C . 266 .

[headdownarseup]

My thoughts exactly Chas.
Although i still think that photoshopping (for want of a better word in this instance) was probably highly unlikely in the early 50's.
An artists ink drawing on the other hand might well be open to some debate.
Add into the mix some very grainy and picsalated black and white photographs and we're still none the wiser as to what's what.


Tam
Have a look for Olympic outboard motor in the main site. Might help to answer a couple of things. An aussie version of a 102 (clever copy)

Jon

[Charles uk]

Somewhere over the last 20 years, 2 or 3 time I have been shown Seagull motors printers blocks, but I can't remember who showed me them, if any one reading this has any, could they please post a pic of the block & a copy of it's finished output, so that current members can understand how expensive & complex the printing process was in the late 40's to early 60's, before the rise to power of offset litho printing.
I've always believed that Seagull provided these blocks to encourage distributors all around the world to advertise their products & the dealer's stock holding, though no hard evidence of this has ever surfaced & no staff members from this era are still with us to confirm or deny.

[Keith.P]

I was having a look though some of my seagull paperwork, not that I have much in the way of literature, ads for seagulls and new add on parts, like the carry handle for instance, my ad is dated 1957, with proper pictures of a 102 and with a bow tie prop, so its going to pre date this ad.
This would also depend on if the carrying handle was available before 57 and this was not the first time this ad came out.
One other thing, was the part number the same for the bow tie and swept back prop?

[Oyster 49]

Surprised nobody has not mentioned these. Dated spring 1946 with good clear photos, rather than artists render:

http://www.saving-old-seagulls.co.uk/no ... ng%202.jpg

http://www.saving-old-seagulls.co.uk/no ... ng%203.jpg

It's interesting to see the details of the engine, must be a very early post war engine. Note the fuel pipe, plus the rare side mount kit. Don't think I would want to drill a hole in the side of the boat though!

[headdownarseup]

Not quite as clear as i'd like it Adrian, but yes you get the gist of what was going on in the spring of 46. (i've been over these photos countless times before) And the ignition type is......NOT A COOLIE HAT, but a flattop (as far as i can see) Would you agree? What months would you call SPRING? March to May perhaps? Do we think we might be a bit closer to understanding when Coolie hat ignition was superceded to Flattop judging by these pictures. As these pictures had already gone to press, i find it highly unlikely that anyone would wish to "clean up" the photographs so as to depict something different. I know that Chas would like to narrow things right down to a month if it were possible. I'm getting there slowly with the data, but it's very slow going a lot of the time.

I've been looking at the skeletal bracket fitted to C . 266 . amongst other things. Interesting to see that some parts are numbered exactly the same as in later models? (the same as in the pics above)
For example the half round cast aluminium friction part that attaches to the drive tube is numbered as E1334A (exactly the same in later variants).
The funny looking hook arrangement (unique to the skeletal bracket) is numbered as E1335b. The later models (non skeletal bracket) have the same part number BUT a completely different looking component.
So going by what you've just mentioned Keith, there might be a possibility that in other parts for later models the part number stays the same although the physical appearence of the part actually changes! Does this make sense?
Could it be the same with props? Is it the same part number for an SD prop as in a Bowtie? Interesting...

There are a few other examples of this througout the post war 102 line up that i've noticed. Same part number but very different looking part.

Just having a look through my 1962 mod spares list at some of these "oddities" i can see the part number for a SHORT WATER JACKET cylinder reads as ET/XC/M66/1299.
The later LONG WATER JACKET cylinder (with presumably hex-head core plugs) supercedes to the same 1299 number although slightly re-arranged as E1299A. (i wonder if the A relates to A series 102's) C . 266 . has this same E1299A number cast into the cylinder as do my AC's and AD's and AHC's. The same number appears in the slotted core plug cylinder as well, although NOT ALL slotted plug cylinders have this number.

A bit further on i can see 2 (or is that 3) types of prop listed (for 1962 MOD spares list)
Firstly what is described as Propeller 10 in. dia; with bush (presumably an SD swept back prop) part number ET2023
The second described as Propeller 9 in dia, 4 blades , 8-1/2 in. rh pitch (presumably cloverleaf and hydrofan) part number ET2089.
Not much help here for "Bowtie" props.

Anyone else got a spares list from the late 40's to early 50's willing to share information which might point us in the right direction?



As for printing blocks, all i've got is the sort that would be on headed note paper, quite small 3 to 4 inches in length depicting various sailing scenes. The same as in some of the adverts listed on the main SOS site.


Jon

[Keith.P]

I just looked at a spares list from 1951 and it has the carry handle listed, so the ads just got reused and reused.
As for part number, if they are getting reused, plus the limited description that went with them, this inst going to help trace anything.
Current transom bracket type B was available at this time, what ever that was.

[headdownarseup]

This is half the trouble Keith.
Relying on a previous set of images or artists pen/ink drawings even though it might be printed in the current version of the spares/parts list isn't really going to get us anywhere. I think it's more to do with the parts themselves rather than a set of generic images.
Older photographs (not drawings) to my mind seem to be more truthful, despite the grainyness in them you can get the general gist of what's going on.
Parts lists will always contain some valuable information, but as i don't have anything like that (and certainly don't wish to start collecting them either) all i can do is go by old black and white photos, OR better still go and see a motor in the flesh and record what i see.


Jon

[Oyster 49]

That 1962 War Dept parts book refers to New type and old type in several areas, including several prop options, "JM" type and newer type magnetos, even showing a drawing of the new type magneto baseplate. Obviously an updated book showing the latest available spares stocked. It even quotes new and old tank type, with the newer type having the alloy screw in filler cap.

[Horsley-Anarak]

I looked at that motor on ebay, thought it was an early c.
Thought the skeletal bracket had been repaired, that put me off a little. Has it been brazed Jon ?
Interesting motor, I retracted my bid when I noticed possible bracket repair (not mentioned in listing)
Good interesting motor though, could be a coolie hat motor.
I have a correct tiller arm with Dover SD type spare..
H-A

[Keith.P]

The ad I have for the carry handle and other optional parts available from BS are photos and not artists drawings, but as the pictures could be from any date, trying to date anything from BS using ads would be questionable, as the handle was already available in 51, maybe before and the ad is dated 57, not knowing how long this ad was used for makes dating any changes in motors from them are speculative at best.
Plus the ad shows parts on the 102 Seagull that wouldn't have been on a Seagull at that time and parts that I have never seen on a seagull, so it would make them a concept motor and no more, like the Little Forty ad photos, its not the same motor that ended up being sold, close but not the same.

I suspect it was more about when the old stock ran out and a replacement part had to be made, rather that an upgraded part at any specific time.
Swept back props always looked very well made, bow tie props on the other hand look basic and cheap.

All I would say is I don't envy you're task Jon.

[Charles uk]

When Charles P & I were researching this era of the 102 production history we came to the conclusion that we couldn't afford to ignore any of the potential data sources, because of the lack of hard data.

So every possible source was looked at, price lists, parts lists, brochures, ex employees, distributors & even the Patent office.

It was at this point, probably some 7 or 8 years ago, we decided that it was too much work for just the 2 of us, so we decided to specialise in the areas that interested us most.
So I took on the Marston range, the inboards, all of the QUBs & the Seagull Sports as I had examples of all of these, & Charles P chose to concentrate his efforts on his historical researches.

We also made a firm decision that as this site has become a reference site for Seagull data, that nothing would be claimed as a fact if we couldn't prove it with incontrovertible data, hence my role as the grumpy schoolmaster.

[headdownarseup]

H-A
Yes the bracket has been repaired, quite nicely i think. I'm not too bothered by it though, as when i come to actually use it on a boat i will be using a different bracket any way.

Pm me some details about this tiller. I still need one


Jon

[headdownarseup]

Going right back to the start of this thread, Wanted a prop and a tiller grip.
Well, thanks to Rick i now have a prop. Just needs a bit of dressing and a polish and it'll be good as new again.

Thanks Rick
You're a diamond geezer.

Jon