Craig wrote re ; http://www.blackbirdsf.org/
>
> Well it does look very English. Late 40's thru mid-50's maybe. I've got a
'52
> Viking with similar lugs. Have seen Flying Scots with same lugs. Might
give
> Bill Reid a try at the Flying Scot website. http://www.flying-scot.co.uk/
>
Flying Scot's are 'Scottish' or 'British' - NOT 'English' - come on Craig,
you know better :-)
As to it being a Flying Scot, or built by David Rattray, I'd offer the following comments ;
- Post war Rattray's when Rattray's fitted the rear cable stop on the R.H. chainstay it was always on top, not underneath as shown there.
- There's no Tecalemit (Zerk for Chucks benefit) nipples on either the BB shell or lower head lug, which was feature of all Post-war Scot's I've seen.
- The seat stay end caps are flat ovals. Pre-war and up to about 1948, Rattrays used concave oval plates, until the change to wrapround.
- Again whilst they used straight brake bridges until 1947/48, they didn't use brake mounting bolt supports at all, until the advent of curved bridges, the support for which was to extend the small tube lining the bolt hole in the bridge by about 3/16.
- The lugs on the machine shown look like they've been used straight out of the box with little thinning down or polishing up, and are reminiscent of the "mass-produced" marque approach to framebuilding. Not a Rattray's trademark....
- The fork tips are finished square - Rattray's as far as I know, always had domed ends.
In short ? It's unlikely to be a Flying Scot, and given the quite basic finishing to the framework, I'd be surprised if it was product of the Taylor Bros. either. But who know's - I could be wrong !
Anyone else like to step up and offer opinions - curious minds need to know !
Bob Reid
Stonehaven
Scotland.