New York Times Article on Convertible

[Tucker Fan 48]

I'm still disputing the claim that the final 13-16 cars (depending on the source) were NOT completed at the factory, but into the 1950s or later. Perhaps the last few were not 100% complete, it seems at least the last two or three were sans transmission, but still had a greater deal of "completion" at the factory than is claimed by Reinert and Cole. What backgrounds do we have on those final cars?

Looking at the documents, it would appear that #1028 and #1033 were really no different than #1036, #1038, #1041, #1043 through #1049. Several
documented sources say that Tucker employees were brought back and finished the later cars with the parts that were available. Those cars would
be no different than the other cars those same employees worked on. It's not like they took they home to finish them.

Tucker always had issues with the transmission. The March 22nd 1948 Tucker Corporation memo mentions 6 different transmissions that were being
considered. It would not be surprising, given what happened between March 22nd 1948 and March 3rd 1949, (when the inventory list was prepared)
that many of the prototypes still had no transmissions.

Reinert and Cole want to compare completed cars that were missing a transmission to a cobbled up mess of parts and a body that had almost 2 feet
missing behind the doors and somehow say the two are no different. Why not come clean and say you're using and bunch of parts to build something cool
that never was or that Preston Tucker PROBABLY thought about a convertible and here is how it might have looked? I'm guessing that the answer is
money. If Cole can pull off his fraud and convince the public his car is real it will be worth a lot more than just something he built out of old Tucker
parts.

Justin Cole continues to try to bend history in order to somehow make his car real. Several members mentioned that they were asked to comment in
the New York Times article. In the future, please do so or pass the contact information along to those here that will. Cole should not be allowed to
further his hoax when we have hard documented evidence that shows otherwise. We allowed him to use the New York Times to continue his quest and
we did not challenge it. Most people reading the Times article probably came away thinking the car was real. After all, he has affidavits, we on the other
hand, are participants in a forum that said they believe that Preston Tucker never intended to produce a convertible and that Mr. Cole is engaging in
an elaborate hoax. From a readers perspective, who would you believe? The guy with affidavits or a bunch of people posting on an internet forum?
Even though the affidavits prove nothing, no one pointed that out. The article ran with no one pointing out the big holes and outright lies in the story.
No one pointed out that John Walczak, the 60-year-old retired banker from Woodstock, Ill., who said he had seen the uncompleted car as a convertible
in a Milwaukee machine shop in 1971 or 1972, did not say or prove it was absolutely the same car. It could have easily been Tucker Test Chassis #2
(as pictured on page 31 in the Convertible forum). No one pointed out that the affidavit of Jerry Renner, who worked on the frame the late 1980s and
claimed he had been visited by two former Tucker employees who recognized Reinhart's car as an experimental convertible begun in the Tucker factory months before it closed, had no evidence that the two people were actually former Tucker employees. They could have been anyone off the street or
could have been sent there by Reinhart himself in the hopes that Renner would purchase the car or assist Reinhart in selling it.

The chance to comment in the New York Times article was an opportunity to blow the cover off his fraud and we missed it. I'm not being criticle of
those who were asked and chose not to participate. I love and respect all you guys. You have knowledge about these cars that is unbelievable. I can
understand not everyone wants to get involved with the big bad media and be quoted in the New York Times newspaper. However, there are some
here that have no problem in giving solid documents and hard facts to a reporter. Personally, I think if Jim Norman from the New York Times had all
the facts, he would have had more fun putting together an article that blew the lid off an automotive hoax than the puff piece he wrote about Cole.
Let's not let it happen again.

[TUCKER]

Wait a second here. It appears engine # 33539 was in car #1044 and is documented on the list above. Isn't that the same engine
that Cole claims is the brand new, never used, engine in his convertible and doesn't he say that engine and correct sourced
transmission somehow prove his car is real, even though Reinhart said it had no engine and transmission when he bought it?

yes, I mentioned that also on the convertible topic along with outher things.

[TUCKER]

It is a "4 door" car number 1027 not a convertible and they forgoten to shorten the frame to make it look more like a convertible. Also they tought we knew nothig about 1027 so they showed us the photos of the metal under the primer with all the same damage of 1027 on the convertible. Even had the same color of paint at one time on some of the photos. We know what they have and what nos used engine they have. What can we do with all this information we have now?

[Tucker Fan 48]

I guess that was my point about a missed opportunity. We had a chance to get real documented information
printed in the New York Times and we missed it. Now that we have all these facts, we need to get them made
public. We can't let Cole continue to spread his fantasy story without challenging it when we can.

If anyone has Jim Norman's contact information I'd be happy to see if he'd do a follow up, but nothing is as
good as being in the original story. The Times article gave Cole credibility. If they had the facts it could have
blown this story up once and for all.

[TUCKER]

I have his contact information Do I post it here or send it over in a private message?

[Tuckerfan1053]

I guess that was my point about a missed opportunity. We had a chance to get real documented information
printed in the New York Times and we missed it. Now that we have all these facts, we need to get them made
public. We can't let Cole continue to spread his fantasy story without challenging it when we can.

If anyone has Jim Norman's contact information I'd be happy to see if he'd do a follow up, but nothing is as
good as being in the original story. The Times article gave Cole credibility. If they had the facts it could have
blown this story up once and for all.

Don't just go after Norman, however, send one to the "letters to the Editor" section at: letters@nytimes.com. As well as the main editors: executive-editor@nytimes.com
managing-editor@nytimes.com

Then, and be sure to mention this in your correspondence with the NYT folks, contact the editor at the Wall Street Journal ( wsjcontact@dowjones.com and newseditors@wsj.com.) to let them know how badly the NYT screwed the story up, might even want to let the folks at the Washington Times know, because all of them are losing huge amounts of cash every year, and each one of them wants to be known as the top dog in the newspaper industry, so if they can take down the NYT by pointing out something that they got wrong (and a simple google search would have clued them in on the subject), they'll probably jump at the chance.

[john]

Guys,
SLOW downnnnnnn,
We are rambling again.
Please, >>>>> lets wait until we have ALL of our ducks in a row, OK?

If we go off half cocked without the story in it's entirety, we will blow it.

Tucker, you for one should know this,

Guys, we tried to explain that along time ago, thats why we never even attempted to tell the whole story herein, we are just like you Tucker, to complicated unless """""ALL""""" is told !!!
By the way, have you been threatened in any way Tucker, send a private message if so, we have trusted one another in the past and neither of us have broke our word as gentleman and car guys !!!

TuckerCar, when might we expect the new topic area, you have assembled a team, I knew it would be tough to compile it all to make sense so it could then be finished with ALL facts in order.

""""Guys,""""" we are carying on with this NY article, with important information I might add, but, in fact, this should be in order in a correct area to TELL the complete story, our opportunity WILL be missed if we don't !!!!!!

We specifically posted another topic, for the conv topic area, dealing in just whats being talked about here;
WHERE did everything (parts) come from, the story unfolds itself just as the Blue Easter egg unfolded a lot and got people thinking, real hard I might add with great results>>>

Soooo, with this said, shall we blow it or get it straight???????

By the way, the fireworks did not go off over the 4th herein, no need until we get the new ""conv"" topic area done.
If you think the Blue Easter egg set off a egg (car) hunt, wait for the fireworks display.

Till the next time,
John

[TuckerCar]

The New York Times has contacted TACA, and Jay is in the process of compiling all the information we have (on this site, in the Archives, etc) to make a formal reply both to the NYT and to have information on hand to respond to other inquiries.

Once that process is completed, I would anticipate it would be shared and available on this website.

[john]

Tucker Car,

Does Jay have all of the facts to make a complete report and story ????

I thought we were doing that in the new "conv" topic area?

Guess will wait to shair and make available what else we know after Jay has turned over the "known at this time" facts.

Sure hope the other new facts, "shaired and made available later", do not contradict what is set forth to the public in his public releases.
Cart ahead of the horse kind of thing?

We consider the facts known at this time as seriously incomplete, please keep mention of us out of any news or stories being released for liability purposes.
Thank you,
John

[Tucker Fan 48]

There are plenty of facts that can be released right now. They won't change. Just because a guy said he saw a Tucker Convertible
in 1971 or 72 at a garage in Milwaukee does not make it a "factory prototype". First there is no proof he actually saw it, but if he
is given the benefit of the doubt, what did he see? Did he see Tucker Test Chassis #2 or part of what became the parts lot that is
now in Roscoe IL? There is no proof in their affidavit that makes their car now real. Just a statement that some guy saw something.
Those facts won't change.

That some guy worked a Reinharts frame and said two former Tucker employees told him it was the convertible. Again, give him
the benefit of the doubt but it still proves nothing. Who are these two mystery people? Can they document Reinharts frame to
the factory and show proof it was started as a convertible? Of course not. Again, it's just a statement from a guy that met a couple
people that said something. Those facts won't change.

Former accountant Mel Koeppen was apparently a friend of Reinharts. He once wrote a letter to Reinhart asking how his convertible
was coming along. I'm sure the letter is real but again it does not prove anything about their car. It's just a letter. Those facts won't
change.

These are all easy points that can be made to the people that write these articles. Right now no one challenges the points that Cole
and Reinhart are making. If the people that write these articles start to ask questions they will blow this wide open. Sure there is a
lot of technical proof but right now Cole is using this stuff to prove his case and we aren't bothering to point out the holes in it.

There is no need to wait to point out facts that won't change.

[Tuckeroo]

Thank you regarding the backgrounds including the final 16 cars. From it I can not see how this convertible can be regarded as being of the same "factory pedigree" (to coin a term) as the cars listed here. However, Mr. Reinert and Mr. Cole imply that these cars were not completed until the 1950s, and that may be true in the sense of lacking transmissions and in some cases engine and transmission, but they are not described as otherwise being in a state of disassembly (as the convertible has been described, from the time it was first declared to exist through the present). Odd, too that Mr. Cole continually cites the "correct" Tucker engine and transmission[?] as proof of the convertible's "factory pedigree" when those components tend to missing from the final cars on the roster. And equally if not more troubling if that engine correlates with a different car according to Tucker Corporation documents.

[TUCKER]

Looks like they are trying to hard to sell the car when it would be so easy to sell it just by telling the true story. If they had just restored it as 1027 it would have been worth more due to its history or they could just call it 1027 made into a convertible as a custom car and the may get the $5,000,000 more easy since it would be the only custom Tucker in the world while all the others were kept original. That way it would be well documented and easy to sell.

[Randy Earle]

Ricardo, as far as I'm concerned, your Tucker is just as real as that duck...errr...I mean Convertible.

[TUCKER]

Yes but at least I never say it is a real car like they do. Also if I were them I would make a real 1027 with all the parts that they have. They have a complete 1027 but without the rear doors or roof which were very easy to make

[TuckerCar]

Here is the response that the Club sent to the New York Times.

RE: The Tucker Convertible Story


Dear Mr. Mayersohn,

Thank you for responding to my email in regards to the recent story about the Tucker convertible project being restored in WI. I apologize for not being able to respond to you sooner.

The reason I wrote to the NY Times was that I—along with the Directors and Officers of the non–profit Tucker Automobile Club of America, Inc. (TACA)—found the story, “The Tucker That Time Forgot” by Jim Norman, lacking in factual support. We wanted to make sure the Times had some additional facts about this project car as it appears that the article was authored without substantial research of all available information.

First, let me make it clear that the Tucker Automobile Club of America, Inc.—collectively the foremost authority on Tucker Automobiles—has never been presented with—nor have we been able to find—any credible evidence to prove the authenticity of this or any other Tucker convertible and therefore we can not certify it as such.

TACA recognizes that the construction of this vehicle appears to be using authentic Tucker parts, such as the engine and some body panels, and may well represent what a Tucker convertible would have looked like had one been produced by the Tucker Corporation.

Had the project car been presented in that spirit—that it is a tribute car of what a Tucker convertible could have been—there would be little, if any, controversy surrounding it. Of course the value of such a vehicle would not be hyper-inflated either.

In actuality, this project car has been known to TACA since the late 1980s and a complete expose could—and will—be written about the often changing “facts” that have been presented over the intervening years to authenticate that the car was initiated by the Tucker Corporation as a convertible. This uncompleted project car has been offered for sale in various antique car magazines, with prices ranging from $750,000 to one million dollars.

In fall 2008, Benchmark Classics apparently acquired the car from long–time owner and former TACA member Allan Reinert of Wisconsin. Soon after the car was promoted to several national publications, including Old Cars Weekly and Cars & Parts, as being a mysterious “secret” Tucker convertible that had been “hidden” for years by the Tucker Corporation. In February of this year they listed the car on ebay with an opening bid of $5,000,000.00.

The NY Times article stated that the convertible was what “some enthusiasts have said was a secret prototype.” Over the years several historians have researched the possibility of such a vehicle and the only people they have encountered that firmly believe the car was a “secret prototype” have been those with an immediate financial interest—either as a seller or an agent for a seller.

While TACA is certainly not ready to completely dismiss the possibility that a Tucker convertible could have been planned or built by the Tucker Corporation, TACA has never discovered nor been presented with any credible evidence to prove this was a car planned for or started at, by or for the factory.

This is not a case of TACA having an interest in the existence or non-existence of such a vehicle: either way, TACA gains, nor loses anything. We have no financial reason to take sides. Our position is clear: without any evidence, we cannot sanction or confirm the existence of anything remotely related to such a vehicle. The goal of TACA is simply to investigate, present, and maintain an accurate depiction of the history of the Tucker ’48, Preston Tucker, the Tucker Corporation, and those who contributed to the production of this remarkable automobile. Like any new historical “discovery,” sufficient research and evidence must be presented to validate authenticity and not perpetuate an urban legend.

Accordingly, we would be most interested in reviewing what evidence was presented to the author of the article supporting that this was actually a vehicle started by Tucker Corporation as a convertible. The documentation cited in the article links to a website containing what appears to be antidotal and hearsay evidence at best, such as a 2000 letter from a former Tucker employee asking the owner if he “ever got the Tucker convertible finished?” While this statement was presented as proof the car was indeed a factory project, the letter writer simply asked if the project car was finished and in no way suggests it was a Corporation produced “secret” car. Also there is a 2009 affidavit from someone who recalled a conversation he had 20 years ago with two strangers, “Henry” and “Bernie,” who he claims were Tucker employees who had knowledge of the Tucker convertible while they worked there. The “documentation” presented on the current owner’s website does not stand the test of even the most basic scrutiny.

TACA maintains the Tucker Historical Collection and Library, an archive collection of several thousand original company documents, photos and other materials. The National Archives holds vast amounts of Tucker Corporation related material: the SEC investigation papers, trial transcripts, bankruptcy proceedings and lawsuit documents. Two private collections contain multiple copies of original company records including over 60,000 original Tucker Corporation blueprints for the 1948 Tucker Sedan.

In fact, it is worth noting that TACA discovered and “rescued” these blueprints and several cases of company documents in 2005, something no one previously believed to remain in existence. We also discovered that famed designer Ray Dietrich worked as a consultant to the Tucker Corporation much to the surprise of both former employees and historians. We find it very rewarding to uncover some unknown fact or piece of the Tucker story during our ongoing research.

During the past couple of decades several historians have reviewed materials held in the Tucker Historical Collection, the National Archives and in private collections yet, no evidence has been found to suggest that the Tucker Corporation had plans to build a convertible, or that one was secretly being completed. Actually there is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.

The Tucker Historical Collection and Library holds two letters dated January 14, 1947 from M. W. Dulian—board member and General Sales Manager of Tucker Corporation. In these letters he is responding to questions from customers asking if other models, such as convertibles, delivery vehicles or two-door models would be offered. Dulian’s response was simply, “for the immediate future only one body type will be produced—a four-door sedan.”

In June 1990, Allan Reinert, the previous owner of the convertible project car, attended the Tucker Automobile Club of America’s annual convention in Chicago, IL. At that time he presented photos of his yet uncompleted Tucker convertible to the membership and claimed it was a secret Tucker Corporation project. Preston Tucker’s defense attorney, William Kirby, was the guest speaker and several immediate Tucker family members and former employees were in attendance as well, and refuted Reinert’s claim. Additionally, TACA can find no record that any of those who were directly involved in the production of Tucker automobiles, between 1947–49, have agreed with or substantiated the claim. In fact, Preston’s son John Tucker, Sr., Tucker Corporation’s Chief Stylist Alex Tremulis, and Tucker Corporation’s Design Team member Phil Egan, were all asked about the “convertible” individually, both following 1990 convention and years since, and each affirmed that no such project began at Tucker Corporation.

From THE INDOMITABLE TIN GOOSE © 1960 by Charles Pearson, page 99 Hard cover / page 90 Paperback, Chief Designer, Alex Tremulis is quoted as saying he was working on body #57 when the plant shut down. “We were changing the rear window to a full wrap around and had already starting cutting the openings for the (1949 model year) re-style job.”

Body #57, a body shell not yet mounted to a frame and without any doors or fenders, is the same body the current owner claims to be the factory started convertible.

The NY Times article states that the prototype, known as the Tin Goose and thirty-five (35) pilot-production Tucker sedans were completed when plant operations were stopped. As I mentioned in my previous email, company documents, a court ordered inventory and the report on the bankruptcy auction clearly indicate otherwise. What is known is that the Tin Goose and cars number 1 through 49 were completed when the factory closed on January 07, 1949.

In late June of 1948 the plant was shut down for two weeks and over 2,000 workers were laid–off. They had twenty (20) completed cars on–hand at that moment in time. The plant was re–opened on July 21, 1948 with only 300 workers called back, and by the end of October, a total of forty–two (42) cars had been built. Workers actually came in on their own time—with no hope of being paid—to continue building cars. (See company production sheets attached.)

On March 03, 1949 a court ordered inventory was compiled by Dan Leabu, Tucker Corporation General Production Manager, showing forty–nine (49) cars completed with sixteen (16) of those not have either a transmission or engine installed. The fiftieth (50th) car on the list required both. The listing shows three (3) cars as being in the Experimental Garage and several others are shown as being located off–site, yet no mention of a Tucker convertible appears on this list. (See inventory attached.)

One contemporary source (and clearly not on Tucker Corporations’s side) was Collier’s magazine, June 25, 1949, pg 13 – “The Fantastic Story of the Tucker Car” by Lester Velie in which he states, “Only 49 cars have been built by hand.”

These documents make it clear that the NY Times article’s statement, “During the 1950s, 16 more of the cars were assembled from leftover parts,” is again completely false and mis–leading. The article goes on to say that “these later vehicles, built using factory designs and specifications, are accepted as the genuine article” implies that several cars were “built” from piles of parts after the factory closed. In fact, near the end of the article the author attempts to legitimize Benchmark Classics’ Tucker convertible project as “no different in authenticity from any of the 16 Tuckers built from leftover parts after the factory closed.”

The fifty (50) cars built at the factory by the end of December 1948 were complete with paint, trim and interiors, driver controls and wiring harnesses. When sold at the bankruptcy auction those cars that required the installation of a transmission or engine came with the needed part(s).

In your email you asked “Were the cars ready for sale to customers?” Every Tucker automobile produced was a pilot-production vehicle and each exhibited various engineering changes. None of these vehicles were ever intended to be sold to the general public and likely would have been destroyed by the factory once full production began.

While you are correct that the vehicles with missing transmissions could not be driven, for all intents and purposes these cars were complete and far from “leftover parts.”

The NY Times article also points to “a few mentions in books . . . about a mysterious convertible that Tucker and his crew had started.” There have only been two books ever devoted to the Tucker automobile: “The Indomitable Tin Goose;” and “Design and Destiny.” Both were written by former Tucker employees, the first by an Ad Man and the second by a Designer, and neither of them mentions in their books a Tucker convertible in the works at the factory.

Following the 1990 Tucker Convention where Mr. Reinert presented photos of his convertible project the club’s newsletter Tucker Topics featured an article recapping the convention. In it is a mention that Mr. Reinert “shared photos of his Tucker convertible.” Mr. Cole of Benchmark Classics has, in at least two recent video interviews, pointed to that statement as proof that the Tucker Automobile Club of America, Inc. recognizes his convertible as legitimate. At best, this article should be taken at its face value: Mr. Reinart had photos of “his” Tucker convertible and should be given no more weight than that.

Tucker Topics has, over the years, featured many other “Tucker automobiles” that had little if anything to do with the Tucker Corporation, such as the fiberglass cars created for the 1988 movie, the 2000 Ida Tucker recreations, and various home-built endeavors. In that regard, the Reinart convertible has as much credibility as the Tucker/Esch convertible also described in Tucker Topics or perhaps even the Loof Lirpa Special Edition Tucker “uncovered” and fully described in great detail in an April issue of Tucker Topics.

Like other car clubs that authenticate cars, such as the Auburn–Cord–Duesenberg Club or the Mercedes Gull Wing Registry, TACA simply requires a much higher standard of proof of authenticity from the owner. Until then we can only recognize it for what we believe it to be; a tribute car built from authentic Tucker parts to resemble what a Tucker convertible may have looked like.

Two final questions to ponder are: first, how could such a vehicle, if it was started as a secret corporate project, escape being discovered by the SEC, FBI and the Federal Bankruptcy court, the news media, or by some disgruntled employee testifying at the Tucker Corporations’ 1949 trial? And second, if somehow this vehicle was in fact a secret Tucker project, would the vehicle not need to be surrendered back to its rightful owners—the federal bankruptcy court—since it would have been illegally withheld when all Tucker Corporation assets were seized and sold by court order?


Respectfully,



Jay A. Follis
President — Tucker Automobile Club of America, Inc
Director — Tucker Historical Collection and Library

c: TACA Board of Directors
Editor, Tucker Topics


Copyright 2009 Jay A. Follis, President - Tucker Automobile Club of America, Inc.