> David Lylis writes:
>> Which raises and interesting question. My 60 was titled as a 59 which I
>> thought was odd, but since have met others who's cars are titled in the
>year
>> before they were built. Anyone know why that happened?
>
> My first Triumph was also oddly dated, titled as 61 and built in 60.
>
> As I understand it, this wasn't just because things were built at
> the end of the year to be prepared for unveiling in January. I believe
> the practice (at least for Triumphs) was to title the car based on the
> year it was sold, not built, so the owner didn't feel like they were
> getting an old car. I don't think it mattered much back then since
> the distinctions between two different TR3As are not based just on
> the production year. A 2008 Honda Civic may be entirely different
> from a 2007 Honda Civic, but that's not really the case with Triumphs
> (at least not in the same sense).
This wasn't a Triumph practice so much as a state DMV practice. The car
is titled as of the first sale date. Some dealers/states went so far as
to add small embossed plates to the VIN tag (such as they were) to
indicate this.
For most cars, this isn't a big issue, because they sold within 60 days
of being built.
My Morris Minor Traveller was built in '59, but apparently sat on a lot
until someone bought it ... in '61. It's titled as a '61.
chris
_______________________________________________
This list supported in part by the Vintage Triumph Register
http://www.vtr.org
Triumphs mailing list
Triumphs@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/triumphs
|