Archive - Work in Progress

[USAFpilot50]

Tucker Fan 48:



I noticed you challenged Justin in one of your previous posts. How about you accept the following challenge: I am willing to bet you $1,000 (or more if you would like – sky is the limit) that your claims about the frame and fenders being from 27 are wrong. When I spoke with Justin he explained to me in great detail all I need to know in order to make the challenge I am making. Are you up for it?



In response to: "There are several people that looked at buying the car long before Justin ever came along.”

Who? When? How about some facts? Comments of this nature are meaningless. I have personally seen the car. You haven’t. This car is clearly unlike any other Tucker and it has never been rolled.



In response to: "How is it possible for a car that was photographed and DOCUMENTED to still be at the plant in September of 1950 and DOCUMENTED to have been part of the auction in October of 1950 to be a factory convertible when the top was clearly still on it?"

What car are you referring to? What #? Let's see your auction documentation. Why don’t you post it so we can see that you are right about something?



In response to: "The pictures of it are not new. They were published in September of 1950." Are you sure that they were published in 1950? They were taken on September 9, 1950, but I have not seen anything that states that they were actually published back then. On top of that, there is absolutely nothing about those pictures that proves the wrap around rear glass car was or was not #57.



In response to: "Several of the old timers here saw the car at Ezra Schlipfs after the auction. Should we just eliminate what they saw?"

Who? When? Again, what car number are you referring to? Are they prepared to sign legal affidavits stating what they saw?



In response to: "I'll have to agree with you then and admit I am wrong. If I do as you ask and eliminate all the solid and documented evidence then I have no choice other than to agree that the car is the one and only factory "convertible" built at the Tucker plant. Eliminate the evidence. I would have never thought of that."

Here is exactly what I said: "Eliminate the pictures for a moment and the hearsay evidence." I have already responded to your claims about the pictures with the above bet. And hearsay evidence is just that, hearsay evidence unless it is backed up with something like a signed and notarized affidavit. In other words “He said, she said” commentary is worthless. And again, if you or anyone else has the auction documentation post it.



In response to: "They didn't have photoshop back in 1950 so I doubt the pictures were faked."

The pictures that I was referring to potentially being photoshopped are the comparison pictures not the Life pictures.



In response to: "Alex Tremulis was interviewed many times over the years. He seemed to love to talk about Tuckers. His statements never conflicted each other."

The conflict about testimony from Alex Tremulis is that there are multiple people who claim to have spoken to him and say that he said different things about the convertible project. Either he said conflicting things or the people who are saying that they talked to him are being dishonest. It’s just that 60 years after the Tuckers were made there is so much rumor and innuendo I don’t believe you can put too much faith in any one so-called “quote.”



I always thought Tuckers were really neat…It is unfortunate that a few people in the Tucker club are so fiercely attacking Justin’s car. In my opinion the wild conjecture demeans the stature of the club particularly when it comes from people some of which clearly have not visited the Tucker convertible Forum or seen the car themselves. If you were at least more professional about what you say and how you say it you wouldn’t look like a wild-eyed zealot on a crusade. I think that it is obvious, especially after watching the videos Justin has recently posted on the convertible's forum of he and Allan talking about the convertible that he is just trying to disseminate all the information he has received. And his information is now backed up with some credible affidavits that are very hard to argue with.

[veteran0751]

Like USAFpilot50 I have been watching the commentary on this forum for a few a while and have waited until now to chime in. You guys need to read and look at things more carefully:

Tuckerfan1053- About your comments (my responses are in bold): "Okay, so in looking over the documentation on the 'vert site, it seems to consist of some statements, by persons unknown that the car is "legit," some drawings by someone at GM as to what a Tucker 'vert "might" look like, that were done in 1990, and a letter from an accountant who worked for the Tucker Corporation, written in the 1970s, asking if Reinert had finished the 'vert yet. Hardly conclusive, but it gets even weaker when you closely examine the documents.In the one statement, the individual who is not named says, at one point, "Oh no no no, that was probably in 03 when I bought 43."
The point is that the person in the lengthy affidavit saw the car in the late 1980s and has stated that it had already been reinforced and was in great shape. What that does is call into question just what it is was that Buyer of # 43 thinks he saw. He is the person that said that had the affidavit been available that Allan could have sold the car to him had the affidavit been available at that time (paraphrasing).

"I think that its been publicly stated here who bought 43 then, but I don't know. I'll leave it up to other folks to pin down that person on the matter. The owner of 43 goes on to state, "No, it was it was a sedan frame that was rusted to bits. . ."
I believe, according to the affidavit and discussions with the declarant of the affidavit that the original frame was a sedan frame which appeared to have been reinforced at the factory and had suffered from rust damage. The reinforcement appeared to have disintegrated at the same rate and manner as the original box frame itself which would lend support to the origins of a factory reinforced frame for the # 57 convertible. It was the only frame that the Tucker factory, or a specialty house at their direction, had reinforced.

"Seems kind of funny that he would say "sedan frame" if the frame was supposed to be made for a 2 door 'vert."
Why is that funny? Why would you change the design of the frame when all it needed was reinforcement?

"Then, when asked about the 'vert drawings he saw agrees with the questioner that they were dated "1980," yet all we have is a letter dated 1990, the actual drawings have no date on them."
You are missing the point here. All this illustrates is that even experts are human and can make mistakes. The expert’s original recollection was that the drawings were dated in 1980 while the actual date is 1990. He was clearly confused. Could he be as confused about other facts as well?

"Nor does the letter mention when the drawings were made."
The envelope is postmarked 11/30/1990 and the letter that Dave Holls wrote (which discusses the drawings he drew and enclosed) is dated 11/28/1990.

"Justin then asks the owner of 43 about the frame affidavitt that Justin has, reads it to him, and the owner of 43 responds with a statement that had he known that, he would have bought the 'vert, and to his mind that makes the 'vert legit. Interestingly enough, there's no name given on the affidavitt, it having been blocked out, along with the signature of the person making the affidavitt."
The obvious reason that the name was redacted is that Benchmark didn’t want the declarant to be harassed by the same individuals and in the same manner as Benchmark has been. I’m sure that Benchmark would allow a legitimate buyer or an unbiased representative of the Tucker Club to examine the affidavit.


I'm skipping the mention of the car in Tucker Topics since that's already been discussed. What we have is nothing from the 1940s or 50s about the car.
What would you like? If you examine the car you can see that all the parts, as all Tuckers, are Tucker parts. When does a Tucker stop being a Tucker? It has a Tucker designed frame, a Tucker engine and transmission, Tucker designed body panels, dashboard/pod, door handles, bumpers, lights, etc.

"Next, we have statements, with the names obscured, from the owner of 43, and Jerry Renner (the drawing affidavitt has the remnants of a signature which looks like it could be someone signing their name "Jerry Renner" since there appears to be a "J" at the start of the first name and an "R" at the start of the second name) about the car. '43 says that it had an unmodified sedan frame and that he was dubious about the car's authenticity." This has already been addressed above. All the work on the frame was completed and documented as having been completed years before buyer # 43 saw the car. His memory is just flawed.

"When he's read the affidavitt given by Jerry Renner that a former Tucker Corporation employee, identified only as "Henry" saw the 'vert, he called it '57. Renner also states that the frame was reinforced, this directly contradicts 43, who said that when he saw the frame (presumably 13 years later, if the 1990 date is correct, or 23 years later, if the 1980 date is correct) it was unreinforced."
Again you are resting your entire point on the recollection of one man that could have not been correct based on the dated frame restoration records and the fact that he admitted that had he seen the affidavit that has been provided Reinert could have sold the convertible to him.

"It should also be noted that Renner says he had the 'vert in his shop (And why would you take such a car to a motorcycle shop? I'd think that there'd be better places to take it to.) in the "late 1980s."
You shouldn’t be uppity. Maybe he needed a simple repair and they had a skilled welder. Surely you are not condemning a car because he took it too a motorcycle dealership for something.

"If it was after the 'vert arrived in his shop, that he had the drawings made up, it must have been 1990 that they were made and not 1980."
You are probably correct.

"In short, I don't see how any of that documentation could be considered any kind of "proof" of the car's origins."
Hopefully the above commentary clears things up for you. Whatever buyer # 43 saw it was not # 57’s frame. And it also demonstrates how peoples’ recollection of things can be flawed. Buyer # 43 recalls 1980. The letter and envelope that the drawings came in and with clearly indicate 1990. Just another foggy recollection that was wrong. It begs the question, “How many other recollections and remembrances are flawed or embellished or colored to influence what the listener is hearing?”

[TUCKER]

Tucker Fan 48:



I noticed you challenged Justin in one of your previous posts. How about you accept the following challenge: I am willing to bet you $1,000 (or more if you would like – sky is the limit) that your claims about the frame and fenders being from 27 are wrong. When I spoke with Justin he explained to me in great detail all I need to know in order to make the challenge I am making. Are you up for it? .

Have you seen any of the fenders before the car was put together? Do you have a list of all the cars and the paint code on each car? If you check on all the cars missing it is 1027 that had the code 200 which was blue and also this frame and coul were blue when Allen started to build. There are more than two photos that show the frame and coul being blue and another foto that chow a front fender with the factory blue paint overspray on the back. please see the list of cars and paint codes. Out of 10 cars that were painted code 200(BLUE) only 1027 is missing since Allen had the car. He never sold this car or any of the body panels but the hood and the two of the doors. All other 9 cars are still out there. Also all the damage on the two cars are in the same place. There is no way that two cars would get all the same damage. Please see the list of cars and their color code. Look for all the cars with code 200 and see which is the only car missing. Then 1027 was owned by Allen and it was never sold by him. Then look at the photo that show the coul and rocker and see what color it is. It is "BLUE". After that look at the same photo again with the two right side fenders and tell me what color overspray from the factory you see on it. The right fender is "BLUE"

[USAFpilot50]

TUCKER: Allan claims to never have owned 27 in his video taped interview. Do you have any proof that he did? I also noticed on what you posted that it said that 27 was scrapped. In addition, I read somewhere else that the majority of 27 was scrapped? Comments?

[Tuckerfan1053]

The point is that the person in the lengthy affidavit saw the car in the late 1980s and has stated that it had already been reinforced and was in great shape.

Wrong. Both accounts state that the frame was in bad shape. Jerry Renner, saw the car in the late 1980s, and says that it was in bad shape, but had been reinforced at the factory.

What that does is call into question just what it is was that Buyer of # 43 thinks he saw.

He saw an unreinforced frame that was rusted and in bad shape in '03. You have a couple of choices here: 1.) The Owner of '43 was misled as to what it was that he was looking at, which hardly speaks well of the seller. 2.) The Owner of 43 doesn't know how to tell what a frame should look like. 3.) The statements given by the Owner of 43 are incorrect. (His memory might be completely unreliable, he never said those things, he's lying, he was misquoted, etc., etc., etc.)

He is the person that said that had the affidavit been available that Allan could have sold the car to him had the affidavit been available at that time (paraphrasing).

Which is basically meaningless, because we have no way to tell which of the above listed options is the right one.

I believe, according to the affidavit and discussions with the declarant of the affidavit that the original frame was a sedan frame which appeared to have been reinforced at the factory and had suffered from rust damage. The reinforcement appeared to have disintegrated at the same rate and manner as the original box frame itself which would lend support to the origins of a factory reinforced frame for the # 57 convertible. It was the only frame that the Tucker factory, or a specialty house at their direction, had reinforced.

Renner claimed that the frame had been reinforced, and that he had the word of someone named "Henry," who worked for the Tucker Corporation that they had done work on the car, prepping it to be a convertible prototype. "Henry" was probably a fairly common name back then, so pinning down who "Henry" might have been (especially since there's no last name given) is a bit difficult. If we knew who "Henry" was, and what he did for the Tucker Corporation, this could add weight to the story that the 'vert was a Tucker Corporation project. Since we don't, however, it must be discounted as hearsay, at best.

Why is that funny? Why would you change the design of the frame when all it needed was reinforcement?

Wheelbase. Judging from the photographs of the 'vert, it has a shorter wheelbase than the sedan, so you'd need to cut the length of the frame down to match this. The frame of the Tucker was designed to deflect a blow from an impact and ran right out to the edge of the cars. If you're going to take a stock Tucker sedan frame and use it for a car with a shorter wheelbase you have to cut the frame down. Otherwise, you end up with the frame sticking out past the bumpers, and looking darned silly.

You are missing the point here. All this illustrates is that even experts are human and can make mistakes. The expert’s original recollection was that the drawings were dated in 1980 while the actual date is 1990. He was clearly confused.

No, if you read the statement, he seems quite sure of himself. Going on to say that the drawings he was shown had the date and Holls' signature covered up, but since he had a copy of those same drawings in his possession, he knew that the date on the drawings was 1980. He is specically asked, "[S]o when you saw the drawings uh they were dated 1980?" The response is a simple "Yes." Which can only mean that there was a date on the drawings. He goes on later to say that Holls drew them "on the flight back from Pebble Beach" at the request of Dick Guhn, who owned 27 at the time. (I'll leave it to others to figure out when this might have been.)

Could he be as confused about other facts as well?

Absolutely, which is why the safest course is to disregard any statements by that person as being "unreliable."

The envelope is postmarked 11/30/1990 and the letter that Dave Holls wrote (which discusses the drawings he drew and enclosed) is dated 11/28/1990.

Which tells us nothing about when the drawings were made. They might have been drawn up within a few months/days/weeks of that letter being mailed out, or they might have been something that he'd had laying around for some time. The letter doesn't specify, and with there being no date on them, its impossible to know for sure.

The obvious reason that the name was redacted is that Benchmark didn’t want the declarant to be harassed by the same individuals and in the same manner as Benchmark has been.

My personal opinion is that if you're going to make a claim, you'd better be prepared to stand by it. Anyone harassing Benchmark or anyone else involved in the car is clearly in the wrong, but everyone has a right to ask questions.

I’m sure that Benchmark would allow a legitimate buyer or an unbiased representative of the Tucker Club to examine the affidavit.

One would assume that to be the case.

What would you like?

I would "like" there to be one, just one piece of documentation that can show the company had a connection to the car. It could be as simple as a bill submitted to the company for work done on a car identified only as 57, or a mention of them planning the car in some correspondance. I'm not asking for the original blueprints, or thousands of pages of accounting records, design studies, or any of that. Just something from when the company was around, which indicates the possibility that they intended for this car to be a convertible.

If you examine the car you can see that all the parts, as all Tuckers, are Tucker parts. When does a Tucker stop being a Tucker? It has a Tucker designed frame, a Tucker engine and transmission, Tucker designed body panels, dashboard/pod, door handles, bumpers, lights, etc.

First, not all Tucker's have "Tucker" parts on them. The early cars had modified Cord transmissions, at least one has a Borg Warner 3-speed transmission that was added some point after the factory closed, and another has had the complete running gear ripped out and replaced with that of a Mercury. If there was some kind of documentation from the Tucker Corporation that they were working on a 'vert, then I'd say consider the car a legitimate restoration of a Tucker project. Until that appears, however, I consider the car to be like the Mustang "GT" a friend of mine drove in high school, that he'd assembled from a variety of wrecked cars and added aftermarket GT badges to: A nice looking car, but not a real Mustang GT.

This has already been addressed above. All the work on the frame was completed and documented as having been completed years before buyer # 43 saw the car.

Documented how? We have the affidavitt from Renner saying that he spend "hundreds of hours restoring the frame" he does not state that he completed the work. Nor do we have a copy of the receipt for the work being done on the car. One would think that someone involved with the project would have kept a copy of the receipt. Its not every day one works on a Tucker, after all.

His memory is just flawed.

Which means we should ignore anything he says.

Again you are resting your entire point on the recollection of one man that could have not been correct based on the dated frame restoration records and the fact that he admitted that had he seen the affidavit that has been provided Reinert could have sold the convertible to him.

What records? There's no records provided, only an affidavitt from Renner saying that he did the work. This, again, is hearsay at best.

You shouldn’t be uppity. Maybe he needed a simple repair and they had a skilled welder. Surely you are not condemning a car because he took it too a motorcycle dealership for something.

I'm not being "uppity," I'm simply curious as to why one would take it to a motorcycle shop and not a car restoration shop, where one would think that they had the equipment needed to work on a car. Its entirely possible that the motorcycle shop also ran a car restoration business, or that one of the employees who worked for the shop was the best welder, body knocker, whatever, in the area. I don't know and that's why I'm asking.

You are probably correct.

If we're talking about the same set of drawings. It might be that there are two different sets of drawings, that were done at different times and resemble one another greatly. If they are the same set of drawings, it would be interesting to know how and when the Owner of 43 came into his possession of them. If they were made in 1990, and the Owner of 43 got his before 1990, then we know that there's potentially two different sets of drawings out there.

Hopefully the above commentary clears things up for you. Whatever buyer # 43 saw it was not # 57’s frame.

If its not 57s frame that he saw, then we've got a few questions which need to be answered. Like "What frame was it?" "Why did Reinert show him the wrong frame?" "If Reinert was being deceptive about the frame, and the drawings (as the Owner of 43 clearly states), then how can we trust anything about the car that comes from Reinert?" and so on.

And it also demonstrates how peoples’ recollection of things can be flawed. Buyer # 43 recalls 1980. The letter and envelope that the drawings came in and with clearly indicate 1990. Just another foggy recollection that was wrong. It begs the question, “How many other recollections and remembrances are flawed or embellished or colored to influence what the listener is hearing?”

Which is why documentation is so important in cases like this. Unfortunately, we do not have any available to us.

[Tucker Fan 48]

USAFpilot50, it is obvious that you know very little about this subject and are simply fronting for Benchmark. If you
really had read all 364 postings on this thread and the 200+ postings elsewhere on this site, then you would not be
asking Who? When? How about some facts? They are all here if you would bother to take the time and read them.
Instead you choose to attack us as not knowing the facts when it is you that does not know them or bothered to
read what is posted here.

I'm not going to bother to bet you money because I'm sure I'd never see the payoff. Instead, ask your buddy Justin
if he is willing to have an independent investigative reporter look at all the evidence. Let's see if Justin will put
his 5 million dollar payoff on the line. If he is right, then what does he have to lose?

How does the letter from the account prove the car is real? “Dear Allan (previous owner), Long time no see. I hope
your address hasn’t changed and this gets to you okay. Did you ever get the Tucker convertible finished? I would like
to drive over and see it sometime. Give me a ring at 414-275-XXXX and tell me when it will be convenient to get
together and bring each other up to date. Sincerely, Mel Koeppen”. This letter proves nothing other than he wanted
to see the car Allan was working on when it was done.

They also post drawings done by David Holls of GM that have nothing to do with this car. Richard Kughn had Holls
do the drawings for the car he had at the time. That car was sold November 15th 2002 at the Novi Expo center in
Michigan to it's present owner. This of course is all DOCUMENTED if you had taken the time to research it, but I
guess we should just ignore that. Reinart supplied Kughn with parts for his car so they knew each other. It might not
be a big leap to think that Kughn might have shared a copy of the plans with Reinart. It really makes no difference
if he did as the David Holls plans have nothing to do with the Benchmark car yet somehow they are on the Benchmark
site as proof their car is real.

You come here with little knowledge of this car. There are several people that have seen this car long before it
was ever purchased by Benchmark. They have posted here. I'm sure they would sign legal affidavits but why should
they. We know who they are and they have been involved with Tuckers for decades, not just a few weeks. They
have even posted pictures of the car at Reinerts...and yes, IT IS THE SAME CAR !!!

You are correct, I have not seen the car in person. I did speak with Reinerts agent a few years ago and was given
pictures of the car. IT IS THE SAME CAR !!! From the pictures and the information Reinert supplied me, it is easy to
tell that the car is made up of parts from many different cars. Reinert even said it was and has been quoted as
saying it was a cowl and a couple fenders when he brought it. Now suddenly it's a more complete factory built car.

There are people on here that can tell you where every part from every car is. They are just that passionate. They
kept Tuckers together when no one else cared. They started this group years ago to keep the cars alive. I happen
to believe them a lot more than someone with no evidence.

[TUCKER]

TUCKER: Allan claims to never have owned 27 in his video taped interview. Do you have any proof that he did? I also noticed on what you posted that it said that 27 was scrapped. In addition, I read somewhere else that the majority of 27 was scrapped? Comments?

I guess you still believe in Santa. How can two cars can get all the same damage and have been painted the same color. I also know 27 was scrapped. Yes it was scrapped and there is where this other car was made from. Allen got this car which was parted out to use the parts on other cars. Allen had the parted out car preety much all the body panels. He then sold the hood with the frame from 1042 and body 1055 sayint it was to finish the convertible 1055 that was never finished at the factory. That frame was preety badly rasted. Then he sold a right front door from 1027, and a right rear door from 1027 with the 1052 frame. Once again "YES" it was scrapped but the fenders, frame and coul were used in this convertible.

Also if you were him and had own this frame with coul and fenders from 1027 would you say you had owned it after trying to sell it as a direrent car?

[TuckerCar]

As an officer of the Tucker Club, I am doing my best to remain neutral and keep my opinion out of this. However, I will say two things:

1. The evidence presented by "TUCKER" is the most compelling evidence I have seen in years on the whereabouts of three relatively 'undocumented' cars. It will be reviewed and discussed at length at the Board Meeting next month, and I would not be surprised if club records regarding cars 1018, 1027, and 1042 are updated.

2. With regard to the buyer of 1043 - First off, the car has changed hands twice since this buyer. Second, I was physically present at Reinert's home at the time that 1043 was purchased by this man. I concur with his comments and recollections.

Now, you want me to sign an afidavit?

[Tucker Fan 48]

Tucker Car,

Thank you again for all the hard work that you and others do to keep this site running. I know it's hard to weed
through all the anonymous conjecture, hearsay, and unverifiable evidence. The information the Tucker, John,
Richard, Tuckerfan1053, and others have posted is very compeling. In addition, there are many people like yourself
that saw the "convertible" at Reinert's. With all of that there is only one conclusion that can be made about the car.

[TUCKER]

I have more here that show it is the same 1027 car but with them not wanting to use their photos how can I post them. I don't want to get us into anything. Also have you looked closely at the rear left fender. Very heavy bodywork was done all over that fender on the same area that 1027 was all smashed. Also look at the doors. It looks like only the door skins were used with lots of metal behind them from a GM door from around 1950. The doors only the skin look to be from Tucker. If they were all Tucker they also would not had any troulbe with the door locks. A complete original Tucker door would only had to be extended the (6 or 7)inched they did and it would close and work fine. Also the top window frame would be cut off and replaced. It is interesting on how they put the doors together.

[Tuckerfan1053]

As an officer of the Tucker Club, I am doing my best to remain neutral and keep my opinion out of this. However, I will say two things:

1. The evidence presented by "TUCKER" is the most compelling evidence I have seen in years on the whereabouts of three relatively 'undocumented' cars. It will be reviewed and discussed at length at the Board Meeting next month, and I would not be surprised if club records regarding cars 1018, 1027, and 1042 are updated.

I hope you guys also vote to give TUCKER a medal in appreciation of his efforts (and another one when he gets his car done). Guy's done some amazing work.

[TUCKER]

Hi, here is the back left side fender. This fender had big major work done to it at one time. You can still see all the marks from a hammer going against it at one time. It also had to be cut at a few places like the right side to get it back to shape. It was cut along the creases or bents to get it back straight. If you have ever doon work on cars you will know how you have to cut the metal sometimes when the damage is too bad to get it straight again. Look at the damage at the back and the deep creases on 1027. The way to get that dent out on that 27 fender would be to cut the creases and then hammer it straight again. Then you would reweld it again. Once again this fende on the vert had lots of bodywork done on it. Look closely.

[Tuckerfan1053]

That vent opening in the front of the rear wheel on the 'vert picture looks to me like its had some pretty intensive work done on it recently. I'm not sure of how those fenders were originally made (the front are made up of about 5 pieces of metal welded together to make one fender). That might be work that was done on the fender when it was made, and is just now visible, or it could have been done some time later (either repairing damage from when the car rolled or cutting out rust).

[TUCKER]

The cuts on the fender shown on the picture with brown/red primer are not rust repair. They are also not factory welded to make this fender.

This is an easy to stamp pannel that was stamped on one part and it had no welds like that. Now a front fender there is no way you can stamp it in one part so you have to make it into about 3 parts and weld them together.

If you have ever stamped something you would know how it work.

[TUCKER]

Now I have this for everyone. What do you think about convertibles? Would you make a convertible longer or shorter than a sedan? Also we all know this car was not started at the factory and we have many photos that show how it was put together by Allan over the years. He had a frame with a coul and fenders and trunk from the scrapped 1027 along with hood. All he had to do was deside on the lenght of the frame and put all the body panels on it. Now this frame on the convertible have never been cut and it is made to size from the factory! All that was done to this frame was reinforced at the time Allan had the frame and there are photos of that! Look at the frame closely. It had original blue rocker pannels/frame and coul that was attached from the factory. Now all factory cars that were painted were complete or almost complete cars. They also had data plates. Now the only blue car that is missing today that was painted blue was 1027. Remember the paint on the frame and coul was blue and it was Tucker factory waltz blue paint. It had pannels that were removed and you can see on an early photo where the center pillar between the two side doors was removed. Allan gave two ideas to Esch when he sold him the one and only 1055 convertible to be completed. He could make it a 4 door convertible or a 2 door convertible!