Chassis Numbers

[1939mgtb]

Too late. The vapor has been locked up for the night.
Ray

Happy Ramahanakwannamas during the Mid winter solstice break...How's that for PC??
To heck with it...MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!!!!

But then maybe its time to get back to vapour lock?
Bob Grunau

[1939mgtb]

This "ID question" was settled long ago in the car collector world. Chassis number is the determinant. Engine #3409 is engine #3409. Chassis #3409 is car number 3409. If you replace all wear items, along with everything else, you still have #3409 as long as it has the chassis number stamped in it. But it probably wouldn't be as desirable to a collector......which brings up another question...at the end.

The idea that some States use engine numbers is a red herring. Some States don't use TITLES!!
Jeez, how many lawyers dancing on the head of pin do we have here....?
How many guys here think there will be an interest in these cars in, say, 20 years? I suspect that they may go the way of the Model T Ford......most all the guys who wanted one croaked.
Wot say you?????
Best,
Grenade Rolling Ray

Happy Ramahanakwannamas during the Mid winter solstice break...How's that for PC??
To heck with it...MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!!!!

[1939mgtb]

Gene,

Our surveillance group has film of your activities if you want to purchase it........the husband of the other party already has a copy............

;-)
Ray

Happy Ramahanakwannamas during the Mid winter solstice break...How's that for PC??
To heck with it...MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!!!!

From: "Gene"
Without Gingko and Focus Factor I can barely remember what I did yesterday (very little, I'm sure).

[mrbadger@comcast.net]

Hulloo Thom
Rifling through my memory banks, was that the Triumph Renown that had been fitted with a Datsun (??) engine but had the original engine with it? In any event, in the immortal words of Dell Shannon, "Hats off to Larry".
Badge

[Chip Old]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 14:52 -0000, mrbadger@comcast.net wrote:
Many of the attitudes to which you allude here are the same ones that were, at least partially, responsible for my selling my first TC several years ago, after forty years of ownership, and quitting the club but, having said that, it should also be said that these attitudes are pretty typical of most any one marque club (not a one mark club)

Just some members of most one-mark clubs, not all. Unfortunately those few tend to get pretty noisey.
--
Chip Old 1948 M.G. TC
Cub Hill, Maryland, US TC6710 XPAG7430
fold@bcpl.net NEMGTR #2271

[Chip Old]

You forgot one, Mark: Ignore 1 through 6, build your TC, and enjoy it.

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 07:34 -0800, Mark Hineline wrote:

> In the past 12 hours I've been advised to:
>
> 1. Grind the number off my frame
> 2. Fill the number in with bondo
> 3. Buy Mrs. Meismer's car
> 4. Pick a number any number
> 5. Stop acting like Badger
> 6. Take the car to Mongolia, title it there, and then reimport it into
> the U.S.

--
Chip Old 1948 M.G. TC
Cub Hill, Maryland, US TC6710 XPAG7430
fold@bcpl.net NEMGTR #2271

[Pavone, John (Corporate)]

Wow, California is tough!!

I've registered many out of state vintage vehicles here in Connecticut and the DMV inspector took whatever number I decided to show him/her as the chassis number. Whether it was stamped into the chassis under the seat on my Morgan or had a real (or reproduction) chassis plate like on the TC. I could probably take a blank brass plate, stamp a few numbers into it and call it the chassis number. Obviously, this would only work on our old 'furin' stuff and wouldn't pass on a 67' Camaro.

We are allowed to run with year of manufacture plates and DMV doesn't even bother to check if it's a duplicate plate number already issued on a modern plate!

And I thought Connecticut was over-regulated.

JP
TC2797 (I think.. ;-)

[Sally Carroll]

Ok all you guys. . maybe we could get the DNA checked to determine the actual parentage of our cars. since we are arguing over them as if they were children in divorce.

Sally
TC 6466 At least that is what the title and disk say.

[James Glueck]

My car came from California earlier this year, had California title XPAG 8865. I re-titled it here in Ohio as TC8114. The engine plate says XPAG 773, from a TB, dated 24 APR 39. Now, my car looks like a TC, sounds like a TC, drives like a TC, but now I'm wondering.....

[Jim and Shirley Mink]

My TC was originally imported in the late 50s and was registered in Pa. at that time. When I bought it in 1995 I discovered that the number on the title was the engine number. No one had ever cared! I did change it how ever.

Jim

[Jennifer and Hugh Pite]

Hi Gene, it is a nice offer you are making with regard to the ID plate. However, are you sure it is not the ID plate for the chassis I purchased on eBay some time ago? Or, for that matter, could it be the ID plate for a chassis that now resides under a TC body somewhere?
Hugh Pite

From: "Gene Gillam"
I bought a plate off eBay several years ago with a chassis number that doesn't show up among our members. Grind the number off your chassis and I'll send this to you for Christmas.

[Gene Gillam]

Hugh,

If I'm not mistaken you bought that chassis from Gene Beaudoin over in Luling, LA. I know Gene and no, the plate didn't come from him.

R/Gene

[Stephen D Stierman]

It's cold in Ohio so I don't give a d@mn about vapor lock, but I am enjoying the chassis number thread......to a point. I came to the TC world from the Morgan world, well becaue I always wanted a TC, I read the Red Car in grade school too. The Morgan world is a bit different however. It is pretty typical to throw most of the car away including the chassis and just use the title to build a new car and nobody really cares, unless of course it is a Super Sport. I have built 3 or 4 new chassis myself, I have lost count, they are not difficult to construct at home. One simply takes a punch set and engraves the proper serial number in the cross member of the new frame and nobody cares at all, it's a new chassis, it enhances the value, you see.

My first Morgan, a series lll, 4/4 came to me in pieces years ago with only an English log and a bill of sale to show its lineage. I had to build a new chassis, a new reskinned tub, put a rebuilt 1600xl flow, close ration gearbox, upholstry, trim, etc, etc. and on and on. I venture to say the bonnet and front cowel were some of the few original parts. Since this was an out of state vehicle it required an inspection to get it licensed in Ohio. The State Highway Patrol would come to your home in those days and do it for you. The officer arrived, I showed him the serial number and the English log, bill of sale, and he said yes it all matches. Went down to the title bureau with the form and pictures of the construction and the nice man took a blank title off the stack and titled my Morgan as what it was more or less, a 1961 Morgan series lll, serial number such and such. I might add that good documentation of some sort was important, because without it they would title your creation as the dreaded 'home assembled vehicle' that nobody wants. By the way in terms of rarity the works only built 50 of this model, but it really means nothing, they just ran out of a particular engine and moved on to the next. How does all this enter into the conversation, I have not a clue, but maybe someone will think it is interesting.

cheers,
Steve Stierman TC 2911

[fnitz]

In California, it could be titled as whatever Mark chooses. All he needs to do is to get a police officer to verify the VIN. If he can convince the officer of the number, it will be registered as that number. In my case, all the officer did (he came to my house to inspect it) was look at the battery box plate which read TC1353.

Interestingly, when I bought it, my XK120 Jaguar was registered in NY State by the engine number (which was actually incorrectly recorded - one of the digits, "S" was recorded as an "8") which was then followed by the chassis number. I had to get a new VIN assigned for registration in California because the DMV couldn't associate the NY State VIN with anything on the car. It eventually got titled by the chassis number which was taken (by a CHP officer) from the stamped plate in the engine compartment.

The curious thing is that I am the third owner of the Jaguar and previously, the car had always been registered (somewhat incorrectly) in NY State. It is a matching numbers car.

For California registration, there was no cross-check for valid numbers as unique VIN's were not even an afterthought in 1946 or 1954. I believe that it is possible (although unlikely) that two 1954 Jaguar XK-120's could exist in California with the same VIN if the engine compartment plate reflected it.
Fred TC1353

[fnitz]

I defer to you as you know the "law" side of California law.
Fred TC1353

From: D&J Edgar
Just 2 cents from the distaff side (of David Edgar, TC5108). I don't want to get into the emotional aspects of car history, but I've been a cop for over 25 years and just wanted to pass on some procedural points.

[Allan Chalmers]

I dearly hope so.

My TA is registered in California by the engine #. I am not putting that engine in it.

My original frame has been given to Martin Hveem (he is better able to fix its problems) who is doing a splendid, I am sure, resto on a TA Tickford. I have a frame that came from who knows where.

I have a new number plate upon which I will stamp my working numbers, then take it to Cal DMV and tell them I am changing from engine to chassis #.

Done deal.

Let's put this to rest and leave Mark get on with his restoration

Allan Chalmers TA, TC

[LKe1021587@aol.com]

grunau.garage@sympatico.ca writes:
Since Mark is in a different state, he can probably register the car as TC-3409 ( which it is ) in California.

Probably couldn't be done. A DMV check of the VIN will show the veh registered to Rolland if indeed his wife still owns the car. The computer is nationwide.

Mike K.
TC 1307
Azusa, CA

[Mark Hineline]

Newsflash to list: Having mismatched chassis and plate numbers is not desirable. It's not a 'point of originality.' It's not an interesting custom feature.

It's a careless mistake.

Mark
TC 3409

[Dave Lodge]

Yeah. See what you've started?? ;-)

Regards, David Lodge

On Dec 6, 2005, at 6:05 PM, Ray (1939mgtb) wrote:
we have it solved.........

In the technical sense, maybe. The intangibles are another matter. TC 3409 has a history, some of which was recorded in the list archives. It came from Sarasota, FL. It had a clunk at one point. The badge bar got whacked by the garage door. All that history resides with the car in Iowa. Not to mention the fact that Rolland Meismer thought of his car as 3409, used that number as though it were the car's given or Christian name.

So in all probability, and in a narrowly technical, legal sense I own TC 3409, and Mrs. Meismer's car should presumably be renumbered according to the number now on the chassis.

Cold comfort.

In a perfect world, the frame would be reunited with the car, and I would take the orphan frame and its number. But as we all know, this is not a perfect world.

My point being ... what?

How about this: my car will be TC MMMCDIV. Anyone have a better idea?

Mark
TC MMMCDIV

[Peter Roberts]

OTOH,Mark,

Consider that it is immaterial to a lot of us who enjoy our cars without much concern for the fruitless pursuit of that "original matching number engine", the "original unaltered frame", and the "original Makers Plate". For most of the surviving TABCs this kind of nicety is probably unrealistic for all the reasons that have been shared..

Please do understand that I have a great admiration and willingness to support those who wish to pursue the perfection of a "perfectly original" car. They labor in the vinyard and do us all much service in our efforts to understand the car...and how our might vary from the "first concept".

In previous correspondence, I advanced the concept of "provenance" in understanding how we all regard our cars. My appreciation of this is elementary; neat car, fun to fool with, turns girls heads (I sure don't!), just enough aggravation to provide endless stories of herioic solutions, and serious regard to trying to retain as much as practible of the Company's "original" design. I think this is a reasonable shot at defining a "street" car...which I gather is the goal of most of the list. Numbers may make sense to a collector, but are meaningless to me. Was my "car' built in April of 1946? Beats me, what part are we talking about? All I really "know" is that it is a Home Model probably built in 1946, except for the engine, and the dumb irons of unknown vintage, etc.,etc. So?

I bought my car from an ad in Road and Track in 1970. Fellow was in Surrey, a Dutchman, and the ad showed a neat BRG TC 1946. Paid him $731US. What arrived on the dock in Hoboken, NJ we don't need to go into. Took ten years to restore due to $$ and time. When we put it on the road, I have never looked back. My only concern was to retain the provenance of the car by ensuring that I did not take it away from being a TC ( i.e. engine conversions, steering conversions, etc.). The TC is a beast. Yes, the beastie is a rough riding, crude, uncomfortable, impraticable, erractic....you name it. In fact, my favorite desciption is that it is "merely impractible". That not only flummoxes the curious, it makes me feel warm.

The OP type do have a role in our TSeries hobby. They keep us honest about our motives and our objectives. They draw a line and allow us to understand where we choose to fall on that line. This is a good thing and thank heavens there are people who are motivated to do the research and share it with us. I do know where I choose to fit my car to the profile...and it pleases me.
What more I do need?

_Peter

Newsflash to list: Having mismatched chassis and plate numbers is not desirable. It's not a 'point of originality.' It's not an interesting custom feature.

It's a careless mistake.

Mark
TC 3409