In a message dated 97-03-17 13:17:40 EST, PLRRESTO@aol.com writes:
>In closing, I'd like to make just a few points:......
>3) The 60% Alpine, non - factory rivets, etc. etc. argument isn't important.
>In 22 years of involvment with these cars, I've only seen one car that fell
>into this catagory and at this point it has not been presented for
>inspection.
I agree that the "...60% Alpine...." isn't important. That was a point of
my earlier post, in part as follows:
<This issue has gone around (and around) before on this list. From what I
<remember of the previous bunch of posts of various TAC people from about a
<year ago, the "bottom line" of what is and what isn't a Tiger turned out to
<be pretty liberal:
<1) 'Almost' any Alpine-generic or Tiger-unique areas of the car can be
>replaced and still be considered a Tiger. Bonnet, boot, front clip, rear
>clip, front crossmember, X-frame member, frame rails, floor pan sections,
>etc.., you name it.
>2) There's no cumulative scoresheet to separate Tigers from pretenders
based
>on the percentage of replaced metal or parts.
<3) The "bottom line" as I remember it is that if you have, at a minimum, a
>verifiable Tiger firewall connected to a large enough hunk of the scuttle
plate to
>hold the VIN tags down with the original rivets, then you've got yourself a
>genuine Tiger. It may be one damn ugly Tiger, but its a Tiger
>never-the-less.
Going back to the "firewall," I would imagine that the knowledgeable folks
at TAC can verify a genuine Tiger firewall, whether by inspecting where it
meets the tranny tunnel, the stay-tube support positions, number or style of
welds, or ?????
The original riveted VIN tag is important not so much to verify that the car
is a TIger, but that it is legally still a CAR.
This hypothetical Tiger may be temporarily without the rest of the body,
drivetrain, or suspension, but then many restorations reach this stage with
the full intent of eventual re-assembly. Since most or all replacement body
panels would come from Alpines, with a full array of aftermarket drivetrain
and other mechanicals often used, its entirely possible that no additional,
original and authentic Jensen-factory workmanship would be evident after
assembly. Under these circumstances, the car would be no more-or-less a
Tiger when restoration was complete than when it was just a firewall,
scuttle-plate and VIN tag.
Are there any TAC folks who would care to venture an opinion about whether
the hypothetical car described above would be TAC'able. If not - why,
please?
You mention that you've only come across one car that fell into a similar
category, but its wasn't presented for inspection. Is TAC ready with
consistent standards if they DID apply?
Dick Sanders
Seattle, WA
P.S. BTW, whatever happened to that Mk II in England that was featured in a
British mag a couple of years ago; the one with the before-and-after
restoration photos showing an Alpine firewall in the "before" photo, a Tiger
firewall "after," both inhabiting what appeared to be the same bodyshell?
Hmmm.
P.P.S. The reason for my original post was to elicit understandable
standards from TAC. There is a great deal of confusion evident from recent
posts - often by honest owners planning restorations - regarding how many
panels/parts, etc can be replaced on a Tiger without incurring the dreaded
Scarlet "C" (for Conversion). My use of the seemingly-extreme "firewall"
scenario was an attempt to get TAC clarify the minimum verifiable
parts/panels that must be present, without getting into the specific
"original Jensen-factory methodologies" that TAC is so secretive about.
Some of the TAC replies have been very informative, though it takes a little
effort to reconcile the purposes of TAC as posted by Tom and Norm. However,
one TAC member chose to paint all who question TAC with a broad brush,
labeling us all as know-nothings who question their (TAC's) integrity and,
worse, insinuated that we are all involved in passing off mis-VIN'ed Alpines
as Tigers.
To quote:
>The rest of the people, I've never heard of. I doubt if these guys know
>any of the other inspectors either, yet somehow they feel qualified to
>question our integrity.
>So , I made a few inquires. Seems one guy is reported to own an Alpine
>conversion, another had his car restored by "what's his name down south", a
>known, outspoken opponent of the TAC program, someone else is reportedly
>building a conversion, and so on... and so on....SIMPLY AMAZING.........
>.....Why is it that these TAC Bashers are so intent on obtaining "secretive
>-minute detail" information when all they supposedly want is to spread the
>fun and drive safer cars? Think about it. Its SIMPLY AMAZING.
Such posts do not enhance the image or credibility of TAC or its members,
some of whom I have met and whose opinions I respect.
|