The term Frame Off, is OK, if it implies that indeed there was a
complete body restoration.
Missing chrome on the side, and no Sunbeam lettering is also OK.
I do have question re Jackson Barrette.
It may be a personal observation, but when I watch the owner on Speed
Vision, he reminds me of the preverbal "Used Car Salesman" or "A Shark,
who Smells Blood in the Water".
The feeding frenzy that occurs at these "Sales" is something to enjoy.
For some, they get their lifelong dream, for others, they get a car that
they paid more money than the market is paying, but of course it's there
money.
If a Tiger sells for a good price, that's good, in my opinion, as it
raises the price of the marquee to the level that it should be.
Larry
Travis Hall wrote:
> I suggest that there is nothing wrong with this phrase when referring
> to a Tiger restoration, after all, we all know what the phrase
> implies. Everything was taken off the frame, all components were
> restored and the car was reassembled. Ok, the Tiger is a unibody, I
> get it.
>
> The larger problem is the mis-use of the word restoration, but that's
> life, and it's the lot we've been served, with all of our cars. Let's
> face it, if a guy takes his Tiger to Maaco for a paint job and throws
> some new chrome on it, and someone at the office asks him if he
> "restored" it, the answer is yes, they aren't interested in knowing
> the difference between restored and refreshed (or whatever). If the
> same guy runs into Mr. Shelby at the gas station with his Maaco
> Sunbeam, he is not very likely to say "look at my restored Tiger".
>
> We can't correct the world. Give them a break, we know what they are
> saying, just as we taylor our car dialog for our audience.
>
>
> Cars are Fun!
> Travis Hall
>
> 1965 Tiger Mk1
> 1961 Austin Healey BN7
> 1966 Ford Mustang
> 1960 MGA
> 2003 Mustang Cobra
|