Hello Eric, Maybe I can help with the ID of your 'Holdsworth'
My first 6 years framebuilding where with Bob Jackson [before I moved on to Woodrup's] It certainly does look like a BJ or Merlin.......the Merlin range as I recall where exactly the same as a BJ, but where supposed to be of a cheaper price range, even though we made them in the same manner as a BJ, or even a JRJ [John Robert Jackson]
The rear brake bridge as quite a large center boss, which I remember, though I can't remember now if this was a later style to the smaller boss or the other way round.
As for 'scalloping the rear stays'.........just a bit of careful use of a vice actually!
Regarding the two numbers, I suspect 2259 is the actual frame # wheras 412 is the # the frame shop stamped on renovations for the paint shop records, [ I hated this method as it made the frame appear second hand or certainly not a new one anymore!]
Incidently having looked at the Merlin on eBay I remember brazing on those rings at the top of the down tube for bar controls, amazing there still on as they where prone to getting snapped off!
Wonder why it was spayed up as a Holdsworth?
Kevin Sayles. Bridgwater Somerset UK
> Hello List,
> The Holdsworth frame which I have listed on ebay (120352861564) has raised
> a few questions from one ebay member in particular. He writes,
> Hello again,
> After further research, this appears to be a Bob Jackson produced Merlin.
> The serial number is formatted as a Jackson, and not at all like a
> Holdsworth, even considering known variances. See current e-bay listing
> number 270319751498 for a BJ Merlin fastback. There should be a brazed on
> rear brake bridge, and the seat lug taper is different from the
> Holdsworth. The wheelbase is not correct for a Super Mistral, probably
> owing to the front fork. It has no eyelets as on rear, and may be fom a
> Holdsworth Pro. This is a very interesting and vintage British frame, but
> not what I believed it to be. I must respectfully retract my bid.
> The frame and fork are both stamped "412" while the frame has a secondary
> stamp of "2259." This would indicate to me the fork is original to the
> bike despite the difference in eyelets. The only reference I can find
> regarding wheelbase is the 1963 Mistral having a 41" wheelbase but
> certainly it could have been shortened up by the 1970's as most all
> builders were doing.
> Either way, I would be most appreciative of any comments or points for me
> and potential buyers to be aware of.
> I have updated my listing accordingly but may need to cancel it depending
> on further feedback from this list.
> Thanks in advance,
> Eric 'do not want to decieve' Elman