![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwWWbaxS0d4C8ftO9-IDJej6t0zWbf1uNN7GRrV6Gi2yodftOXfd3tyxQuTWqQEHkSLAwIdm44nyWeLIrqZaRHCn2_pj3og8Gpz5-5flMzjYKKSB8FH6UgdEWyKkuNQPoDwje_F0PWkfY/s400/Norton-Reece.jpg)
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN1PXQU6MU50Xi8ziVUFxsVP9Nin-N8b9UwU-7xHZy0HnPvOQnG1C2vEWPYP94JM8K1_2_uvfk14rUgnYv2snwz6CYJ6clx9_klvKNh5sCt5WAqYQSF4IvYxfJuJjILi1rZN_ePV5O4Pc/s400/Norton-Reece-2.jpg)
Both these photographs depict Roy Reece. The Norton in the pic on top appears to be a Model 9, note the absense of gearbox and the belt drive. It's an early 1920s model I would guess. The norton in the bottom pic appears to be a 1924/25 model 16H.
Is the later model sublime and the older one rediculous? The older bike has a decently fast engine combined with an almost complete lack of brakes; probably the reason for the mangled front mudguard!