Saving Old Seagulls

Probably not for quite a while. A couple of years perhaps. There's loads left to do. Loads of data still needs sourcing.
The small token i offered a while back was and still is very much a work in progress. I was actually quite upset at how it went down with you guys at the time. Trying to get to the grass roots with minimal data as i have at the moment is like committing suicide. And to top it all i have (and still have) puta woes with some of this. Frustrating is an understatement
Been there and done that, so no thanks.

But.....there are some very distinctive patterns in the build spec. Some of which we know already, and perhaps a few odd-balls as well that aren't that well known. It's getting there though.

When i feel it's ready enough, then and only then will i publish it.

Ask me again in 2 years time as this is something that i want to dot the I's and cross the T's with.

Jon

No offense meant, but this answer seems to be the very reason some posters in here seem to have a hard time with some of your posts.

You can only say 'soon, soon' for so long before people give up putting much stock in what you say you're trying to do.

Would you reconsider and just share what you say you have, maybe? You might find you'd kill two birds with one stone.

Just a thought?

Regarding the "Best Outboard Motor in the World" the 1936 Marston brochure has that as its top margin legend.

Ah yes Charles, I could not remember when it was introduced. I’ve been checking this morning.

Collector Inspector wrote:Thank goodness it is only "some posters" that have an issue.

Unfortunately it is a bit more than that. The concern is the non posters, the previous members that Jon quite rightly noted that no longer contribute. Sadly it is Jon's egotistical manner that caused this migration. Jon has some fine attributes and I'm particularly grateful and respect that he has been supportive of AJ after his stroke. I applaud that in the man.

Alas though, Jon does sprout uninformed technical surmises on Seagull technical matters. Misinformation in fact. It is not acceptable.

I hope Jon has the decency to respectfully re-access his questionable knowledge and post accordingly.

Be good to see HA and others back....

Yes.

Isn't this the "for sale?????

It is but some things need to be said. When very capable and knowledgeable people walk away because of the monopolising of the forum by other individuals we need to ask why.

Great to see H-A back here too! I know who I would seek advice from first

Back to the subject, if anyone's interested.
I have been looking at the different styles of carburettor cowls and this it what I have found so far.
This is what I think, so please tell me if you think I am right or wrong.
Ok, we have the patent dates, which could make the cowls predate the patent or post date the patent.
So far I have found six different styles of cowl, not including the later QB stuff.
If the casting process was so expensive, why six different styles and why keep saying PATENT on different style cowls, unless there is more than one patent.
Also I would say that the SEAGULL PATENT cowl is later then the SEAGULL cowl and may have been made patent pending and this is for why.
I have three reasons for this, the first reason, an advertising poster for the 102, with thumbscrew transom shows a SEAGULL cowl fitted.
Second, A parts list from the late 40's shows the part as a "SEAGULL" cowl, not a new cowl or patent cowl, but a "SEAGULL" cowl.
Third, If you look at the ad paperwork for the model F, it shows a concept motor, basically looking like a baby 102, with the same tank logo same throttle lever and I suspect a copper flywheel cover, the colour of the cover is a little off and it makes sense to me and if you look at the carburettor cowl, with no choke fitted as yet, it says SEAGULL and I bet Jeremy's F'S have SEAGULL PATENT cowls.
So my conclusion is that the SEAGULL cowl came out before the SEAGULL PATENT cowl and could post date the patent.

I would agree with that. Also on the SDs the clutch lever came out as plain and then a couple of years or so later they added patent to it which ties in with your theory.

This may not be in any order.
Patent cowl. Provision for choke, NO choke fitted. Choke fitted. Provision for choke either side, with choke fitted. There are more, but they are not impotent.

And the next one that interestingly has gone from plastic to a metal choke flap and no longer has patent on it.

One thing that I thought about is why apply for a patent in the first place? It’s hardly a revolutionary thing, just a carb inlet?

I suppose the original inlet was an in-line just like motorcycles of the day and this was a 90 degree rotated inlet , which also prevents water ingestion, hence the patent.

I thought that too. Why patent a clutch lever?