Tucker "Convertible" at Auction

[TuckerCar]

Russo & Steele...

http://www.oldcarsweekly.com/article/ra ... r_auction/

http://www.russoandsteele.com/collector ... -6409.html

[Natalie]

Russo & Steele...

http://www.oldcarsweekly.com/article/ra ... r_auction/

http://www.russoandsteele.com/collector ... -6409.html

I don't necessarily think it's a reflection of their integrity, but more a reflection of the times. It’s publicity after all, and business is business. Plus, in the case of this particular car, it could be assumed by the auction house that anyone who would seriously consider bidding would be fully aware of the surrounding controversy. The story has appeared in some pretty big-time news outlets, not to mention places like this board where the holes in the story have been explored at length by experts.

In short -- the cat is pretty much out of the bag on this vehicle and no one can reasonably say R&S is trying to pull a fast one on this sale. Does that “clear” them ethically? Maybe, maybe not. There are two sides to this story, after all (and I don't mean simply the right and the wrong side!). And these auctions always stress that the onus is on the buyer. In the case of the “Tucker Convertible,” one doesn’t have to sniff around too extensively to smell something a bit rotten. But then again, accepting the car could also imply that R&S endorses (one side of) the story. But that's their prerogative, I guess. So, who knows? Like I said, it comes down to publicity and $$$.

[Phantomrig]

I wonder if this auction will be televised.

[TuckerCar]

I don't think so. R&S has a generic show on HD-Theater but doesn't televise all their auctions like B-J or Mecum (wow, that's an odd combination of names). I think RM used to have some of their's televised on ESPN2 also, but I haven't seen that in years.

[Tucker Fan 48]

Has anyone heard of this Alvin Prueitt? (http://www.alprueittandsons.com/) I read his affidavit of authenticity that is posted on the Russo & Steele site (http://www.russoandsteele.com/vehicle_d ... idavit.pdf) and its a joke just like all the other documents that have been provided about this car. Prueitt says, "in early 1966, I saw the rolling chassis and many sheet metal parts for the Tucker Convertible. I also saw that the convertible was stamped # 57 and its frame was reinforced at that time. I have also recently seen and inspected the Tucker Convertible and verified its authenticity." Prueitt worked for Gene Zimmerman's Automobilorama in Harrisburg PA from the 60s until 1972 according to his website. Anyone know if Zimmerman ever owned a Tucker?

Prueitt doesn't say where he saw it, who owned it, or why he happened to be there. He makes no mention of how he was able to remember that the car he saw was stamped #57 after 43 years. This guy has a great memory if he can remember after all that time what number he saw on a pile of rusty parts. He also "verified" the convertibles authenticity. Authenticity to what? He doesn't say what he verified. If he wants to verify that he saw a Tucker convertible I'd agree he did. It is certainly a nice car and it does exist in its present form. If he can verify that the parts he saw in 1966 are the same parts that make up the Tucker convertible it would be nice to know how he is sure of that. Did he take pictures in 1966? Scratch his initials into the sheet metal? How does he know? If he wants to verify that the Tucker convertible was started by Tucker at the plant in Chicago then he'll need to come up with more than saying he "verified its authenticity."

I guess that's all you need to make something "authentic" according to Russo & Steele. I thought Russo & Steele was a more respectible company than this.

[Tuckerfan1053]

Even the Canadians are getting in on the act! I suspect that the author of this piece simply wrote his name on the top of the press release he was handed: http://www.auto123.com/en/news/car-news ... tid=114522

I love the constant reference to "some historians" without ever naming one of them (or even saying how many) and that the car was code named "Project Vera."

[Larry Clark]

As to whether Eugene Zimmerman ever owned a Tucker car, the great Tucker authority Bill Hamlin, cited Zimmerman as owning #1049. I have this as being a fact from two other reliable sources. What is interesting is that very early ownership of #1049 was likely by Dewey Bloomquist. I believe that Bloomquist also had a number of the remaining bodies, likely including #1057. However, Zimmerman would have acquired the car from someone other than Bloomquist (most likely the Poll Museum that was in Holland Michigan). Some years ago I communicated with Ezra Schlpf's daughter and tried to learn from her (or from her brother through her) what relationship her father had had with Bloomquist and/or the extra bodies. She was unable to clarify things. Ezra appears to have had some sort of a relationship with Bloomquist, if just being a friend. Quite likely, Ezra sent persons to Bloomquist (and vice versa). He would have known about the bodies.

Larry

[Randy Earle]

Historians say the original design and fabrication began in Tucker's Chicago manufacturing facility, but some pretend the convertible was moved out just before the company shut-down.

According to a Russo and Steele spokesperson, “The most significant aspect of the conversion from a sedan to a convertible was the adaptation in the plant of the sedan's frame to respond to the additional demands of a convertible body.”

“The sedan's frame was re-engineered by box-wrapping an ovular frame in thicker-than-stock ten gauge steel. This provided the Convertible with all the rigidity it needed to satisfy the performance expectations of Tucker Engineering. Its doors were stamped in the plant suggesting that more were to come.”

Just goes to show, if you tell a lie over and over again, it becomes fact. Who are the "Historians" anyway?

[plancor 792]

Larry,
Gene Zimmerman purchased 1049 from Nick Jenin. According to Nick, he had purchased it from Dewey Bloomquist. When Zimmerman purchased it the car had no data plate so for years Zimmerman had a sign saying it was one of only 19 Tucker's built. Les Sheaffer, owner of Tucker's 1008, 1044 and the Tin Goose, had a heated discussion with Zimmerman over this discrepancy and I also have letters from Les on the subject. Only when the Tucker Club was researching and locating the vehicles was it determined that this car was Serial Number 1049 and Body Number 1049. I visited the Museum several times and attempted to talk with Mr. Zimmerman and he was never available. Here again "one of his employees" insisted that Tucker made only 19 automobiles and this was one of them and Zimmerman was not to change his sign or admit anything other than that.
Richard

[Larry Clark]

Richard: Thanks for your post. Given that Bloomquist had some if not all of the extra bodies above 1050, if this is true, then Nick Jenin most likely would have seen these when he purchased 1049. When he sold 1049 to Zimmerman he certainly knew there were more than 19 Tucker cars- he personally owned then or over his lifetime over a third of the 19 cars that Zimmerman claimed to exist just by himself. However, perhaps he told Zimmerman of the Bloomquist bodies yet in Illinois since Bloomquist was a part of the ownership legacy of 1049. This might account for someone then working for Zimmerman knowing of one of the car bodies that was potentially different. This said, I have got to believe if Jenin had seen something that he thought was a convertible body when he bought 1049 that he would have bought the body to have in his Tucker show that he took around the country. It is also probable that Bloomquist himself would have promoted the body this way in trying to sell it if it was obvious to be something like a convertible body. Things like this, combined with recollections from people who were right there at the plant, including those of Alex Tremulis, is why I personally take the position that if I had deep pockets and could afford to buy the "Tucker convertible" being offered by Russo & Steele that I might do so because it appears to be a very well executed model of what a real Tucker convertible might have looked like- a really cool car. However, I still have not seen sufficient convincing evidence to personally believe that I would be buying what was destined "from the factory" to be a true Tucker convertible. As to proving the car is not a true Tucker convertible, I have no interest in trying to do so as I do not have a dog in this hunt. As others have said, buyer beware is what any buyer should consider when buying a car at an auction.

Larry

[john]

Guys,
One thing to add here on Russo and Steels part;
I have known Drew (owner) of R/S for many years.

He is a respectful businessman and I have done business with him way before he became involved in the auction business.

I spoke with Drew yesterday on the phone, he is fully aware of all the arguements involving the car.
R/S has no dog in the fight, they are auctioning the car under the premis of what the owner's claims are, pretty much, everybody knows the story and history.


Drew is a friend and an ethical businessman, please do not discredit him or the auction company.
Happy New Year to all, may it be one of health, love and prosperity,
John

[Tucker Fan 48]

Richard,

Any idea who you talked with at Zimmerman's Museum? Alvin Prueitt said he was the curator and manager of the Museum.
Just wondering if he could have been the person you talked with? If Prueitt was involved with the claim that Tucker made only
19 automobiles it would hardly give him credibility as an expert on Tuckers.

I have been thinking about a few thoughts for everyone else on this subject. It does appear possible through Zimmerman's
connection with Nick Jenin and Dewey Bloomquist that Prueitt could have known about or seen the bodies in Illinois. The body
of #1027 (now #1057) could have been among them. If Prueitt actually saw #1027 with the roof cut off in 1966, then it would
seem that the conversion from a sedan to "convertible" (or at least a sedan with the roof cut off) would have happened during
the time Ezra Schipf owned the car. This leads to some interesting questions. Could Ezra have sold the roof off #1027 to
someone or could he have removed the roof which was damaged in the crash with plans to take to roof off of one of the bodies
he owned and attempt to make #1027 into a complete car? He would have owned enough parts to repair it. Maybe the car we
now know as #1057 is just a failed attempt by Ezra to repair #1027 and over the years the story grew into the "legend" of the
Tucker Convertible.

I would disagree about Russo & Steele being ethical about this car. They have now changed their description of the car to
go even further toward the story being sold about this car and NEVER acknowledge any issues with its history. The recent
announcement on Russo & Steeles site says:

Called a circus ringmaster in his day, permit me to channel Preston Tucker for a moment (and encourage you to join me) by
picturing him announcing...

"Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls: Unique in all the world! The one, the only Tucker 48 Convertible!"

That's right. This is a Tucker Convertible. Actually, let me restate that for accuracy: This is THE Tucker Convertible, the one
and the only. Others will tell you the specifics of the story that brought this spectacular automobile to the Russo and Steele stage.
You'll learn how Benchmark Classics in Madison, Wisconsin discovered, acquired and finally completed one of the greatest (and
most secret) of Preston Tucker's dreams. It is a wonderful story.

It's hard to think of them as ethical if they know there are questions about the car when they make statements like the one
above and make claims that Preston had anything to do with it. Also claims of it having zero miles on it when the motor was
documented to have been in another car at one time. The Russo & Steele owner may be a nice guy but if he is aware of "all
the arguements involving the car" then at the very least he should put a disclaimer in his description that says "according to
the owner" or something along those lines. To say "the Tucker Convertible has been authenticated" when he knows of the issues
is questionable.

[TuckerCar]

Not only is it on their website, but they bought a full-color two-page ad in Old Cars Weekly to publish the same information.

[plancor 792]

The name Alvin Prueitt doesn't ring a bell with me, however it was back in the early 1970's that I was doing this research on this vehicle and it could have been him. I will attempt to find my correspondence and will let you know if I find anything. Having been involved with collecting Tucker material and doing research into Tucker Corporation for well over 50 years, I have hundreds of pounds of letters, notes, photos, etc. At one time well organized but today scattered in several locations. It may take awhile. And those of you up north, please close the door. It is dang cold here in Northeast Florida.
Of course the auction company will attempt to get a high selling price on the convertible as they get a certain percentage of the sale price and their "fee" is added onto the selling bid.
Richard

[TuckerCar]

Fascinating.

http://www.oldcarsweekly.com/article/bu ... m_auction/