Classic & Vintage - "Jack Taylor" has arrived

Do you think it really is one? It's very light, even with that cottered spindle in there which it came with. seat post was listed as being 27.2 but its more like 26.2. it's been repainted and redecaled, but probably not recently.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-1kLvgEBdNq0/Tg9Z6DXCVgI/AAAAAAAAEB4/EdU30Mtx-JM/s640/IMG_0402.JPG

serial was listed at 7462 but i suppose it COULD be 1462?

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ll_BHDZN0wA/Tg9bJPaRBTI/AAAAAAAAEDU/IYL25BO-lIo/s576/IMG_0410.JPG

seller claimed the bike to be a '79. I fact here's his description:

" Here's another frame in my collection that is just too big for me to ride , so I reckon that someone else should get the benefit from it, rather than it hang there for another ten years or so in my store.

The frame is a 1970s JACK TAYLOR ROAD -TRACK model designed to be short enough, upright enough, and stiff enough for track racing and yet be serviceable as a road machine with mudguards. This particular fraem has all the hallmarks of having been a custom build specifically to a customer's requirements as it has braze-on stops along the top-tube and R/H seat stay that were probably to carry the cable for a Sturmey Archer hub gear . Curiously the front and rear fork ends are not matching sets, the rears being, possibly Chater Lea, and the fronts being Campagnolo with mudguard eyes which raises the possibility that the original drop-outs have been replaced. The round track blades are curved in the 1950s hockey-stick style and brazed into quite a substantial twin-plate fork crown. The frame is fitted with a Tange steel headset and bottom bracket

.

In true Jack Taylor fashion, the frame is idiosyncratic with its very 1950s 'Look' eg the mudguard stay eyes on the fork blades and stays rather than on the drop-outs, the lamp-bracket boss on the R/H front fork blade, the squared off seat cluster, the ill-matching ends of the fork blades and the stays...but those are the characteristics of a Taylor..they reflect the character of the three-man team that was Jack Taylor Cycles all those years.

This very functional and utilitarian frame has been both resprayed - it has a set of Taylors' own 531DB Tourist transfers - and also touched up in its lifetime, but by and large it looks quite well, particularly with the three Post Office red panels to liven up the gloss black . The Mondrian transfers are in good condition too.

Having met the Taylor brothers several times and discussed frame-building with them, I have to admit that I admire their no-nonesense pragmatic approach to the trade. - this frame epitomising the values that the firm stood for.

Dimensions Seat-tube 24" 61cms

Top-tube 23.3/8"

Rear end 16.1/4 41cms

W/Base 39.3/4" 101cms

F/centres 23.1/2"

Head-tube 6.5/8"

Stack hgt 8.1/4"

R/Drop-outs 110mms

Seat-tube dia 27.2mm

Threads British Standard"


As I've already mentioned, his seat tube diameter if off. Who knows what else is off.

there seems to be greenish paint under the black maybe?

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-sa1IKLcFE0I/Tg9b6zCrzJI/AAAAAAAAEDk/nSt5Q693z3E/s512/IMG_0407.JPG

the spiderman scooter is definitely authentic btw.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-OpVDmV4W_Yc/Tg9Z6cGf52I/AAAAAAAAEB8/HLB14xjnr-M/s640/IMG_0403.JPG

roundish fork blades. it's not bent, but pretty steep. I mean it is listed as a possible track bike.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-1kLvgEBdNq0/Tg9Z6DXCVgI/AAAAAAAAEB4/EdU30Mtx-JM/s640/IMG_0402.JPG

no markings on the rear drops. 120 spacing seems right.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-a34EqR0BlG0/Tg9Z877N0vI/AAAAAAAAECU/R9aWhKNHZ0k/s640/IMG_0409.JPG

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/--KgZYPQCVws/Tg9Z_qb6hLI/AAAAAAAAED0/puJCkN0oROQ/s640/IMG_0415.JPG

pretty sure the front drops are campy but its really hard to read.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-u6LCIfXQARk/Tg9Z5fdIKnI/AAAAAAAAED8/U8xBUlp5jlY/s640/IMG_0401.JPG

i'm no expert but the filet brazing seems maybe a little sloppy dare i say? Only in some spots.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-t0MKDrsNZho/Tg9Z-dKBviI/AAAAAAAAECg/1fVV-0of2VY/s640/IMG_0411.JPG

harder to see it here but there is a hint of sloppyness here too.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-k65SOvIMl6U/Tg9Z7nNKzcI/AAAAAAAAEEE/Wqd78odk6ao/s512/IMG_0406.JPG

here's all the pics, you can zoom in if you wish.

Jack Pics (https://picasaweb.google.com/holiday76/JackTaylor#)

Any opinions on this weird bike? Whatever it is, I love it. It's light, should fit me ok, and it's not like most bikes I've seen. I'm going to throw a SA aw 700c wheel in there and see how it rides.

Come to think of it, I guess I should see what size wheels line up.

Do you guys really think this thing is a 79? Sure seems earlier, if it's a JT at all..

if it is actually serial number 1462 that would make it a 1949 according to this site.

http://www.blackbirdsf.org/taylor/serials.html

here's another '49

http://www.blackbirdsf.org/taylor/1431.html

I don't know. Mine doesnt have the bb oil port.

I dunno.

I need a JT expert to chime in.

Not very Jack Taylor looking to me, especially the fork. Way earlier than 1979 from what I see, ignoring the transfers.

Nevertheless it does appear being a handsome frame.

Not very Jack Taylor looking to me, especially the fork. Way earlier than 1979 from what I see, ignoring the transfers.

Nevertheless it does appear being a handsome frame.

yeah I mean, I'm not really believing much of what the seller was saying. not that he's being deceiving, I just don't think he knows any better. He does apparently own a bike shop though.

I kinda think it's either a much earlier JT, or not one at all. I'd really like to know, but like I said, in the end i think it's a very cool bike.

Check this site (click on the year to see photos):

http://www.blackbirdsf.org/taylor/serials.html

#1462 would be from 1949; #7462 would be from 1978 (the same year my Tour of Britain was built). Also, Jack Taylor serial numbers are almost always on the left rear dropout, not the bottom bracket (I say almost always because you never know until you have seen them all).

My guess is that it is not a Jack Taylor. My wife's Tourist (#5935 from 1969) is filet brazed and it is flawless; it actually looks much better than the filet welding on my CAAD9 - and those were ground to a high standard. Also, hers has several small brackets, etc. and while you can tell they were made by hand from raw stock, they are beautifully done and beautifully attached. The same applies to the eyelets and cable stops on my Tour of Britain - absolutely beautiful workmanship. And I can't speak for the earliest frames, but most had eyelets attached to the dropouts by the '60s.

One other possibility is that it was a track bike than someone else added various bits to. The fork crown looks like one the Taylors used on track bikes. But even the track bikes I have seen have all had the serial number on the dropout.

Ultimately what counts is if you are happy with the frame.

definitely seems to have been built for 27" wheels, if not something larger? Maybe even the rear didnt originally have a drilled brake bridge because even with a 27" wheel back there it would need some pretty long brake calipers...I'll have to measure the exact clearance later.

LOVE the headtube! Reminds me of old Beneton commercials.

Fender and pannier eyelets on the fork of a track frame?

Sounds like the perfect frame to ride up to Trexlertown. Load it down with panniers and pump and all that jazz, camp out at the Velodrome, and ride a few races on the track. Pack up your winnings and your camping gear and ride home. Good weekend plan, huh?

Seriously, I'm not sure about anything the seller said with the exception of 'idiosyncratic." Interesting bike, though! I look forward to hearing how it rides.

holiday, the seller of that frame is widely regarded as an expert on British bikes - at least on the CR list. Strange to hear you perceive him as 'naive', given his reputation. Not saying you're wrong, of course.

Here's his CR list outing of the frame: http://groups.google.com/group/classic-rendezvous-lightweight-vintage-bicycles/browse_thread/thread/1d498c371c6f1690/3048f43fa8bf19fb?lnk=gst&q=jack+taylor#3048f43fa8bf19fb

You might actually want to post a query to the CR list. You are sure to get some opinions. I kinda wonder how much candor you'll get, however, if listmembers are clued into the identity of the seller.


As the Good Book (of Cycling) says...the long-in-the-leg shall inherit the
choice of the best frames !

It feels quite good to be passing on some of my spare frames on Ebay, and
while I am in this positive mood I thought I would post another of my
favourite querky frames, as with its very long seat tube, it is of
absolutely no use to me.

The latest to be posted is a 24" Jack Taylor Road Path, dating from the
mid-to-late 1970s, but looking every inch like something from the 50s. It is
unrestored, but in its black enamel with three red panels and Mondrian
transfers..it looks as though it will continue, for years to come, to give
the good service it has obviously provided to the previous owner. As with
the majority of my frames, this one has been stored in dry premises for some
fifteen years or more.

I checked out the CR 'Jack Taylor' site before posting the sale, to verify
the frame's age..and was pleasantly surprised to see so much interest in the
Brothers' Taylor frames. I have more in the store...

Ebay Item No: 2306232951271

Norris Lockley

Settle UK..not too far away from the Taylor workshop...but there's a lot of
hills on the way.

Fender and pannier eyelets on the fork of a track frame?

As it has been repainted, any bets are off as to what was original and added later. Maybe just for a fixed Wheel rider who was just ahead of his time by a number of decades.

Seriously, I'm not sure about anything the seller said with the exception of 'idiosyncratic." I

Okay, clued in that the seller was Norris Lockley, I withdraw the above comment! I haven't met him, but judging from his posts he is very experienced and very knowledgeable, as well as a nice guy. If he says he discussed frame building with Norman Taylor, I'm sure he did, and many times.

What this says about your frame, I have no idea.

fork crown doesnt really look the same compared to a known taylor

http://www.blackbirdsf.org/taylor/images/6229/6229_front.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-1kLvgEBdNq0/Tg9Z6DXCVgI/AAAAAAAAEB4/EdU30Mtx-JM/s640/IMG_0402.JPG

of course the rear drops dont either

http://www.blackbirdsf.org/taylor/images/6229/6229_serial.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-85ctjD1X750/Tg9Z9shsQ2I/AAAAAAAAEEg/SnN1_bC1sos/s640/IMG_0412.JPG

i'm not really sure I see anything aside from the decals and the filet brazing that says its a taylor. again, not that i really care. though it would be cool to find out what it is.

holiday, the seller of that frame is widely regarded as an expert on British bikes - at least on the CR list. Strange to hear you perceive him as 'naive', given his reputation. Not saying you're wrong, of course.

Here's his CR list outing of the frame: http://groups.google.com/group/classic-rendezvous-lightweight-vintage-bicycles/browse_thread/thread/1d498c371c6f1690/3048f43fa8bf19fb?lnk=gst&q=jack+taylor#3048f43fa8bf19fb




You might actually want to post a query to the CR list. You are sure to get some opinions. I kinda wonder how much candor you'll get, however, if listmembers are clued into the identity of the seller.

yep, thats him. I didnt know he was on CR. I made my assumptions just based on what seemed like inexperience shipping frames to the US, and some things in his listing that are just wrong, seat post diameter being one. The year being another, and the fact that his title in the auction is off and he listed it in a weird ebay category.

here's the listing.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230632951271&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT


as i'd mentioned though he did seem like a nice enough fellow. If you say he's an expert I'll take your word for it, I'm certainly not in a position to judge. I'm only 3-4 years into learning about this stuff from a collectors perspective.

Fork ends, not drops. Dropouts have the opening in the front.

For what it's worth. I saw a simular frame a while back on eBay.uk Drilled crown, fender mounts, lamp bracket on the fork and track ends. It was being sold as a 50's vintage JT. So maybe the configuration is not so strange? Cool frame anyway!

fork crown doesnt really look the same compared to a known taylor

Yours is simply an older style of twin-plate crown. My first reaction was skeptical, but if Norris says it's a JT, I'd go with that - he's not only an expert, he may be the expert (and a fine framebuilder to boot). Assuming it is a '49 Taylor, it's pretty cool.

OK, well if we're going with what Norris says (and I'd be happy to do so), it would be a 79, not 49 so the earlier fork crown thing doesnt make sense unless it was swapped.

I'm pretty sure he just based his year off of the serial on the bb though, and well, it's hard to tell if the first digit is a 1 or a 7. Though if i had to guess it really does look more like a 7.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ll_BHDZN0wA/Tg9bJPaRBTI/AAAAAAAAEFc/JH9qUXhptso/s512/IMG_0410.JPG

so really none of this solves anything.

oh well.

i had to rejoin the CR list, so I can't see that content yet. i guess I got booted when they switched over to a google group earlier this year.

Anyhow, I did also send a note to Norris to see if he can lend any more info about the frame.

I'll keep you posted.

In terms of brazing quality, I've read that the Taylor bros weren't known as particularly obsessive about finish quality. A friend had his JT repainted by Elliot Bay Cycles, essentially JT central in the US. My friend was a bit disappointed in the quality of the box lining as it looks like someone with a shaky hand was going at it. The Elliot Bay folks replied that it was consistent with what it would have looked like coming from the JT shop in the early 70s.

Neal

Nice! Is it possible that the frame is not a Taylor but went to them after the fact for braze ons & paint?

It's Rivendell's mystery frame.

It's Rivendell's mystery frame.

Nah, can't be. People are being civil and rational in their responses,,,,,,

[QUOTE]In terms of brazing quality, I've read that the Taylor bros weren't known as particularly obsessive about finish quality. A friend had his JT repainted by Elliot Bay Cycles, essentially JT central in the US. My friend was a bit disappointed in the quality of the box lining as it looks like someone with a shaky hand was going at it. The Elliot Bay folks replied that it was consistent with what it would have looked like coming from the JT shop in the early 70s./QUOTE]

I normally wouldn't question something that Bob Freeman from Elliot Bay would have said, but the Taylor's work was widely recognized as first class. In a recent correspondence with Ken Taylor he did say the paint improved a lot as better materials came available. The lining on my Tour of Britain is as nice as I've ever seen on a custom car or motorcycle. I can tell it was done by hand, but it certainly doesn't look sloppy or unsteady. Here are a couple photos taken recently while the bike was stripped down for service - this is completely original 1978 paint. I am also attaching o couple photos of my wife's tourist showing some level of detail (also original paint). Let the photos speak for themselves.

I normally wouldn't question something that Bob Freeman from Elliot Bay would have said, but the Taylor's work was widely recognized as first class. In a recent correspondence with Ken Taylor he did say the paint improved a lot as better materials came available. The lining on my Tour of Britain is as nice as I've ever seen on a custom car or motorcycle. I can tell it was done by hand, but it certainly doesn't look sloppy or unsteady. Here are a couple photos taken recently while the bike was stripped down for service - this is completely original 1978 paint. I am also attaching o couple photos of my wife's tourist showing some level of detail (also original paint). Let the photos speak for themselves.

Is it possible quality suffered some during the bike boom years? In the documentary attached below (which I never tire of posting) one of the brothers comments on the increase in production coming mainly from orders in the US, and he confesses he didn't like it one bit.

If Norris is the expert (which I'm personally willing to accept), I'm not sure there is much grounds to doubt his identification of the frame. He does state in the auction description that it may have been modified at some point, and that is clearly is an eclectic custom build. Maybe the customer had very specific requests that are uncommon on 'standard' Taylor frames?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALNsQpCL8LY&feature=related

I forgot to mention this fellow, who was very close to the Taylor brothers. In fact, Jack recently sold him his personal tandem. Lots of non-bike photos in his photostream, but tons of Jack Taylors. There are also photos of the brothers at work "back in the day". He still corresponds with Jack and Ken - Norm died in 2008. I think it is very good reference material for paint, workmanship, accessories, etc. Here's the link, starting with a beautiful Taylor tandem on page 7:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/meauxtown/page7/

On the subject of serial numbers, is there any serial number on the fork? Does anyone know if one should expect one on a Jack Taylor?

My 'Fothergill' is supposed to have matching serial numbers on frame and fork; but it doesn't (none on fork). And a Holdsworth I had in my hands some months ago was supposed to have matching serial numbers on frame and fork; but it didn't (both present, but different). So my experience with serial numbers on forks has not been encouraging. Still, you might want to have a little look-see.

On the subject of dropouts, fork ends, and the like, I like Norris' suggestion of "possibly Chater Lea." I don't know what Chater Lea track ends look(ed) like, but I do know their dropouts are cut steel and stamped "CHATER LEA" on one side. The stamping is very faint, there's no way you'd see it through paint.

I sent Norris photos of my Fothergill in hopes of confirming that it is or isn't a Fothergill, because as a frame builder he's interested in other makers' work, and he also has a late 40's Fothergill in his possession, of which he was going to send me photos, particularly of the graphics. A propos mine, he said if it was a Fothergill then it was the earliest one he'd ever seen, judging by the lugs. But he also mentioned that he had a set of the same lugs, new in the box, he was looking forward to using one day. When asked what brand / maker they were, he didn't reply. I mention this for no clear reason... just making conversation, I guess.

On a Jack Taylor, relative to the fork, the serial number is stamped into the steerer tube.

cool, i'm going to take the fork out later tonight. we'll see what i find.

are we sure the same rules apply to the early ones? 49s specifically?

well, I think this clears up what the serial number of this frame and fork is:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Y_P4AlqdLLI/ThEEZwv7ZBI/AAAAAAAAEGs/Xflbztn2dB4/1000002557.JPG

the reason that doesnt help determining if it's actually a JT, is because there is already a JT in the registry with that number:

http://www.blackbirdsf.org/taylor/serials_1978.html

of course the one on the registry site might be wrong since there isnt much info there aside from the claim that it's 7462

On the tandem list as #7462 it needs to be recognized that it would be easy for the owner to determine that serial number accurately. Both racks would have the serial number also, so there would be four locations to verify the serial number.

On the tandem list as #7462 it needs to be recognized that it would be easy for the owner to determine that serial number accurately. Both racks would have the serial number also, so there would be four locations to verify the serial number.

true, but it's worth checking into. I sent a note to the owner of the registry site to try to find out.

is the serial on the steerer tube a taylor thing or do many other builders do that?

Many builders use the steerer tube. It is the best place on a fork.

I did some digging and found photos of the serial numbers on my #7338. The numerals are 1/8" on the steerer tube and 5/32" on the rear dropout. Note the location and orientation where they stamped the fork. Note that the font is different - the 7 has a straight leg on #7338. Since #7338 and #7462 would have been built within a few months of each other it could be logical that the fonts would be the same (in other words they logically would have used the same stamp set).

Our Tourist #5935 has the same font as #7338 on the rear dropout and the same 1/8" font on the rear rack as on the steerer tube of #7338; I can't find a photo of the steerer tube and the bike is built up, so I can't confirm that font.

I know little of Jack Taylors, except I've always wanted a curved tube model...

Joel from the Taylor registry site linked a few times in this thread was nice enough to give me his thoughts on the situation:

"hmm. well, im not one to cast aspersions on norris, certainly, but he
might be wrong on this one.

your bike definitely has serial # 7462 - but the build book lists 7462 as
a 22x20 tandem (no more specific model listed - the build book is quite
spare) built 12 aug 1978 by norman.

your frame hints to me at not being a taylor, for reasons cited in your
bikeforums thread - atypical rear track ends (they preferred a different
style, but were not averse to using whatever was on hand or requested),
frame serial # in the wrong place (they were inconsistent about some
things, but that wasnt one of them), fork crown atypical (again, see note
on the track ends). cant really see the brazing work, but if its anything
but flawless, thatll inject some doubt - even on my 1949 taylor, when
norman had merely been building a little over a decade, the fillets are
impeccable). the frame and fork def. have a earlier-than-late-70s look
about them, but that wasnt atypical for the taylors either - they knew
what they liked, and liked a lot of older stuff because it worked just
fine - no reason to change!

it does look a nice frame, but id tend to say someone repainted it and put
taylor transfers on it before norris got to it - and frankly, that may
have been the taylors themselves! they used to have "refinished by jack
taylor cycles" transfers for such things, but ran out at some point, and i
have def. seen at least one frame that the owner said had been
repainted/repaired by them and then ended up with taylor transfers!
"

I'm somewhat surprised the seller didn't do this background check, as he seems to have a reputation to uphold.

Or is the build book not as authoritative as it sounds.

Not sure about the book, but im believing its not a taylor because basically nothing past the transfers seem to indicate it is.

so, if this thing turns out not to be a Taylor, would you guys keep it badged one or not? I'm not sure, and the paint isnt that bad that I'd feel like repainting it, just wondered what you folks thought.

I suppose it would make it an interesting conversation piece for the few people who'd see it and question what it was...

so, if this thing turns out not to be a Taylor, would you guys keep it badged one or not? I'm not sure, and the paint isnt that bad that I'd feel like repainting it, just wondered what you folks thought.

I suppose it would make it an interesting conversation piece for the few people who'd see it and question what it was...

Keep it as is IMHO. The visual is what drew you in in the first place.

cool thread. sounds like you'll be getting a little discount ;)

edit: on would you keep it badged? why not? it's your bike. if it bothers you, do whatever you need to do.

If I thought it wasn't a Taylor, or even if I knew it wasn't, but didn't know what it was, I wouldn't change it.

If I knew exactly what it was, then maybe.

But first I would build it and ride it enough to decide if it's worth the effort of researching and refinishing.

If it turned out to be a glorious ride and I knew exactly what the original graphics were then yes, I'd refinish it as appropriate. Big "if", though!

I'd get a little 22x20 tandem decal and stick it on the head tube :p

Joel from the Taylor registry site linked a few times in this thread was nice enough to give me his thoughts on the situation:

<snip>

it does look a nice frame, but id tend to say someone repainted it and put
taylor transfers on it before norris got to it - and frankly, that may
have been the taylors themselves! they used to have "refinished by jack
taylor cycles" transfers for such things, but ran out at some point, and i
have def. seen at least one frame that the owner said had been
repainted/repaired by them and then ended up with taylor transfers!
"

If this turns out to be the case (or if you can't prove this didn't happen), why change the decals? It's part of the frame's history.

i agree mostly about the decals. Unless I find out it's definitely something else I doubt I'll be doing anything about them.

as for the discount, I won't be pursuing that either way. I figure, I bid on the frame and won it based on the fact that was what I was willing to pay, and the amount I was willing to pay really had nothing to do with it being a Taylor. IN short I basically got what I bid on and I'm happy with it, as much as I can be having never ridden it. We'll see how that goes when I get a 27" SA AW wheel to throw in there!

This thread is not quite what I was expecting. It's been interesting and makes me wish I had taken a closer look at the only JT I have seen in person. The linked video was enjoyable... although at around 17:30 I noticed they had what looks like a nudie pic hanging in the background... so there is the whole dirty old men thing.

+1, I've been waiting for you to get frustrated with the whole thing, and offer the frame up for sale, at which time I'd offer to take it off your hands and you would thank me, refuse to accept payment, we'd hug and return home, Holiday76 being freed from his horrible torment and I with the said frame hung upon my shoulder.

It's not gonna happen is it?

Keep it, ride it , enjoy it. The repaint and decals are all part of it's history and now you get to put your mark on it.

Just get Bilenky to weld some disc brake tabs on the fork ends and call it a day.............

Re. this photo:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-sP99Uv6i9jU/ThDxKZdB7PI/AAAAAAAAEGg/AFyhP1vZrXE/s800/1000002557.JPG
What is the diamond-shaped stamping visible on the steerer tube?


Re. this photo: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-OBbv5wlxtdY/Tg9Z_V6lGoI/AAAAAAAAECo/jPRLIzGEdIA/s800/IMG_0414.JPG

I find it hard to believe a custom build using Reynolds tubing in the late 70's would have been built up with a cottered crank.

Was it standard practice for a fillet-brazed frame to have a lugged BB shell?

I have the Summer 2009 Bicycle Quarterly that has an extensive article on Jack Taylor Cycles and there are numerous photos in the article of JT bikes in the 40's with the same fork crown as you have. Ignore the tandem serial #, that is a 1940's JT.

Re. this photo:

What is the diamond-shaped stamping visible on the steerer tube?

that's just a scratch



I find it hard to believe a custom build using Reynolds tubing in the late 70's would have been built up with a cottered crank.

Was it standard practice for a fillet-brazed frame to have a lugged BB shell?

got me, but i had the same thoughts re: the cotterd spindle.



I have the Summer 2009 Bicycle Quarterly that has an extensive article on Jack Taylor Cycles and there are numerous photos in the article of JT bikes in the 40's with the same fork crown as you have. Ignore the tandem serial #, that is a 1940's JT.

as much as I'd love to believe you, I don't know if the obviously later transfers and original fork crown alone are enough evidence to state for sure it's a Taylor. I also don't get why it would have that serial number if it was from them. it does seem like most of the Taylor builds are documented pretty well, and this should wouldnt fit it.


if I had to guess at this point I'd probably go with that this frame was serviced by the Taylor's at some point, and that the frame is actually from the 40s or 50s , from some unknown maker.

If we assume it's reynolds tubing, does the 26.4 seat post diameter mean anything to anyone? Are there any Taylors with that tubing inner diameter? BTW, I could be off by a millimeter or two on that, but it is in no way 27.2. A 26.4 seat post fits in there with no effort and not much if any extra space.

I'm still waiting for Norris to get back to me on any possible other history he can remember on it. I'll update this when and if that happens.