Oh the drama.
beng said:
But if It is appropriate in a thread about Seeley motorcycle history to defend their history then
As I see it,
this was not appropriate right from the start - get it? It was about showcasing various Seeley frames and my curiosity about the Mk 1 which you nicely responded to. It goes down hill in some sort of unprompted slippery slope of a gray matter "do loop"; can you explain it any better than that. Go back and see my first post on this thread and then read your first post which was spot on and informative until after the last picture where you explain how the Seeley Mk 2 purity and virtue becomes some sort of point of contention, uttered out of thin air in some sort of Tourette Syndrome manner.
This was not appropriate right from the start - get it?
If the feelings are so strong about this matter, start a new topic and see who really cares. But we all know this will not happen as I see this as your avenue to attempt to belittle and punish a few who do not see things exactly as you do.
You are correct, those poor people who are
not missing out on life and having the times of their lives with friends, acquaintances and general public; totally unencumbered by some now obscure
potential technicality which is truely of no consequence. And oh my, how can they not be hung up by these
potential historical nuances of no consequences. They all really need the pity. I truely see your point now. :roll: For anyone who has been to just about any vintage event (including AHRMA) you can see the despair in all the smilling faces
If you feel so strongly about AHRMA mis representing itself as Historic and you want the "H" removed then find the state that AHRMA is organized in, gather your like minded masses, take up a collection for a legal challenge and go to court. Don't go away mad, just get the H out!
Just because you cannot find an instance of a Seeley Mk2 mated up to a Norton twin in 1968 does not mean that it did not happen? As I see it, you are making these assertions yet the riders have met the burden of proof for racing a particular bike configuration in accordance with AHRMA rules. Since you are making the claims, as I see it, the burden of proof is clearly on you. Just because you cannot find it does not mean it did not happen. So go forth and bring me back that bucket of steam! My honest hunch is you may well be correct in your assertion about 1968.
beng said:
If someone builds a motorcycle that is supposedly a replica of a "1968 Seeley Commando" and proceeds to parade it around the world as such, ...
So where is this instance of "a replica of a 1968 Seeley Commando being paraded as such?" Please inform us of what shadows these demons lurk in. We really should have specifics here as you have been very specific and deliberate all through this thread. As I see it, and paraphrasing your statement from your earlier post, this is your Wet Dream or Unicorn, all you have to do to make any Wet Dream or Unicorn a reality is simply come up with the documentation for it. And "documentation" means a records made of paper or film, not hot air and wishes....There must be URL's, pdf's, flyers, letters, photographs. You have made these assertions so it is fair to say the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders. Go for it and back it up.
I for one do not represent my Seeley bikes as a whole as nothing other than my doings with credit due to the skilled people who helped put them together. I will state it is a Seeley replica frame and whether it was made by Roger T.
Please, please after all this please show us who or what is doing this wrong here. Is there any evidence of it?
And if you do have an instance, can you demonstrate that there was intent or malice as opposed to difference of opinion?
So do you have that bucket of steam for me mate?
Poof!!.......I did not think so.
So how about that photo of a Seeley Mk 4. Is it monday yet? Was the Mk 4 the basis for the Condor and was the Condor strictly a G50 or was there a 7R version? Is Larry Poons still racing his Condor?