1966-Style Monza-model 250-Duc.Single Sold!

[wcorey]

I think the correct placement is with 3 vertical,

I think your example with the 3 vertical is correct, at least it's how I've always seen them. Looks better in any case...

Bill

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ Well everyone, I sent-in a Question to the seller of the Mk3-Duke in main-interest concerning it's battery-issue...
I received-back (of course through eBay) an unexpectedly extended email-reply/response !
The first-half of it was nice & neutral enough but, the rest seemed as if he was somewhat (understandably) upset. _ I'll let you be the judge of that, as I've gotten his okay to transfer all the exact wording of his personal-email, (just as it was sent to me), over to this w.site, (with ONLY his one '4-letter' word altered - [" $#!+ " ,by me] !).
__ This is being done this way because, while he's been aware of this w.site, he has not been currently registered here so that he could've placed his very-own response-posts within this thread.
__ So here follows his very-first email sent to me,
then following that, is my reply-email back to him,
then followed by his 2nd.email-reply back to me. .....

From/by: the eBay-seller...
Dear dewcattea-bob,

G`day Bob,

The stickers are the replacement stickers of the ones originally on the bike when I bought it. Bike is very original, in all ways. I believe it to be a 250 Mark 3, but if you can convince me it is a Mach 1, I `m all ears. I bought the bike from a collector 10 years ago, and added to my collection. Don`t really know if it needs a battery to run/start, but there is a battery strap, and there was a battery in it when I bought it. Doesn`t have white faced Veglia tacho, but I believe some of the bikes delivered to Australia, came standard without the tacho as a cheaper entry option. I have a white faced Veglia tacho, bracket, and the lot that I could have added, to make the bike more desirable to some, but I believe in keeping the bike as original as possible. That is why I haven`t added it, what would have been an easy option, and certainly would have bought me more money. The headlight shell is the ORIGINAL chromed shell with the correct 150 MPH speedo sitting correctly/flat in it hole. Horn is standard for a batteried 250 MK 3. The head assembly on the bike is original, and is not a later w/c variety. Fenders are painted as originally can on this bike.

Bob, I appreciate what you say about the bike, and your experience with them, but sometimes you are just plain wrong. This is an original 1966 250 MK 3, sold new in its present guise by Fraser`s in Sydney. Each market(GB, America, Europe, Australia) supplies bikes with many different variations, to what you have seen in your local market or on the internet. I have 35 years with bevel Ducati`s, just about had then all. Still got 22 bevels in the garage, 11 singles and 11 twins, so I do know what I am talking about. Unlike yourself, who even professes ? I am no expert? but in the next breath proceeds to put $#!+ on other peoples bike. Do you know for a fact that my bike has w/c headstock, or for that matter, any of the other issues you have raised? If the answer is NO, I would appreciate it, if you are not sure about something, you refrain from making comment. I have seen you bully people on your forum into believing the WRONG advice before and I don`t think it is fair for you to do it again this time, especially since you are clearly wrong. Your comments about rear sets shows me you are working on faded memory and not fact. Get off your high horse and let some other people have a say on some things Single, you are not the only ?non expert? out there, and with a cross section of opinions from others, we are not getting your dictatorial, quite often wrong opinion/advice.

Cheers Justin


By: DewCatTea-Bob...
Dear Justin,
__ I'm sorry it seems you're upset ! ... I'm quite willing to try fixing whatever you're not content with. It seems that you're aware of Jim's website -(NOT MINE!), and have confused my comments with that of other posters !?
__ I would much like to transfer this email-message of yours here, over to that Motoscrubs-w.site for all to understand your own viewpoint ! And continue discussion (there) towards getting everything on PROPER track so as to get at least closer to whatever the actual facts really were !
__ If you don't wish for your exact wording (as seen here below) to be posted there, then please place your very-own post (edited as however you wish), within that same thread (which you already seem aware of).
____ To be sure that your motor is actually a 'Mach-I', it must have 'M1' stamped in the motor-case, next to 'DM250' !
Also, the alternator's cable should have just two Yellow wire-leads within, and both connected to a black-box (located under the seat)!
BTW, the Mach1-models did not come stock with tachometers !
__ Hope your "Mark3" is actually a 'Mach1' .

Sorry-Cheers,
Bob


From/by: the eBay-seller...
G`day Bob,

Just to point out, the cases on the bike(clearly shown in photos) are clearly stamped M3, hence my assumption Mark 3. I may be wrong, and it yet may be a Mach 1. I don`t think so, but clearly wouldn`t mind.

I am not a member on Motoscrubs, so didn`t post my response there. I am quite happy for you to post my previous email, in its present form or any edited form you choose. It is up to you if you would like to remove some of the contents, not related to the bike. I would just like members of the site to be aware, that I genuinely believe the bike to be original. I have seen 1000`s of Ducati`s over the years, many of the same models with different parts on them compared to each other. Ducati were notorious for this. This doesn`t make the bike wrong, just different, and maybe possibly delivered in a different market/country/year etc.

As I say I believe my bike is a genuine 250 Mark 3, but I will check the wiring tomorrow, and let you know.

Thanks cheers Justin

ps. I believe the comment on Motoscrubs about the orientation of the stickers is correct. The stickers on my bike, are indeed at the wrong angle

____ Next, I have some issues to address, which were brought-up in his email.....

By: Justin...
" but sometimes you are just plain wrong. "

____ Well of course most everyone is some time or another "just plain wrong" ! _ And I've been no exception to that in a number of instances, even in some emails I've written, BUT, when it comes to anything which I my-own-self have written within this w.site, I'm positive that I haven't left any information that's outwardly incorrect,, and if there happens to be any doubt in my head about something, then my chosen wording should always reflect so !!!


" This is an original 1966 250 MK 3, sold new in its present guise by Fraser`s in Sydney. Each market(GB, America, Europe, Australia) supplies bikes with many different variations, to what you have seen in your local market or on the internet. "

____ First, the internet is too recent to likely reflect anything 100% as it was over 4-decades ago, and thus of course nobody ought to trust as absolute-fact anything they learn there !
More pertinently, I have no doubt that YOU truely believe that your Duke is pretty-much/basically the same as it was when it was first sold. _ But unless you yourself seen it (or another just like it) the very day back when it was first uncreated (after having been shipped from Italy), I then have good reason to doubt that you're completely correct (and that you naturally must accordingly wish to believe that which you've been conditioned to believe about it).
Cuz not only was I myself around back in those days to personally see most old Duke-models when they were still brand-new on the showroom-floor, but I also have a 1966-copy of a multi-country parts-book (by Ducati) which makes certain notes of any differences which the made-for-USA-models may have, as compared with those made for most other countries !!
So unless you know of a Ducati parts-book (or an original sales-ad, cycle-mag, or the like) which (at least somewhat) backs-up that which you believe,, then I for one, really can't be fairly convinced to accept as fact all that which YOU seem to so easily accept as fact.


" I have 35 years with bevel Ducati`s, just about had then all. Still got 22 bevels in the garage, 11 singles and 11 twins, so I do know what I am talking about. "

____ That's of course believable but, of course you thus must realize that you then started almost a whole decade too late to have much of any first-hand information ! _ You've thus then had to trust your SOURCES of information concerning such !
So I don't see how that particular boast has much of any weight to bear on this particular issue. _ Unless of course you happen to have (or know of ) another Mark3 that's pretty-much just the same ! _ (You wouldn't have us believe that Ducati made only one Mk3 unit just like your's, would you?)


" Unlike yourself, who even professes ? I am no expert? but in the next breath proceeds to put $#!+ on other peoples bike. "

____ For sure you're confused with that conclusion !
And also, I've never put-down anyone's "bike", especially if it was a 'Duke' !!
IF you ever really believed so, THEN I contend that you must not always be able to read & comprehend written-English properly !


" Do you know for a fact that my bike has w/c headstock, or for that matter, any of the other issues you have raised? If the answer is NO, I would appreciate it, if you are not sure about something, you refrain from making comment. "

____ Of course I couldn't KNOW for a fact about anything concerning YOUR-own Duke ! _ But I still stand-by my-own thoughtfully-worded comments.
__ (Most other writers don't bother to choose their wording in such a way as to be certain that it can only be taken the exact way as actually intended, thus when most readers read someone-ELSE's written-word, they naturally assume that it's wording hasn't included much careful forethought, and so they thus assume that the writer may not have actually meant to convey exactly that which it seems his words are meaning to state, - [and THAT unfortunately is actually indeed so very often the actual case!]... Well with MY posted-wording, I never mean to convey anything other than that which my words [quite narrowly!] pin the jest down to ! _ So any other thought that one may jump to on their own, is merely just their OWN inspired thought, and not necessarily my intended jest!)
__ Anyhow, I would suppose that since the later-1966 Mk3-models were produced near the point in time when Ducati was winding-down their production of the narrow-case model-lines, it could then therefore be that such last examples of Mk3s (as yours) were fitted with the first examples of the chromed-type headlamp-shells (as yours has), which were no-doubt actually produced to be fitted to the soon coming Mk3-DESMO models. _ However in such case I would've expected that any n-c models produced late enough to end-up being fitted at the factory with those first chromed-headlamps, to have even newer motor-numbers than yours. _ But then again on-the-other-hand, this possible theory I've come-up with to explain such being included on your n-c Duke, still does allow for your not so extremely new n-c motor-number to still fall within the outer-range of my knowledge on such ! _ So therefore we may settle on that explanation.
__ Hopefully Bevel-Bob will compare your motor-number to his own 250-Mark3's, and thus also confirm that there were at least a number of Mark3-models which were released from the factory with battery-powered electrical-systems, (as the Mach1-models were known to have).


" I have seen you bully people on your forum into believing the WRONG advice before and I don`t think it is fair for you to do it again this time, especially since you are clearly wrong. "

____ Now this notion I have to fully contest ! _ Please attempt to prove even one single instance of such a preposterous occurrence ! _ Indeed, please try to provide ANY (even slight) example which even comes close to fulfilling this accusation !
In fact, I CHALLENGE anyone to fine ANYthing I've ever left stated (here at this w.site), to be clearly wrong !!
__ I really do want this to be attempted, as I really don't wish for even a single tiny little tid-bit of misinformation to be left-behind (by me) to possibly misdirect even an unknown-enemy !
I'm REALLY all for correcting any (even tiniest!) error (made by myself) that can be found anywhere within this w.site, by anybody !!
So PLEASE do !


" Your comments about rear sets shows me you are working on faded memory and not fact. "

____ While my 'recall' can be fuzzy at times, my 'memory' is EXCELLENT ! _ Besides, I have all the parts-books to back me up ! _ What do you have (that's so trustworthy) ?
__ However on this particular issue of rear-sets (and no-doubt others), my memory can certainly be out-of-wack with exactly what Ducati was actually doing back at the time because, as it should be well-known that the U.S. importer of DUCATIs would bleed-off older model-year models at later points in time than they ought to have been, and thus then title them inappropriately model-year wise !
This means that YOUR 250Mark-3 possibly got imported down-there at a time which does not correlate with my own experience learned here in the U.S. !
And unlike most forward improvements as models get updated, the addition of rear-sets onto the 250Mark-3 model-line had been taken & reverted back to the same as the point in time when rear-sets were not yet employed on ANY std.production-line models.
When n-c Mark3-models began to come without the rear-sets by early-1967, it was then assumed that that model-line was getting wrapped-up with the use of more common parts shared my more popular models.
My 1966 Ducati parts-book indicates that only the 1965 versions of the Mark3 were stock with the factory rear-sets. _ But that must have been the case for most of the rest of the world, as I'm fairly sure that most Mark3s sold within the U.S. in 1966, were still with the factory rear-sets, (even though such model-units were probably actually built by the factory in late 1965).


" Get off your high horse and let some other people have a say on some things Single, you are not the only ?non expert? out there, and with a cross section of opinions from others, we are not getting your dictatorial, quite often wrong opinion/advice. "

____ Not too sure what's all actually being meant to be conveyed there-above but, I think I ought to be complimented that you think I'm on a "high horse".
__ I never offer my 'opinion' as fact, and I do wish there were others who would be willing to offer what they know as being actual-fact, (and not just give-out possibly misleading opinions) !
I really can't agree though however, that I might ought to hang-back & allow any incorrect-info to continue to freely flow unchallenged through this w.site (which I've chosen to roost-upon).
I feast whenever somebody tries to pass-on any of the misleading-tales which have circulated throughout DUKEdom, as such occurrence then provides me an opportunity to attempt to help curtail any such inaccurate/misleading notions from continued spreading !
So yes, while I do indeed hope to find such inaccurate statements (to then try straighten-out), I thus of course also wish for everyone to chime-in with their own "opinions",, not so I can then make my own 'opinion' trump their own, but only so as to correctly 'adjust' them (if needed) towards that which I KNOW to be actual-FACT !
As I don't believe that this w.site has any intent to promote any (even popular) misinformation !!
__ I'm so very sorry if then some readers get the (wrong!) impression that I'm 'jumping-on' anyone's case, that's NEVER my intention ! _ As I only wish to have my wording read in a 'neutral-light', and (perhaps unfortunately) don't wish to take the additional time to make my wording include hugs&kisses toward the person who's post inspired my own. _ As I've tried to make clear a few times before, my 'response-postings' are JUST that, and most often never intended as 'reply-posts' -(which are meant to be primarily directed AT the person who's words have been quoted).
So of course I'm always sorry if anyone has misunderstood that & thinks feelings should be hurt, but that unfortunately may be the cost of correction.
So PLEASE everybody, keep that realization in mind, before ya assume that I'm 'bullying' somebody !


Hopeful-Cheers,
DCT-Bob