1952 Claud Butler Massed Start #522513 (skip find)

[Midlife]

Re: 1951 Claud Butler No7 “Closed Circuit” Mk1 Any opinions?

Dropouts tend to stay parallel if the frame takes a knock with the wheel in? Can't say I've ever seen a kinked chainstay like that before.

 

[Peachy!]

Re: 1951 Claud Butler No7 “Closed Circuit” Mk1 Any opinions?

Dropouts tend to stay parallel if the frame takes a knock with the wheel in? Can't say I've ever seen a kinked chainstay like that before.

Neither have I.
Before I go any further with prep on the frame I'm going to rig it up with an appropriate width axle and see how it lines up, possibly get it front of a frame builder friend of a friend and solicit his opinion.

 

[Midlife]

Re: 1951 Claud Butler No7 “Closed Circuit” Mk1 Any opinions?

When I worked at Cliff Pratt Cycles there was a lot of frame building stuff down in the basement including old Kromo tubes. "Bunny" the mechanic who also used to build frames said that Kromo was good stuff, should straighten ok if not corroded.

 

[Peachy!]

Re: 1951 Claud Butler No7 “Closed Circuit” Mk2 Any opinions?

When I worked at Cliff Pratt Cycles there was a lot of frame building stuff down in the basement including old Kromo tubes. "Bunny" the mechanic who also used to build frames said that Kromo was good stuff, should straighten ok if not corroded.

I received a reply from the V-CC Claud Butler Marque specialist confirming pretty much the same, also suggesting that in times of poor cash flow, it was pretty normal for frame builders to temporarily use other suppliers, at least in this case it seems CB were honest enough to label the bike up correctly.

Still no reply yet regarding the fact that this frame is stamped 1951, but the “Closed Circuit Mk2” was last advertised in 1949.

 

[Peachy!]

Re: 1951 Claud Butler No6 “Closed Circuit” Mk1 Any opinions?

Just had it pointed out to me that I had read the catalogue incorrectly.... it’s now looking most likely to be a model No6 not a No7, because only the 6 had these lugs, this means its most likely a Closed Circuit Mk2, albeit 2 years out of sinc with the catalogues….

 

[Peachy!]

Re: Now I think it's a 1952 Claud Butler “Massed Start"

Now look what I found whilst giving the frame a light wesh!

If my eyes don't deceive me this top tube name decal says, "MASSED START" Model and no mistake, this takes her into a different league entirely, at £47 that makes her a very expensive machine back in 1951 and very much 'Top of the line'

Bizarrely though the catalogue shows completely different lugs for the New Massed Start and now I’m also wondering if she’s not a 1951 model after all as the 1952 catalogue illustration & description seems spot on…. Just to back pedal a moment, I had assumed the BB stamp of 522 over 513 meant 1951 March production number 522. Could it be 1952 February production number 513?

 

[torqueless]

Re:

at £47 that makes her a very expensive machine back in 1951 and very much 'Top of the line'

I'm way out of my time-zone in 1951, but I think those splined cranks must have been 'top of the line' too. Did you get them both off OK? To be fair to Signor Gnutti, I doubt he ever envisaged a maintenance schedule at fifty year intervals!

 

[Peachy!]

Re: Re:

at £47 that makes her a very expensive machine back in 1951 and very much 'Top of the line'

I'm way out of my time-zone in 1951, but I think those splined cranks must have been 'top of the line' too. Did you get them both off OK? To be fair to Signor Gnutti, I doubt he ever envisaged a maintenance schedule at fifty year intervals!

I got the set off of the axle with no real drama, just had to think out of the box. I haven't attempted to separate the rings from the crank yet. They are having a nice long soak.

Here is what I have asked the VCC Claud Butler Marque Expert;

Hello Robin,
I hope you don't mind me bothering you like this, but I have some further conflicting information on my recent acquisition that hopefully you will be able to shed some light upon…
The information that I have is;
1. The BB stamp clearly has 522 over 513, I assumed this would mean 1951 March, production number 522. Could it be 1952 February production number 513? I’m also thinking that early February could account for a low production number like 513, but by March of 1951 surely, they would have produced more than 522 frames sets? (my December 1954 Jubilee was number 8509 & even if it were the last of the year that would put the monthly average at 709)
2. The Lugs look to me like the “Closed Circuit” lugs from the 1949 catalogue. But this model wasn’t advertised in either ’51 or ‘52
3. Top Tube “Massed Start” name decal, see attached photo that I took after gently washing the frame, it wasn’t immediately obvious, and I only became aware of it as the light caught a reflection. Its just the ghost of a sticker, a trace left behind where the adhesive or pigment had affected the surface in a slightly different way.
I have never seen a Massed Start in the flesh but photographs I have seen have very different lugs. & of course, the ones this bike has are not what are advertised in catalogue….

Best regards,

Christopher


I'll post his reply.....

 

[Peachy!]

Re: Now I think it’s a 1952 “Massed Start”

I recieved a reply today;

Hello Chris –

Either scenario could be correct ie 1951 0r 1952
When I first saw your photos I thought it was a ”Massed Start” model
My opinion is a 52 Massed Start . Lugs vary, as I said in my previous Email they would have used what was available.

That'll do me, so in the boot she goes. I'll be dropping her off at a friend’s powder coating shop...just for a chemical dip. then I think it will be treated with a rust converting chemical rather than sand blasted... I don’t think she would survive that!

 

[allenh]

Just posting to follow this one but looks to be another interesting project for you?