take a look at the place where the most damage is done to it right?

If as you state "the best place for information is factory publications, photographs etc. then what is puzzling to me is how little time you must have put into looking into them to answer such a very simple question about your bike, which is not particularly old or hard to find information on.

I don't mind spending my time on someone who is willing to spend theirs and is serious about it, but I certainly will not do much for someone who is not willing to fall off a log to find the simplest information on their bike.

Also in this day and age there is much abuse of forums like this on the part of know-nothing investors and Ebayers looking for a free appraisal service, which I am not a fan of.

Page 127 of Roy Bacon's Norton Twin Restoration book backs me up with a period photo of a 64' 650ss, and on an earlier page there is a period photo of a 66' 88ss with the speedo in the headlight shell. As I said before at this point in time the headlight shell would have a grey-face speedo in it, and it would NOT have the Lucas Lion plastic medallion nor the hole for it. This was the AMC era and I think some Matchless AMC models had a very similar shell. Bacon's book also shows enough photographs of the later bikes with the high-rise handlebars and the tach and speedo sitting up away from the headlamp on a separate bracket, which has a light switch in between the two.

If I was putting together a SS Norton from 1966 and earlier and was a resident of the U.K. I would make the effort to put it together with the speedo in a headlight shell, as I think it is the most correct and common setup supplied in that market, and even if I was in the USA I would think about it also as it makes the bikes look better and more classic than what I consider compromises made on most of the USA bikes to suit styling trends they had that did not really suit the bikes.

Hi Mick, Ben is enthusiastic (and knowledgable) to the point of obsession about Nortons, though perhaps not quite so hot on tact and diplomacy. If you can ignore the rants, he has a lot to offer. I too have been at the receiving end of his criticism. Best to just shrug it off as you have done. This forum does have a lot to offer and I hope people are not too put off. We all love our Nortons and they are great to ride (well, most of the time). I suspect Ben would be horrified at mine which, though all Norton, doesn't bear any resemblance to the red and white deluxe 99 it once was. But that's how I like it. Best of luck with yours and I hope you can pick up the correct headlight shell. Gordon.

I agree with other posters, that it's more the way Ben puts forward his opinions and statements of fact, than i't s the actual content, which I find very enlightening and informed. Ben seems to base all his input on the fact that other people are either freeloaders or ignorants. It is this black and white view on the world, and the very pessimistic view on things to come, that bothers me in particular. After all we are all here to enjoy the same passion, and the exchange of views, opinions and facts should reflect this.

Well, enough of this rant, but one of Ben's claims though, should definitely be examined closer. The fact that period photos, factory brochures and spares lists present to us nothing but the truth and the whole truth. We all know that spares list have printed errors, omissions and flat out contradictory information. And very often they use the same grahpics for a part, that was in fact changed.Period photos, unless authenticated, could present any combination of models and parts, that just happened to be availablefor the photo shoot. Factory brochures have been known to present models and model variations that were never actually produced, or at least sported features dropped before production run. Etc., etc....

What I am trying to say is that we should useall sources of information, including from knowledgeable peoplein this forum, and then based on that make our decision on how a specific model or part should look or be chosen. There is no100% checklist for each and every model, but we can get as close as possible, by using all information at hand.

I don't have anything against any Norton that someone has put together the best they can or how they like. If they pass it off as something that it is not though, and mislead other people in the process then that has to be corrected for the good of the marque and community right?

I am not a purist at all, I love hot-rods and cafe bikes as long as no one scraps an original or rare bike to make one. Go ahead and put a Rocket III headlamp on your bike, I might at some point do the same.

When absolute travesties or lies are told to serve special interests, such as unfounded claims of 650cc Model 99s with Atlas crank and rods, then I will take the hit if I have to and be unpopular rather than let them get away with such things that would do damage to Norton and those interested in them.

I have a number of old Nortons missing many original parts that I intend to get on the road someday with whatever parts are lying around or that I can afford, but I sure will not assume that those parts were original to the bike because they are next to them, and I will not suggest things to others without something from Norton or the period saying so.

Everyone including myself knows that there can be errors in factory literature, and these can be uncovered by cross-checking against more than one source. When I defend factory literature contemporary periodicals and photographs, it is because I have found them to be much more reliable than the personal opinions and memories of most all enthusiasts.

Errors can be found in writings by John Hudson and Peter Roydhouse and in all the popular books on our marque.

The point being that at this late stage of the game, with old timers either dead and unable to elaborate or not even remembering if they took all their pills today, the best thing left to us are period records, documents and photographs, not necessarily factory, which those with common sense can cross check against one another and use to build the most likely picture.

Every single one of us who ever posted something on this board has made errors, the good guys are the ones that will not defend those errors at the expense of the Norton motorcycle or it's enthusiasts. I would much rather end up being the bad guy standing up for the facts, than popular standing for special interests and outright lies.

Errors? Even you Ben? Well, actually in the above posting I spotted this: ' or it's enthusiasts'. 3/10, see me after school. Gordon.

....... or stating that a 650cc is a model 99 !