I have done the usual googling and looked through a few threads here that mention the Carlton Longfellow model. I can't find much about this model except the vague catalog copy and a few mentions of specific bikes. There are a few pictures of some very fancy ones in a couple of threads here that have been restored. Does anyone know of a good source for info? Does anyone have some good pictures they could post? Does anyone know if the "heavier grade of 531" mentioned in the Carlton catalogs is plain gauge or is it thicker butts?

Mostly this is just curiosity because I would like to have one eventually. But, as I look at my 1968 25.5" Super Course with the Carlton serial number (Z6883), I wonder if the builder grabbed some Longfellow main tubes and built it up. According to the catalogs, Raleigh did not offer the Super Course in a 25.5" model until 1970. I know that not mentioning it in the catalog does not mean a thing when it comes to Raleigh and it could be a normal, every day Raleigh. Still, it makes for fun conjecture for a guy that likes a good story.

So, what do you know about Carlton Longfellows? Any year would be great but the later 60's are of particular interest to me.

beicster -

The Longfellow was a frameset only catalogue item in the late 60s. It was roughly comparable to a Super Course in configuration but with superior cosmetics.



https://thevelocollective.com/raleig...on-longfellow/

Check the details in the link above.

It was a special model for taller riders, hence the name "Longfellow". In 24" and 25½" sizes only. Yes, it would be 531 PG (plain gauge) for heavier/bigger riders. When Raleigh took over the Carlton name in the early 1960's, the serial numbering system got pig-eared, hence not easy to date models up until 1973. There's some pictured on Instagram and occasionally pop up on Facebooks various vintage bike groups.

The one posted above by @bertinjim is rather nice example of this rare model, with bullet silver finish, yellow & sky blue bands with chromed fork socks and fork bridge.

That is a nice example. I have already drooled over that one a few times.

I like how the article says how it's hard to date a frame when the serial number is meaningless. True, and we should think of a different word than "serial!"