Dr. Richburg wrote:
Hello again Bob.
No, I disagree with you when you say that "the car is to good for the
"common folk." However it is to good for folks like you. If that is
common, well....you get the picture.
Craig Richburg
Bob Danielson wrote:
>
> This is getting good..... especially in view of the fact that I emailed this
> guy a few weeks ago asking for infor about his cars and got a rather snooty
> reply.... maybe his cars are too good for the common folks!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Lillja <Chris_Lillja@Pupress.Princeton.Edu>
> To: Craig Richburg <richburg@bellatlantic.net>
> Cc: Triumphs@autox.team.net <Triumphs@autox.team.net>
> Date: Friday, October 10, 1997 11:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Another Show Car (65 TR4) FOR SALE
>
> Dr. Richburg --
>
> The point is -- that lame attempts to "market" what is probably a
> perfectly nice TR4, to people who love Triumphs anyway -- make it
> look suspect in the eyes of the very people who might buy it.
>
> So my history book sez the final TR4 was built on Jan 6, 1965 and
> had the commission number CT40304. With 250 made in calender year
> 1965, that would make the first "1965" TR4 CT40054. Yes -- they
> should be in sequence and there are no gaps reported in this
> period...
>
> Now the question at hand is does the commission number of this
> car fall in this sequence CT40054 - CT40304? If not it is merely a
> 1964 (or earlier) that wasn't bought and titled until 1965.
>
> So what's that Comm. # doc?
>
> It's pretty academic considering there should be no difference
> between a car produced on Dec. 31 (say CT40053) and Jan. 2....
>
> "Still ride in triumph over all mischance..." - Shakespeare
>
> Chris Lillja
> TR4A
> Norton Commando
> Spit MKIV
|