My '62 tri-carb (fairly late top-shift) has it's original headlight rings
with rivets - no clips in evidence, just the rivets in the holes.
My very late BJ8 is the same - rivets, no clips. I believe that both rings
are original to the car, but can't swear to it. When it was taken apart for
restoration, there was no evidence anywhere on the front end of accident
damage, hence the assumption. The restoration is (finally!) almost
complete - we rechromed and re-installed the rings.
Earl Kagna
Victoria, B.C.
BJ8, BT7 tri-carb
--------------------------------------------------
From: <Editorgary@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 8:55 AM
To: <healey@hunterbane.com>
Cc: <healeys@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: [Healeys] Ah, the rivet...and the Assumptions Within
> In a message dated 12/6/10 8:26:39 AM, healey@hunterbane.com writes:
>
>
>> I am surprised that you as an editor are using assumptions to make
>> your case, but since I am not, I think I will. I should start off by
>> saying that I am a "have-not" and deeply suffer from the rivet envy
>> because of the emphases placed on it from the "haves". While mine is
>> without, it is still a NOS high quality chrome OEM part that is a
>> correct fit and as it has the same part number as the lucas
>> replacement parts list for a 60-61 year model, which also matches the
>> 62-67 part number on 2 different Lucas catalogues that I have in my
>> possession. So, if they got it wrong, they got it wrong on at least 2
>> accounts.
>>
>
> Interesting comments. People make assumptions all the time to fill in the
> gaps when recorded history is insufficient to provide exact answers. The
> only
> harm is when people overlay known fact with assumptions that suit their
> interpretation of history -- as seems to be the case in politics these
> days --
> What we try to do with the concours standards is to make assumptions and
> label them as such, if we're aware that there is an issue, until we have
> more
> facts.
>
> But, you make an interesting point regarding possibilities for changes in
> the headlamp rim. If other changes were being made that might have
> permitted
> the supplier to make a cost-saving change in the headlight rim during
> production, then dimpled headlight rims should be found on all of the last
> run
> of
> convertibles. All of them. So, the question to people who own phase II
> Mark
> IIIs is: do you have dimples or real rivets with snap brackets on the
> back?
>
> If we could establish that the all of the last convertibles produced had
> the dimples rather than the rivets, then our question would shift to when
> the
> change point occurred, and we could modify the standards to indicate that
> such a change appears to have taken place, but we don't know when.
>
> Is there anyone on this list with a late unrestored convertible -- say,
> built in 1966 -- that has riveted headlamp rims?
> Thanks
> Gary
_______________________________________________
Healeys@autox.team.net
Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
Suggested annual donation $12.75
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
|