1958 175 Sport tail light

[Jon Pegler]

The 175T parts book shows a slightly different rear light to both the one on Kevs machine and the photo of the replacement light,
E-bay item no.360563446189 in the UK looks a bit like the correct lens fitted to machine now.

Jon

[machten]

Many thanks Jon, well spotted. I think you are correct regading the light on there now. Some following on checking from that says it was used on a similar period and later Lambrettas. Repro lenses are available, so if nothing else, that will be the default course of action. (along the lines that it is all part of the story of its life (whether original or not)- and the objective is to preserve the story)

edit,,,, Kev, sorry for your post re the tail light being sidetracked.
I think your 175 Sport is one of the nicest bikes I've seen, as it is

Thanks Graeme for your kind words. All the contributions to this thread I see as being of direct interest to the underlying theme of my question and I'm grateful for them all. No apologies necessary at all.

Kev

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ Good-news Kev, I've finally unburied & recovered my OLD 175/200 parts-book !


" Many thanks Jon, well spotted. I think you are correct regading the light on there now. "

____ Your 175S tail-light should be made by 'CEV', (not that odd-brand example*) !
(* I've added it's photo [atop the ohers] below.)
__ It seems somewhat strange that Jon's 175T parts-book doesn't show '175T' at the top-corner of the page,, and also, my old/pre-period 175/200 parts-book doesn't list any "175T" Duke-model. _ So I must assume that either the 175T-model was so numerous that it deserved & got it's very-own parts-book just for itself, or else it was produced after my very-old parts-book was published.
__ Anyhow, the tail-lamp model-type shown in Jon's post is the very-same Aprilia-produced model employed for the '200e' & '200TS' Duke-models, (and no others) !
Your 175S-model is shown in my book with a definitely different style of tail-lamp than THAT one ! ...
And also as well, I'm now pretty-sure that the (remainder of the) tail-lamp on your 175-Duke is NOT stock for any OHC.Duke-model. _ So it's likely been borrowed off-from who knows what (until you can discover what manufacturer produced it).
__ In my 175/200 parts-book, there are two different tail-lamp model-types which were employed for the 175S Duke-model, both made by the CEV-manufacturer. ...
The CEV.model-type employed for the LATER/newest 175S-models, is the very-same style which I had mentioned in my first-post as being the "rectangle-style" employed on Monza-models intended for other than the post-1965 USA-market. _ While however, the OLDer CEV.model-type (which YOUR 175S may be old enough to have originally employed), appears to be fairly similar to the tail-lamp which you've pictured separately, (although I'm not thinking that it's the very-same),, and, THAT/older-CEV.lamp-model was stock/employed merely on just the '175S' Duke-model, ONLY ! _ So I can't imagine a more RARE Ducati-part than that, (unfortunately) !
__ For comparison,, while the ODD tail-lamp that's shown mounted on your 175-Duke appears to be attached to it's fender/plate-bracket so that it's top-side/upper-edge is held HIGHER than the top of the mounting-bracket, the 'correct' tail-lamp's upper-edge is mounted so that IT's top-side is actually held slightly -(maybe up to 10mm) LOWER than the top-edge of it's plate/mounting-bracket, (whereas the Aprilia-lamp setup posted by Jon, is held with both top-edges nearly flush together). _ And both the (stock) lamp-lens/body & the top of it's mounting-bracket are contoured with the same matching line-shapes, (much like those posted by Jon). _ All-in-all, the older-version/stock-175S has a much nicer looking rear-end lamp & bracket setup (than the relatively ugly setup that's currently seen on your presented Duke now, [sorry to say !] ).
And also, the stock lamp-lens has rather thin mounting-ears on either side, so as to accept rather short retention/mounting-screws.
If the suspected-correct tail-lamp which you posted separately, happens to have the exact-same mentioned pair of screw-hole mounting-ears, (which don't seem to be nearly as visible as those more obviously seen in my book's drawing), then THAT one just may be the correct tail-lamp for your 175S Duke-model.
____ The next part to get checked-out, is the associated fender/plate bracket (which your current/odd-lamp is mounted to).
So could you post some other pix of it (taken from other angles, withOUT the lamp-body & license-plate left attached) ?


" All the contributions to this thread I see as being of direct interest to the underlying theme of my question and I'm grateful for them all. "

____ Well I hope this-one I've posted ranks up there with the best, as it wasn't the easiest one I've had to dig-up, (so to speak).


Hopeful-Cheers,
DCT/DCT-Bob

[machten]

I'm excited, Bob, but I'm not going to say anything else until I see DCT-Bob on the previous post other than to say "Thanks for taking the time to dig that info up".

I have a potential thread on the preservation of Dukes (new to me) and value of preserving "factory original" vs "how they finished up as riders many years ago". This is what I referred to as the "underlying theme" in my earlier post. I have never had to grapple with the relative values (not money, but history) of this before.

I'm not sure there is any clear answer, and I certainly don't have one, but I suspect it's worthy of a discussion amongst us. If there is sufficient interest, perhaps I might start a thread.

Kev

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" "Thanks for taking the time to dig that info up". "

____ Your welcome !
I felt the need to do so, as I had expected that I would be the only one with a parts-book that covers the 175S-model.


" but I'm not going to say anything else until I see DCT-Bob on the previous post "

____ Right, it's probably a good-idea to not respond to any of my specific post-wording until after I've signed-off with "-Bob", at least.
"DCT-Bob" however, only means that I've COMPLETELY-finished with the posting, (probably forever),, (when I've later reread my post and have then finally corrected any wording that I've come to realize wasn't previously done as best as it could've been, and also have finally added everything I had forgotten to include).



" I'm not sure there is any clear answer, "

____ I've never before heard of anyone-else who has considered that a previous-owner's (rather random) alterations may carry any weight that's at all comparable to the factory/stock condition.
I-myself would say that it could possibly be a valid issue only IF the Duke/bike was once owned by somebody fairly noteworthy, (such as Jay Leno, Tom Cruse, or anyone-else who's been fairly well known of). _ Otherwise, I really can't see keeping a Duke's condition left pretty-much the same as it was kept by some biker who owned it only because it was a mere 'bike' to them.

UPDATE... Since Kev has not yet provided any other pictures to better show the t.lamp/plate-bracket on his 175S, I've decided to just take a closer look at the one pic which he has already posted of it, in an attempt to discern if that bracket is stock (or also an imposter).
And as can now be seen below in these more recently posted zoomed-views centered-towards the specific area of the bracket where the t.lamp-body is mounted (and just above the mounted number-plate),, it has become rather obvious that the intended-location of the original/stock lamp-body is left vacant, (obviously due to the imposter-TL.body being mounted slightly higher, in it's place).
__ So now that we know what's really what, it's no-longer of any worthwhile use for Kev to bother with any more pix of what he has there. _ As the suspected tail-lamp he had previously posted a picture of, is now no-doubt the very-same lamp-model which is actually needed for his 175S Duke-model.


DUKE-Cheers,
DCT-Bob

[machten]

Perhaps this should be another thread, but as it sort of follows on, here it is. This is not technical, but philosophical, so I believe there is no "right or wrong", just differing views..

DCT Bob, Thanks once again for your research into this. My research so far agrees with yours. I think it is the "wrong" light and was placed on post factory by the previous owner. I cannot take photos right now because the 175S is in Italy and I am in Australia.

____ I've never before heard of anyone-else who has considered that a previous-owner's (rather random) alterations may carry any weight that's at all comparable to the factory/stock condition.
I-myself would say that it could possibly be a valid issue only IF the Duke/bike was once owned by somebody fairly noteworthy, (such as Jay Leno, Tom Cruse, or anyone-else who's been fairly well known of).

...I could write a long dissertation on this...

Let me start with the personal philosphy that I couldn't care less about some "celebrity" like Leno or Cruise owning a bike from an era before them. A Steve McQueen "breathed on" Matise of the era is different. DCT Bob raised the question of any alterations of a non-celebrity not carrying any weight in the worth of preservation. I guess I'm happy to differ there. I have thought a lot about the preservation of this 175 in the last few weeks. I have come to the view that when you preserve a motorcycle you need to decide what you are "honouring".

Are you honouring the factory issue?
Are you honouring the lifetime owners?
Are you honouring the motorcycle as it has evolved to now?

I think when you choose to preserve a bike, you need may to choose or compromise between these objectives.

_ Otherwise, I really can't see keeping a Duke's condition left pretty-much the same as it was kept by some biker who owned it only because it was a mere 'bike' to them

So I can understand that view, but here's my problem with it as applies to this particular little Ducati....

I think (in fact, I know) that this little bike survived in this condition since 1958 because it was loved and appreciated by very few people for a very long time. Much longer I suspect than since Leno or Cruise would have begun to consider Ducati's interesting. That means something to me - I can relate to that - and in particular the previous owner recognised the beauty of this little Duc a few years before I was born. It took the passing of another 50 years in time and the same in my lifetime for me to understand what he already knew.

It’s a bit of a luxury because the factory issue is so close (other than wear and tear) anyway, but if factory issue was so important, I’d repaint it to how it looked from the factory. So I guess (whilst I'll get hold of the "right" tail light for someone who may own the bike in the future - and many thanks to every one that helped with that) I choose to honour the story.

Kev

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" Let me start with the personal philosphy that I couldn't care less about some "celebrity" like Leno or Cruise owning a bike from an era before them. "

____ Well of-course I didn't merely mean those two specific personalities in particular... I just happen to chose J.Leno because he's an example of a celebrity who's nearly old enough to have been an early Duke-rider back in those-days, and Cruise because he has actually owned a newer L-twin (of which, I'm sure that IT will some future day become worth MORE solely because of that simple fact,, so therefore it would thus-THEN actually make good-sense to leave it altered in whatever manor HE had changed it !).


" A Steve McQueen "breathed on" Matise of the era is different. "

____ I really don't see specifically how, actually, (timing aside),,
as most-EVERY celebrity also has (or will have) THEIR-own big-fans, as well.
Of-course I understand & agree that if J.Leno took-in an old Duke in PRESENT-day, then that really wouldn't matter too much. _ However SOMEDAY the L-twin owned by T.Cruise will become pretty-much the equivalent 'S.McQ.Matise' !


" DCT Bob raised the question of any alterations of a non-celebrity not carrying any weight in the worth of preservation. I guess I'm happy to differ there. "

____ Contrarily, I ALSO would "differ" with THAT, if exactly such as that had ACTUALLY been specifically made point of by me. ...
But I actually did-NOT state that a previous-owner HAD to be a 'celebrity', but rather merely-just "somebody fairly noteworthy" or even anyone "who's been fairly well known of" . _ Which means that even the likes of individuals such as you & I, could qualify,, (and of-course especially more-so, the likes of authors such as Tom B.).
__ And I actually do indeed agree with your-concern somewhat,, and that if I-myself somehow ended-up with a Duke once owned by the likes of anyone such as yourself, I'd then have second-thoughts before actually considering going-through with any serious changes to the Duke. _ Because people like US really CARED about our DUKEs, so there's then very-likely good-reason to NOT toss-out THEIR changes (from stock) and not attempt to 'restore' their Duke back to original/stock-condition.
__ However, when ya find an old Duke that's been owned by some UNcaring previous-owner who never really cared that his mere motorcycle happened to be a Ducati-make, THEN any alteration-changes done by THAT type of previous-owner, are certainly quite likely NOT going to be any alterations from stock which true-DUKErs (like us) should wish to keep remaining un-restored as-is, (as it's a very-likely certainty that any change/alteration done by such as that type of P.O., would no-doubt be the kind of undesirable JUNK-changes that no self-respecting Duke-owner would ever actually wish to leave as-is & continually put-up with !).


" That means something to me - I can relate to that
So I guess (whilst I'll get hold of the "right" tail light
- I choose to honour the story. "

____ Well that's of-course your prerogative.
__ I think there's some genuine merit in leaving an old antique un-restored & no-longer appearing as if it's brand-new & just freshly produced by the factory.
But I really have to declare... you really ought to consider going-ahead & restore that 175S's tail-light (back to original/factory-stock),, cuz in comparison, that "odd" tail-lamp seen mounted on there now, is pretty-unattractive compared to the quite beautiful lines of the stock tail-lamp !
__ IF someone especially famous (like ex.President Ronald Reagan, for instance), had been the one responsible for the leaving of that odd/busted tail-lamp remaining as-is on that 175-Duke, THEN I'd be apt to agree that it ought to be left that way, just as it is.
BUT that it's been left the way it is, tends to tell me that it's owner hasn't been particularly caring for it,, and-so I-myself (in such case) sure-as-heck wouldn't consider leaving it that way (simply due to such concern as you've become disconcerted with).
____ Will somebody-else please offer YOUR opinion on this 'restore or leave as-is' issue !?
I'm fairly sure that neither Kev nor I will take any offense from your particular mild or stern thought-comments, added here,, regardless whether 'for' or 'against' either view-point.
(As otherwise, no further additional posts by anyone-else, would then likely tip-off Kev that his submitted issue-concern is probably then not going to be worth getting it's very-own thread.)


Dukaddy-DUKEs,
DCT-Bob

[machten]

____ Will somebody-else please offer YOUR opinion on this 'restore or leave as-is' issue !?
I'm fairly sure that neither Kev nor I will take any offense from your particular mild or stern thought-comments, added here,, regardless whether 'for' or 'against' either view-point.

As you correctly surmise, takes a lot more than that to offend me, Bob. I appreciate all input and I enjoy a good debate!

Kev

[graeme]

Never having owned an original genuinely old bike like yours before, I don't think I'd restore it ?????
How do you plan to look after the patina that is this bikes attraction to me?
Do you hand polish the cases and paint to protect them? Or just wash it with a mild detergent and water?
Rebuilding any mechanicals that are required to make it rideable isn't seen.

Of course it's your bike and you should have your way with it.

Just interested how a bike like this is kept?

Regardless it's a nice bike and good luck what ever you do with it.

Graeme

[hobby]

My 1957 175 super sport has the taillight as you show in the picture shown below your bike, but mounted on your number plate. I was told before that the half moon shape tail light is correct for those models. But as you know, you never know with the Ducati factory waht they would do. I agree and look for evidence of extra holes drilled or maybe the shape of paint etc.
Pablo