Question: Were these "converted" Tigers so good, that they
could be passed as a Tiger? I mean with the correct firewall, cross
member, Steering rack, etc. Stuff that is easily seen, but not easily
changed? All you (TAC) are concerned with is whether it rolled off the
assembly line as a Tiger to begin with. I know that, but see my
previous posts about the clones...
Rich
> ----------
> From: marrone@wco.com[SMTP:marrone@wco.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 1997 2:42 PM
> To: tigers@autox.team.net
> Subject: RE: The trouble with TAC / Call for consensus and san
>
> > All right. Here's a question for the TAC people. Of all of the
> >Tigers that are still around, just how many Quality Alpine
> conversions
> >have you actually found?
>
> I'm not a TAC official but of the 4 or 5 Tigers I see semi-regularly
> one is
> a conversion. The guy who now owns this car wants it to be known that
> it is
> not a real Tiger and makes it a point to tell you that. He is a good
> guy.
> It seems that the guy who he got the car from may not have been such a
> great
> guy. Certain subtle steps were taken by him to try and make the car
> look
> more Tiger like and less Series V conversion like. Although not
> necessarily
> a indictment of fraud it makes you wonder.
>
> I have heard of other conversions, seen one other, and at least one of
> those
> was definitly presented as a real Tiger and caused their owner
> hardship when
> the truth was found out.
>
> Ramon said he couldn't undestand why some of you guys don't see the
> value
> that TAC provides and I agree. I know you won't listen but get this
> but,
> TAC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ORIGINALITY. It has to do with
> authenticity, get
> it? If you care not for authenticity that is fine. Who can argue
> with
> "this car is for fun so I don't care if it is original or authentic"?
> That
> is OK. Some people care about authenticity, isn't that OK too?
>
>
>
>
> Frank Marrone MK I Tiger B9471116
> TAC training reject 1966 LTD
> marrone@wco.com Series I Alpine "fix me"
> Yamaha Seca 900
>
>
>
|