The only thing that I think important to anyone who has owned a Tiger long
enough to know lots about the car, is the VIN number and if its TACed or will
pass TAC. Others might have questions and need to understand that back then
the car was titled when it was sold not when it was manufactured. WE know a
Mk1 from a 1A and between the BON and other documentation, we have dates when
changes where made- like from this VIN forward the steering collum had a brace
installed. It might make a difference to an insurance company who might argue
either way that a 66 is worth more or less than a 67 even tho the car n the
next town over has a VIN one number higher or lower than the car the insurance
is saying has less or more value but to all owners who have a history of
ownership or knowledge learned thru clubs, books,and other owners, who cares
what year the title shows it is- the VIN tells us all what the car really is,
providing the car bears the original Vin,
with or without original rivets. My opinion and a $2 bill will get ya a cup
of coffee at most fast food or convieance stores. Creamer included.
TtT (manufactured 1952 and titled in 1953)
--- On Sat, 1/30/10, Tod Brown <todbrown@roadrunner.com> wrote:
From: Tod Brown <todbrown@roadrunner.com>
Subject: [Tigers] 66 or 67?
To: tigers@autox.team.net, AAAGLASSS@aol.com
Date: Saturday, January 30, 2010, 1:21 PM
I am in the same category as a couple of others here who have reported Tigers
that were manufactured in 1966 but titled as a 1967. In my case, I bought my
Tiger new in October of 1966 (it came off the Jensen line in August) but the
powers that be at the New York DMV decided it was to be titled as a 1967 and
it has always said so on my registration. When I and my Tiger moved to Maine,
I presented the NY registration at the Maine DMV and they registered it as a
1967. I guess I could have objected, but, then again, you probably have never
waited in line at the Maine DMV. Net result, I have a 1967 MkIA Sunbeam Tiger
which carries the license plate 67Tiger to tick the purists off even more. We
could have the same argument about a couple of Tiger II's that I have seen or
heard of over the years that were title as 1968's and everybody knows there
were none built that year. To me, the year is not the important thing, it is
whether it is a MkIA or a
MkII. What you call things doesn't matter too much, it seems to me. It is
the essence of the object that matters. Of course, having come by my surname
by way of what genealogists call a "non-paternal event" some 200 years ago, I
am probably prejudiced.
Cheers,
Tod Brown (conceived 1940, born in 1941)
B382002384LRXFE
You are subscribed as achd73@yahoo.com
Tigers@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers
http://www.team.net/archive
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
Tigers@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers
http://www.team.net/archive
|