Britbike forum Forums British Motorcycle specific Brands Bsa bulletin board EBay A65 dating question.

I do not believe records of the two US distributors are available or are even in existence.



Unfortunately, ebay doesn't have a system or provision for reporting inaccurate wrong narrative in sellers listings. They have a "report" button to hit on, but it only goes to pre-canned choices, none of which addresses the correctness of the listings content. The seller can just about include anything they want in the narrative, ie: 'the sky is falling'; 'this Lightning is made of solid gold'; 'this '67 Thunderbolt is the only one the factory made; 'only 200 '68 Firebirds were made'; etc.



I believe the factory had the best intentions regarding record keeping at the time. I may have portrayed the production books as a mess in my previous posts. They are not. They are very orderly. At the time, the entries may have been deemed very explanable. But to go back now 44 years later and determine what occurred with having a limited amount of information (only production books) at our disposal is a bit difficult. Can't image what archaeolgists have to try to determine history when going back 1,000's of years.



I do not believe there are any other records. I feel that BSAOCUK is utilizing the same (copies) production books that I researched. The dating officer has mentioned reference to a daily ledger which I think may be from Mr. Cave.

I do not believe the factory used numbers twice; one machine, one number. The path of a particular machine, in several cases, over a period of years is what is perplexing and is in question.

The late Spitfire SA's (hybrids) converted to '68 specs entered in the production book are random from 11577 to 17892, so not just in the 17000's number group.



As well as the newer '68 style case with the cast in place stator mount and undrilled transmission oil filler hole.

While we have the thread well and truly hijacked, here's another -Y Spitfire for the image collection

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/BSA-A65-...t=AU_Motorcycles&hash=item2a11eb6caf

Thanks Shane, is that another one for the collection ?
It is not so far down to Melbourne.

I can see Crazy chipping in soon also, he has to travel just a little further for it.

That depends on the reserve and who else bids

Yeah, I can do Melbourne and back comfortably in a weekend.
If I was patient enough, I could probably put the bite on somebody down there to pick it up and hang onto it until the All British

Kevin was wondering about high numbers, here's a couple for you.

Frame - A65LA 105590 (boss)
Engine - A65LA 105590Y (no boss)

The second 0 in the engine number is stamped a bit lower than the rest with the Y slightly higher but not quite matching the rest. The rest are actually a little uneven in vertical location, but fairly close.

The frame number is fairly uneven on both levels, very up and down. There definitely isn't enough room left to squeeze a Y on the end though.

I'm off to work shortly, and the camera battery is stone dead anyway, I'll take some pics later to post this evening.

May even need to change the date on my sig, and do some re-arranging, once your opinions are in.

Ok I am not so sure about these ones.
The engine in the photo may be similar and I have known about it for many years.
Until now it was the only one and as the BSAOC website mentions the extra '0' I assumed someone had stamped the engine number to 'correct' it.
Unfortunately I cannot find the frame number on this particular bike to see how it matches, which presumably it will.

From your description I am confident your bike is a 1967 model.. you will no doubt see similarities with the pic above. I am guessing you will have the Piled Arms logo in a similar position also.
The number in my pic are uneven and it may be noteworthy that the second 0 is in a different style... actually it is more like the style of stamp BSA started using during 1969.

Now whether these bikes had a Dash preceding the Y is difficult to say. I have not seen a Lightning without the Dash, 1967 model bikes here. I assumed they had stamped over the previous stamping, - is that sort of mark behind the 0 ?
How about on your bike ?

The engine is definitely 1967, and I am confident was initially stamped up then. When the final 0 was added I cannot say, and similarly I would be guessing with any production history of the bike itself. Hmm, or indeed of any history since 1967. If it is a production marking then I am sure it will be pretty rare.

I was not sure where to introduce this next photo.

I will show it here and see how we get on with it.



This one is completely out of left field..

Sorry if it too much of a thread drift but it may show what historians, authors, and just riders and owners are up against.

This is presumably a 1969 engine. The numbers themselves would indicate that.
The style of stamps was first used by BSA at the end of summer in 1968 on the 1969 models, I have never seen a 1968 model stamped with them.
The Date code would suggest that the engine was stamped in September 1968 as an early '69 model year bike.

BSA Numbering Systems

I mentioned earlier about the flow of the stampings, this bike certainly confirms that. The first few bikes of 1969 season had the TC, TC, FC etc that we read about in the Bacon books. Even the site I referred to here correctly mentions that also. Then we now know in September the Month/Year code was accepted and ran until the end.
This would date the introduction of the new style stamps.

The problem here is that it is also before the raised pad , - which was first introduced in late summer 1968. Most early 1969 engines have the pad, starting with the TC bikes etc mentioned earlier.
(The TC, LC and FC bikes didn't have the BSA icons nor did the initial few months of the later numbering style ... the NC and PC bikes would not have them).

I have seen pics of early 1969 season engines without the raised pad so it was just a gradual phase in as the older engines where used up. I think the change to the new numbering system and the introduction to the new stamps started abruptly though... and possibly at the exact same time.

Oh, and one more thing...

It must be unusual for any 1969 Twin to have a small engine number.. They all seem to have 5 digits.

Just re-read the thread again to make sure I hadn't missed anything. Very interesting stuff.

I'll apologize in advance for the picture quality, the bike is a bit awkward to get at right now so the shots are from a bit of an angle and not quite as clear as they could be.

Here's my frame number. The two 0's look similar enough that they could have been stamped at the same time. Very doubtful that an acceptable Y could have been added on at the end.



And a couple of pics of the engine number.





The two 0's look to be from a different stamp. Was the Y added at the same time as the second 0, or was it added at a later date again?
The UK BSAOC site has this to say...
"Machines still in stock in the 1967 season (about 1000) were resold in the 1969 and 1970 season. These returned machines are shown with a cross at the beginning of the despatch book record, they then reappear at the end of the book with the revised despatch date. The 1969 models are identified by the adding of an extra 0 at the end of the frame marking putting the number series into the 100,000's. Machines re-exported in 1970 were stamped with a 'Y' suffix to indicate that they were 1970 models and therefore eligible for the increased warranty."

Apparently, my bike was left over from 1967, marked as a 1969 model with an extra 0 (engine also had a 0 added), left over again, then re-exported in 1970 as a 1970 model eligible for the increased warranty!
I wonder how many of these 100,000 numbered bikes the UK BSAOC knows of? This one and the one Kevin had posted appear to have been just over 500 units apart on the 1967 assembly line. I guess that's reasonable if there were a total of near 1,000 bikes left over in 1967.
Glad I wasn't in charge of keeping the records neat and orderly!

Yep, that entry does appear on the BSAOC website... has anyone ever seen it anywhere else ?

Perhaps we should be asking the man who wrote the website how many of these bikes that they refer to has he actually seen.

That website has been the cause of so much grief, and it is flawed in so many places. The only good thing about it is that it has had a going over recently and has been reformatted.
It now has little notes saying that no listing is 100% accurate and buyer beware.
Exactly correct.

The problem I have, and this is just with the A65 twins, is that it is misleading.
In 10 years I have now seen photos of two bikes with the extra zero. I have seen more pics of 'X suffix' bikes than that.
We know many hundreds of the 1967 bikes have the Dash Y suffix on the engine. We know that they were on the road within months of being assembled, some even before Xmas 1966. (Or very close to it).
The BSAOC does not mention them, nor does any other dating list.

We now know there is a batch of Spitfires stamped up as A65SAxxxxxY, these bikes appear to have been made in late 1967 and possibly even early 1968. They certainly have 1968 model features, including both crankcase halves.. plus headlight switch etc. BSA would have had to be keen, and intricate, to get them all so model perfect. Oh, and we have not seen any extra zeros on them either.


Then we have the third batch, - the Y bikes of 1969 and 1970.
Again, all very honest to their model... in almost every detail.
To rework these bikes the factory would have had to replace about 90% of the machine. Apart from handle bars, rear wheel, speedo drive and instruments, just about every thing else would
have to be replaced.
Major engine changes, both cases, cylinders, heads and a host of other items, including outer timing cover and the likes.
The frame gets a new swing arm, bridge for the condensors, fairing lugs, new fuel and oil tanks as well as complete new front end.
Again we have not seen one of these yet with the extra zero.
We know that it is some of these bikes that are eligible for the extended warranty period. 180 Days, just like every other BSA made as a 1970 model and sold retail after 1 March 1970.

I think the BSAOC website entry is just one confused mess.

The 1969 model machines may have started at S/N 10,000 or close to it. All the twins I know of from 1969 are in the 10,000 to 20,000 series... ie they all have 5 digits. Yes, that is different, it makes 1969 model unique.

I just wish someone from the BSAOC in the UK would take time out to read all this and then at least make an effort to correct the website. Just a few notes mentioning the examples where confusion always creeps in would be a very good start.
All the years, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 have anomalies.


You can probably guess what I think about some of the Dating Certificates they have sold as well.....


2A, I can see the doubts in your mind also...

So the thinking is that BSA built that bike as a '67 model and after 3 years of reworking were able to put a much more reliable bike on the market. In that time they had done, - hmmmm, all of stamp a zero on both the engine and frame.

I look at pics of those two bikes and I am sure that I see a faint outline of a Dash lurking underneath (behind) that final zero on the engine number. I think it is a genuine Dash Y bike that has been over-stamped at some point. It would be interesting to see how far back in history those numbers go.


Just to confuse things further..
I have pics of A65LA10520Y and A65LA10587Y, both have the raised pad and are 1970 bikes.
The factory must have had some method of avoiding duplication of numbers when they assigned the 1970 model bikes the similar numbers.
Have you any idea when you bike was first titled or registered ?

I concur with you Kevin that his bike looks to be a "-Y" with a "0" over stamping. The original number would be consistent with what I have observed in the books.

Is that the dash, just outside the 10:30 position on the "0", most noticeable in the second picture of my engine serial number?
It looks straight, with 90 degree corners, too perfect to just be a random scar.

I had no clue about most of this stuff prior to yesterday morning! Bought the bike back in the mid 1980's as a rolling chassis with most parts still attached, the engine was out of the chassis. It came with a few more boxes of parts from a similar vintage A50/A65. I had pulled a few parts off of the chassis back then but kept them separated and identified as being from A65LA105590Y. Maybe I need to bring this bike back into the workshop and get to work on it! Seems to me it is very similar to the ebay bike this thread is based on. Obvious differences are that mine is red, and has the older no boss crankcase.

Last evening was mostly spent looking for images of the factory records. I know that I have seen them in just the past few months, stumbled across them on a European website when I was looking for info on an A10 project I am currently working on. Kicking myself now as I can't find them on my hard-drive either, why oh why wouldn't I have saved that!

A clearer picture of when the initial serial numbers were added to the engines and frames would help me out. Some things I've read have said that the engines were stamped first and then the frames were stamped to match. Other times I've read the exact opposite!

It's quite disappointing that this stuff hadn't been sorted out years ago by the folks that were there. Hopefully some of the people that were near the stamping and recording process are still around to finally give us the definitive story at some point.

Is it possible that these were just excess 1967 engines with perhaps just the A65LA stamped on at time of manufacture, and that were finally mated to a frame and the rest of the serial number added for the 1969 or 1970 model seasons?
As Kevin mentioned above, A65LA10520Y is stamped on a raised boss, yet A65LA105590Y is stamped on a pre-boss left crankcase!
This would seem to indicate that they were filtering in the older excess 1967 engines just prior to stamping the serial numbers on these newer 1969 engines.
Why were they using the "LA" designation for these newer engines, other than to perhaps to provide some continuity for the assimilation of the older engines?
Why wouldn't there be some half decent explanation noted in the log book for these unusual numbers? Perhaps there is, maybe in one of the books from previous years. As mentioned by Kevin, they had already been using the "Y" to indicate carryover of an engine to the next years model Spitfire.

Cheers,

John

I must say though, this is much more interesting than if a computer had been pounding the numbers on!

Kevin, I zoomed in a ways on your picture of A65LA111050Y, it looks like the right end of the dash is at the 9:00 position, right where you would see the "9" on a clock face. The add on "0" was stamped right on top of a dash on that one.

I did think that was a possibility with the hybrid 1967 MkIV Spitfires. Gary has since pointed out that the stampings are infact on later engine castings.




I have had to rethink on that one. The transmission filler reposition is a true 1968 feature and all of the Hybrid Spitfires have the later hole and cap.

The old hole above the gearbox was not filled in, it is as cast. The Hybrid A65SAxxxxY Spitfires now appear to have been purpose built as opposed to left over or rebuilt.
Bugger... it was these bikes that I thought may have been the start of the 'missed the market, missed the boat rumour'...
These bikes were shipped towards the end of the '68 season, - indications are now that they may have been assembled later in the season also.
Of course, we still have the dilemma of why they are stamped with 1967 style numbers.

This is what happen when you start looking..

This is what I believe to be a 1967 -Y bike. I have not seen the bike itself.

I read that number as A65SA 17642-Y. It could also be without the Dash, how good is my eyesight ?

It has the 1968 crankcase features that Gary spoke of but we would not expect to see it in a MkIV Hybid bike because of the Dash.
What a shame it is missing the chassis, but we can see it has not been drilled for the transmission filler so presumably (Positively) had the 1968 style filler cap on the inner timing cover instead.

Does the casting number on the left hand case half give us a clue ? One thing for sure though, this crankcase was not machined up in the early 1967 calendar year.

I'm soooo glad my Y has a raised pad with "BSA" stampings.
A65LA 10943 1970 Lightning manufactured Jan 1970.


Don in Nipomo ... Y?? Why not?

Hahahha Don, so you think you have a 1970 model ?

A good firm believer, good on you. I think Bruce is standing firm alongside you also. Well done chaps.

So the 1970 guys are happy, the bulk of the 1967 -Y bikes are also well sorted and we, the owners, are accepting them as genuine 1967 models.
I have two Dash Y bikes, one a Mk III Spitfire. Still many unanswered questions but I feel relieved that myself and other owners can now see that the books as they stand are incorrect. (Well at least the BSAOC website comments are).

It is now the Hybrid guys that must be wondering, I think it is pretty clear though that the bikes were built alongside MkIV bikes and even shipped later than the bulk of the SB bikes. A Hybrid bike is a MKIV in every respect.

Try this one;

These are pics of one of the very first SB Spitfire engines, it can be compared to the last of the MKIII cases I posted a little earlier. (A65SA17642-Y, or just Y if I misread it).

A65SB2690








I will give you a clue, they are identical castings.

Kevin,

There should be a sticky at the top of this section with your current (and future) knowledge of the 1967 to 1970 BSA twin cylinder serial number anomalies.
It may be a work in progress for a while yet, but it would sure help to clear some fairly muddied waters for a lot of folks.

Took a closer look at my engine serial number this evening, washed it off and peered at it with a magnifying glass. It definitely was A65LA10559-Y at one point, no doubt in 1967.

The $64,000.00 question is who put the "0" over top of the dash, and added one to the frame number as well? Was it BSA?
It seems that somebody that was there must have confirmed that they had done this in some instances. Was there any part of what the UK BSAOC site says about this true?

Don, perhaps your mission could be to come up with the definitive answer as to why BSA thought it would be a good idea to use the 1967 prefix and number range for your bike. That should keep you busy for a little while.

Thanks Two Alpha, I realise that this topic may have not run the way you may have liked but I am glad you are running with it and keeping up with the play.



A very good question, I am thinking that the more we dig here the more we deviate from what they are trying to say.

I hate to say it but if you break down the comment into manageable portions we are basically disagreeing with each and every one of them. They seem to have taken a complex issue and tried to paraphrase it in a few simple sentences.
I thought that the previous example of a Dash Y bike being overstamped with a zero was an effort by a frustrated owner to 'correct' it.
Your bike may well be the second, and there will be others about as well.

You guys should form a little club and gang up against me and what I am saying.

Gary cannot say too much about individual examples from the records he has seen but I think he has given a very good indication that is agreeing with what you are now saying. Your bike was a genuine Dash Y bike, a true 1967 model, it may have gained a zero but I don't think that changes much for you.


For those that want a little more of this intrigue, and think they can hack it...

Another thread discussing Hybrid 1967/1968 Spitfires.

Page 3 is about where we are here. I have shown a photo of a late MkIII Spitfire that appears model correct in every way. It is however a very high number and has the enlarged '8's in the stampings that we normally associate with 1968 models.

If the title is the original, I would have thought the dates seem a little late. It is shown as a 1968 model which is ok, but the certificate appears to me to be dated May 1969... a very late date for a MkIII bike.

No probs Kevin, I really had no expectations or preferences here, just ran into a number of contradictions that I needed to slog my way through. Good thing you guys were here.

For many years, I thought this was a 1968 model. A couple months ago, while trying to sort out an A10 that had joined the collection, I decided to check this A65 as well and determined that it was actually a 1967 model. The Y at the end had me wondering a bit at the time what it indicated.
Then this thread showed up a few days ago!

The quote from the UK BSAOC is odd for a number of reasons. If the bulk, perhaps all, of the 1967 twins had the -Y, there is no way that the extra zero could be added, and then the Y added later. It's already there!
Why would they even come up with this statement? It seems like a very poor guess as to why some bikes were perhaps showing up with this unusually configured serial number.
Or do these serial numbers actually exist in the factory log?

I'm tempted to go the certificate route just to see what comes back. Is there a certificate for the other 100,000 number you posted?

Now that is funny..... at least to many here.
The Y, Dash Y debate has been going on for 10 years and my name tends to get written all over it. It has become a bit of a joke in certain drinking circles.

This time around has been a little more satisfactory, mainly because we have more support, many now know the facts and can see it coming together. In the early days we were still trying to find each other


With this thread it seems to be coming together, like I feel we have made progress. Especially with the input from Gary to guide us and put us back on track when we come off the rails.

I have a better picture of things myself now. Still no idea about why BSA wanted to use the Y on any bike but at least I know what ones have it... well sort of.

I am very surprised at the revelations of the 67/68 Spitfires, - I never saw that coming.

It is winter here at the moment, but the weather is brilliant. The longer nights give me a chance to tap away here and I am determined to get some more answers here yet.

All we need is the BSAOC to amend their website. The other dating lists are all incomplete but they are not causing as much grief as the 'OFFICIAL' one.

Just removing the remarks about the Y bikes would be a VERY GOOD start.

I would love to see what they come up with for a dating certificate for your bike. One in the 6 digits...

I really do feel for the Dating Officer though, - he is not paid for his efforts and has pressure to deliver. You take the money, you have to send a Certificate.
Some bikes I have seen are just nightmares, - I could not say what it was..... it is much easier on the outside looking in and saying what it is not.

I would forget the records, look at the bike and make a statement to the effect that based on our expert opinion, taking incomplete factory records into consideration, the machine is deemed to be a 196x model. Do it by a committee if necessary, at the moment issuing a certificate saying that the bike was shipped in 1966 when we know that it did not even exist cannot be right, legal or fair.

Something needs to give here.....

I do not think this thread has shown any evidence that there are twin numbers of the '67's and '70's. I wouldn't want someone to misread the post and get another erroneous rumor circulating like the 200 - 250 '68 Firebird production one that refuses to die.

Until I see two separate bikes/engines with original twin numbers, I'm sticking with the one "'67 number on '67 and '69/'70 machines" assumption.



The date of the title doesn't give me any confidence that this machine is anything other than what we have already discussed, as the date of the title is only the date the owner made ownership official with the state. Months could have passed after purchase before he sent or walked the paper work to the state DMV.

Sorry Gary, that would have been a bit clearer as "...knowledge of the 1967 to 1970 BSA twin cylinder serial number anomalies....
I'll edit that post for clarity.

Totally agree with you on needing to "see two separate bikes/engines with original twin numbers".

At least that part of the UK BSAOC quote must have some truth to it.
"These returned machines are shown with a cross at the beginning of the despatch book record, they then reappear at the end of the book with the revised despatch date. The 1969 models are identified by the adding of an extra 0 at the end of the frame marking putting the number series into the 100,000's."

Anybody who has access to the dispatch book could confirm or dismiss this. I assume that the numbers with the revised dispatch date are all going to be a six digit number.
They don't mention modifying the engine number but this surely would have made sense to someone at BSA as they had started with matching frame and engine numbers in 1967.
Just a stab in the dark here but is that a plausible reason for the addition of the "-Y" in the 1967 model year? Did the singles have the "-Y" in 1967 as well?

I've only just rekindled my British bike interest after a multi-year layoff. As you can see my registration date for this forum is less than three months ago! Since then I've gone through many of the old threads, ignored all the ones about A50/A65 serials though as I didn't realize their relevance to me!

Over the last couple of days I have searched back for those threads and read many of them. The amount of time, and the
number of years, you have been trying to get to the bottom of this has me very impressed.
It's great to see the progress along the way, and even in just the last few days.
Now where's that sticky?