Submitted by squeakywheel on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 21:55
I have a 1941 catalogue from the Humphrey Bicycle Co. Toronto. It looks similar to a CCM catalogue but the bicycles are called Humphrey. Was a Humphrey a rebadged CCM?
Submitted by HotRodRob on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 17:51.
From the info I have found, I would say, it's a rebadged CCM. The serial numbers have the same sequences and all the parts are identical to a CCM. I have a 51' Humphrey womans ballooner.
+1. I've seen a model with CCM branded parts and a 1940, CCM format serial number. The frame appeared to be a rebranded CCM Rambler Motorbike. Being a private label/house brand, the manufacturer of the models may have varied, depending on the specific year, but the anecdotal evidence suggests that Humphrey and CCM had a long relationship.
I just finished John's book. He states that in the 1950s CCM wanted to market a cheaper bicycle but didn't want to devalue the brand name. Consequently, CCM bought Humphrey and operated it as a subsidiary for low end bicycles until Nease decided to market a low end, CCM branded model.
This infers that Humphrey actually manufactured their own bicycles prior to the 1950s. (My own research shows the company extending back to at least 1903, as the Humphrey Bicycle and Hardware Company, though they may have been repairing bicycles a couple of years earlier, as the Humphrey Watch Case Company.) Based on the evidence of surviving samples, either CCM purchased Humphrey prior to the 1950s or Humphrey was simply assembling bicycles using CCM contract manufactured frames and components. The latter is certainly a viable explanation, though if Humphrey was simply assembling rebadged CCM frames and components, the cost and workmanship would not have differed substantially, unless CCM was using lower standards for contract manufactured product and/or they were price gouging.
While John doesn't provide any actual dates in the book, the Humphrey brand was reportedly eliminated by Nease, implying it existed through at least 1961. In this context, I find references to the reluctance to tarnish the CCM name very curious. CCM had a history of introducing progressively more economical bicycles to stay competitive. In the early 1940s there was the Rambler line and the even more economical Cadet brand, followed in the late 1950s by the Cyco brand. While the last two were not branded as CCM, the company certainly did nothing to hide the source and, in fact, touted it. The brands were included in CCM catalogues of the era and used the consumer recognizeable, CCM style headbage, with only the brand name being different. In the case of Cyco, CCM even published a large format, four page "Cyco Gram" heralding thee ethe conumer recognizeable, CCM style headbadgethe "new low price line". The Cyco brand appears to have been competitively priced with the models bing offered by the low price subidiaries, so CCM appears to have been willing to accept some tarnish to their name, at least as early as World War II. ,
T-Mar you make some excellent points regarding some of CCM's more economical models and the fact that, despite the absence of the company name, they made no pretense about who was producing them.
Through the years it had been George Braden who, as president and managing director of the company, had been reluctant to put the CCM name on a lower-priced bicycle. By the time the fifties rolled around, however, Braden's influence within the company was beginning to wane (he was forced to retire in May 1958 just as the Cyco was hitting its stride).
In the absence of any company archives, it's difficult to pinpoint particular dates. What we know is that in his book The First Fifty Years, published in 1946, Merrill Denison listed the Humphrey Bicycle & Motor co. Ltd. as a "wholly-owned subsidiary" of CCM. As you mention, Tom Nease maintains that in 1962 the Humphrey operation on Bulmer Ave. was shut down and the workers integrated into the CCM plant at Weston.
Unfortunately, the absence of official records makes it difficult to unravel the relationship between CCM and its subsidiaries, not to mention the various retailers for whom they also manufactured bicycles. Hopefully, over time, with input from yourself and others, we'll arrive at a broader understanding of exactly what took place.
From the info I have found, I would say, it's a rebadged CCM. The serial numbers have the same sequences and all the parts are identical to a CCM. I have a 51' Humphrey womans ballooner.
+1. I've seen a model with CCM branded parts and a 1940, CCM format serial number. The frame appeared to be a rebranded CCM Rambler Motorbike. Being a private label/house brand, the manufacturer of the models may have varied, depending on the specific year, but the anecdotal evidence suggests that Humphrey and CCM had a long relationship.
Here`s a link to photos of one of mine...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/68656045@N03/sets/72157628167945073/
I also have an old Humphrey, with a 1954 3 speed hub. There's a post about it here:
http://threespeedmania.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/new-additions/
as well as a photo of the buiding they were assembled in here:
http://threespeedmania.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/1937-humphrey-by-ccm/
I saw your links but don't let your bikes in the snow !! lollll
I just finished John's book. He states that in the 1950s CCM wanted to market a cheaper bicycle but didn't want to devalue the brand name. Consequently, CCM bought Humphrey and operated it as a subsidiary for low end bicycles until Nease decided to market a low end, CCM branded model.
This infers that Humphrey actually manufactured their own bicycles prior to the 1950s. (My own research shows the company extending back to at least 1903, as the Humphrey Bicycle and Hardware Company, though they may have been repairing bicycles a couple of years earlier, as the Humphrey Watch Case Company.) Based on the evidence of surviving samples, either CCM purchased Humphrey prior to the 1950s or Humphrey was simply assembling bicycles using CCM contract manufactured frames and components. The latter is certainly a viable explanation, though if Humphrey was simply assembling rebadged CCM frames and components, the cost and workmanship would not have differed substantially, unless CCM was using lower standards for contract manufactured product and/or they were price gouging.
While John doesn't provide any actual dates in the book, the Humphrey brand was reportedly eliminated by Nease, implying it existed through at least 1961. In this context, I find references to the reluctance to tarnish the CCM name very curious. CCM had a history of introducing progressively more economical bicycles to stay competitive. In the early 1940s there was the Rambler line and the even more economical Cadet brand, followed in the late 1950s by the Cyco brand. While the last two were not branded as CCM, the company certainly did nothing to hide the source and, in fact, touted it. The brands were included in CCM catalogues of the era and used the consumer recognizeable, CCM style headbage, with only the brand name being different. In the case of Cyco, CCM even published a large format, four page "Cyco Gram" heralding thee ethe conumer recognizeable, CCM style headbadgethe "new low price line". The Cyco brand appears to have been competitively priced with the models bing offered by the low price subidiaries, so CCM appears to have been willing to accept some tarnish to their name, at least as early as World War II. ,
T-Mar you make some excellent points regarding some of CCM's more economical models and the fact that, despite the absence of the company name, they made no pretense about who was producing them.
Through the years it had been George Braden who, as president and managing director of the company, had been reluctant to put the CCM name on a lower-priced bicycle. By the time the fifties rolled around, however, Braden's influence within the company was beginning to wane (he was forced to retire in May 1958 just as the Cyco was hitting its stride).
In the absence of any company archives, it's difficult to pinpoint particular dates. What we know is that in his book The First Fifty Years, published in 1946, Merrill Denison listed the Humphrey Bicycle & Motor co. Ltd. as a "wholly-owned subsidiary" of CCM. As you mention, Tom Nease maintains that in 1962 the Humphrey operation on Bulmer Ave. was shut down and the workers integrated into the CCM plant at Weston.
Unfortunately, the absence of official records makes it difficult to unravel the relationship between CCM and its subsidiaries, not to mention the various retailers for whom they also manufactured bicycles. Hopefully, over time, with input from yourself and others, we'll arrive at a broader understanding of exactly what took place.
John