Saving Old Seagulls

If anyone remembers I got a mess via Ebay in 2009.

Took me quite some time to recondition fully mechanically. (Not Restored.......I hate that).

Anyway I am away/off to The Donnelly in Rakali with this as ballast. I have a new rego stika for my river dinghy (Pretty Blue the stika) as well so all good.

The only thing apart from fuel and check GB oil is a new cork in tap...............sorted when I get there.

It is my sweetest runner of a couple that I have.

This one is rivals a couple of LS that I have for smoooooooooooooooooooth.

Pics
More to come when I get back to coverage.

BnC[/color][/b]

EDIT: Last run accountable March 2013.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG5rot6PVRQ

A tidy looking motor.

There's something about a little gull that i find quite charming.
I have SJM210 (circa 1955 vintage) which also is surprisingly smooth compared to my bigger gulls. Runs really sweet too, dare i say it probably better than some of my 102's which i have a fondness for.

I hope it runs better for you than it did last time B (a loose carb was it?)

Jon

Question for you Bruce.
When do you think your SJM was made?

I would say 1965, but i'd like to hear your side of things first.

Jon

There has been some debate whether they used "L". It seems they did. L= November.

I thought "M" was November?

ABCDEFGHJKLM

L = 11 = November. Am I wrong?
" i " is omitted.

You are probably right.
I was just going off the identifier

The interisting thing was when it came back with an error. So I changed the letter in the code
Changed the "L" for am "M" and it showed up as November
error in the identifier?

I think there will be some irregularities with the identifier. Charles has mentioned this quite a bit in the past.

All depends on where you look as well.
Look at this
http://www.britishseagullparts.com/identification.htm

The fact that Bruce's serial number has the letter L in it does suggest his featherweight was made towards that latter end of 1965. (possibly November 65)


Jon

All the British Seagull paperwork does say the the L & I were not used!

Though adding 2 stamped characters (L5) would make this motor appear 10 years younger!

Well, if the letters "L" and "I" weren't used, then how do you explain this one Chas.?

The letter "i" i can say with a fair amount of certainty i've never seen anywhere in a seagull serial number.
The letter L can at times throw up some confusion it has to be said, but in the context we're all used to seeing it in would depict a "Long shaft".

Why not as a month dating character?
For example, if Bruce's featherweight was manufactured as a long shaft (i know it wasn't) it would read as SJML661 which in that respect would make his engine appear 10 years older than it is. Who's seen a long shaft featherweight before? Nobody....

With the letter L towards the end of the serial number (L5) this makes things a little bit clearer as far as dating the engine goes, although not quite as clear as we'd like it to be.
It's clear enough for me though. November 65

If what i've read before has any truth about it, pre '63 motors had a slightly different format in the serial number layout where the letter L only ever indicated a "long shaft" whereas post '63 motors adopted the use of the letter "L" as a month indicator and the number afterwards was the year of manufacture. So, going back to Bruce's engine again SJM meaning "sealed jacket minus", 661 being the number of engine off the production line, the letter L in this case meaning November and the number 5 meaning '65.

From 1973 the use of double lettering to indicate a month identifier seems normal, and then a switch back and forth from 1 letter to double lettering for each decade thereafter.
Read this again only properly this time
http://www.britishseagullparts.com/identification.htm


Jon


Is this the kind of information the engine serial number identifiers are based around?

Jon please.

headdownarseup wrote:
The letter "i" i can say with a fair amount of certainty i've never seen anywhere in a seagull serial number.

I have: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6301

I know its been re stamped but the font would suggest it was done by seagull.

No, come on Charles.
Explain to us why the letter L in an engine's serial number to some folks appears to be wrong somehow.

In this particular instance i see nothing wrong with Bruce's featherweight, nor the serial number stamped into it. The letter L very clearly is a letter L that hasn't been tampered with in any way, and the number 1 of 661 is very clearly a number 1.

I have absolutely no idea why Bruce would think the letter L shouldn't be there at all?


Jacob
That was a fudged up stamping if ever i saw one