Help identify bike

Ian: the photos you posted are so small that no details can be seen. Certainly, the engine numbers are not readable. Can you post the engine number?

Also can you post the frame number? It is usually found on the frame gusset(stiffener) at the rear of the primary chaincase.

Mike

It would appear to be a wideline featherbed Dommy ,odds are an 88 but could be a 99. late 1950's.

Still to small, its like a stamp.

I know this is a little technical but I post pictures to my blog which will take huge pictures then I link to them here. It gets around the limitations of the site and people can blow up the pictures for detail. I realize you may not want to do that but others might like the tip.

Still not working, best hosted somewhere else as Jonathan suggests.

On my Mac I just click on it and expand it with the finger pad or with the combination of "cmd" and "+". G

Previously George Phillips wrote:

On my Mac I just click on it and expand it with the finger pad or with the combination of "cmd" and "+". G

Trouble is when you expand pictures that started out very small they just get grainier and grainier and you can't really see detail. When a picture starts out big (as a large file) you can expand it all you want. For instance, try reading the letters in your profile picture by your left shoulder. There is no way to expand that enough.

Previously john_holmes wrote:

Still not working, best hosted somewhere else as Jonathan suggests.

I just thought about it and I realise that you need to resize your pictures properly no matter what you do. When I used to upload to here I would resize at https://pixlr.com/express/

They have a "resize" button and you can adjust the horizontal and vertical size but they don't tell you the final size until you save it. So I tried for a horizontal X vertical of about 2000 X whatever (keeping proportions of course) to end up with under 1MegaByte.

No need to resize in photobucket, just paste the link, or use the HTML facility and get it in the thread directly.

Like so:

Hi

G4 46275

G is 1952

4 is Es2

the engine numbers for that year were 42700 to 48900

but the picture you show is of a twin with a large frount drum (1955 onwards)

try getting a better picture

regards bob

Previously ian_richarsdon wrote:

Is it possible to get rough idea from frame and engine numbers.

Yes, you were asked to supply this information, some time ago.

Engine, and frame numbers (ideally they should match) will establish model, and build date.

As Robert says, the numbers you have given are for a 1952 500cc single ES2. That is unlikely to be the correct number of either the frame or the engine.

Hi

That is a casting number

the number should be punched and so go inwards not raised letters.

regards

Bob

It looks raised to me. Can you post a picture from further back showing what surrounds that number? Also a clear picture of the frame number.

Ian, If this were mine, it would worry me a little. I've never seen a Norton engine and frame number like this and the inclusion on an old-style log book shows that it has been like it for some time.

As previously mentioned, a G4 prefix in the normal scheme of things would be a '52 ES2. These were of course single cylinder engines and the frames at this time were not 'Featherbed' which yours looks to be.

'EGV' is a June 1952 Suffolk series.

I don't understand the strokes between the numbers - that is more Matchless style.

Your engine capacity on the log book appears to have been altered from '490cc' to '499cc' - The 79x100 singles were indeed 490cc so this fits with the G4 prefix. The twin cylinder was 497cc...closer to 499...

If I had to hazard a guess then someone for whatever reason has doctored a later twin to fit an early registration document -

Perhaps an internet forum is not the best place to go through all this. My advice would be to contact the NOC single or twin (or perhaps both) dating officers and supply the necessary high resolution photographs of the complete machine and the important details.