Tucker "Convertible" at Auction

[Prototype]

I find it amazing how the convertible story keeps shifting. At first, they said the car needed to be completed. Now, they say in
most of their press releases that they restored the car. Also, I believe there was mention that the car had a clear Wisconsin title.
Now it seems to have been never titled and only offered with a bill of sale. It seems odd that now there is a dataplate. If the car
had one all along, why didn't Cole post a picture of it? A REAL Tucker dataplate stamped with #57 or #1057 would certainly be more
proof to the car being "authentic" than a letter from Al Prueitt.

I know for a FACT they DO NOT have a clear Wisconsin title for this or any other 1948 Tucker! If anyone who buys this albatross on a Bill of Sale only, then tries to Title or Register it, will NOT be given a Title, salvage or otherwise! It will be considered a parts car by the State and nothing else! By the way, their affidavit means nothing to the DMV! In previous posts, if I have no proof, i.e...Speculation or opinion, I will say so. But I know what I have stated above as a FACT. On the Data Plate; It is blank for a reason, he simply cannot duplicate the numbers and he has stated the plate is blank. It is blank to protect himself, if he stamps it, it is a FELONY and HE knows that!!! Dumb to even mention that he has it and that it is still blank! Before, there were all these little red flags popping up, now he may as well hoist a big red one in front his shop: Pick Me, Pick ME. As to the story about completing / restoration, He (Cole)needs to carry around one of those little recorders, because he can't remember which lie he told to what person! I'll say this: Once I sold, what I was told, a rare Halibrand quick change rear end to someone. When I found out that it was not in fact a rare part at all, I notified the buyer and offered his money back. He declined, but asked if I would refund the discrepancy in the two prices, Done deal! He has come back to me many times and has been a loyal customer since! Something about being honest.................

[Tucker Fan 48]

Here are a few things about the story that have changed:

In an interview with Old Cars Weekly, Allen Reinert himself said when he acquired the car it was basically a frame with a cowl tack-welded in place, two front doors and two rear quarter panels. “It had no motor, no transmission, no steering, no tires or wheels. No nothing. After I found the car I started scrounging parts.”

Reinert himself told people that the top was off a '53 Buick that he retrofitted and that it had no top frame prior to his acquisition.

The club has gone back and forth with Cole over the authenticity of his car.

Cole said that the Tucker club's newsletter acknowledged the existence of the convertible in the early 1990s but that the leadership has since shifted its position.

The car suddenly has an odometer with only 2/10s of a mile

The car went from no engine to a correct engine to a zero miles engine.

Cole has posted a fact or fiction page on his site. None of the facts are really facts. They are just statements by him. The only fact he showed was that his car is not made up of the parts from the car parts lot in Roscoe IL. He has pictures of a newspaper from 5/31/09 next to all the parts to prove it's not the same car. Funny thing is I don't recall reading anywhere that it was an issue. Maybe Cole invented an issue so he could prove it wrong or maybe he wanted to get a look at another Tucker so he could duplicate it's markings.

Is Brent Morris still around? Cole continues to say that there was a discussion in the June 1994 Tucker Topics about # 57 being a convertible. Brent mentioned in that article that Reinhart was at the convention with pictures of his #1043 and #1057 and that #1057 was a convertible. It would be nice to know if Brent was certifying Reinhart's #1057 as a convertible or if Brent was simply acknowledging Reinhart was at the convention with pictures of the car that Reinhart says is a convertible.

Does anyone else remember discussion about the car having a clean Wisconsin title? I cannot remember where I saw that but I remember reading it. It may have been in one of Reinhart's ads about the car.

[TuckerCar]

We talked to Brent Morris about the newsletter in (and showed it to him) at the Mini-Meet in Chicago this past September 2009. His response was a laugh. Now if we think an affidavit or statement from him is worthwhile, we can ask, but the mere reference to that article as legitimizing the car is just so asinine I don't know that it deserves a rebuttal.

[Tucker Fan 48]

I think an affidavit or statement from Brent would be worth something as it de-bunks part of Coles "evidence". It would be hard for
Cole to continue to use it if the author of the article says that it was never his intention to certify Reinhart's #1057 as a convertible
but only to acknowledge that Reinhart was at the convention with pictures of the car that Reinhart says is a convertible. If he has
any other knowledge, such as no one he spoke to at the convention thought that the car was an "authentic" Tucker or if people he
spoke to thought it was a good use of old Tucker parts, that would be helpful.

This article seems to be such a key part of Cole's "evidence" that the Convertible is real. It would be nice to show what it really is.

[TUCKER]

The care shown in the convertible with the newspaper is not 1027 and it is test chasis #2 with a 52 stamped on it. It is not 52 and I can prove it. Also the body panels on that care were from 1018 along with a few doors from 1027. That is more like a joke thinking we are idiots

[Tuckeroo]

The care shown in the convertible with the newspaper is not 1027 and it is test chasis #2 with a 52 stamped on it. It is not 52 and I can prove it. Also the body panels on that care were from 1018 along with a few doors from 1027. That is more like a joke thinking we are idiots

I'm still unclear as to how the test chassis could be #52 or vice-versa. I disagree on this point because I have seen original film footage and pictures of the, shall we call it, 335 and R-1 Tuckermatic test chassis (because that would be the most apt description, I think.) Chapter 15 of Egan's book puts this test chassis into action almost simultaneously with #1026 having an R-1 Tuckermatic installed. This I would estimate to have occurred between June-August of 1948. You can see it in the promotional "Tucker: The Man and the Car" film in the part describing the independent suspension. Who's to say this body-less Tucker ever had a number? But if it did, I don't believe that the #52 would have fit into the sequence very well given the most likely dates for its construction.

Or maybe I'm unclear as to who is presenting what argument in the first place?

At any rate, the R-1 test chassis ought to have an altogether different mounting section for the transmission (assuming this has not been removed or compromised.) Cord and Y-1 transmissions had u-shaped mounting brackets below the transmissions. The rare R-1 had its u-shaped mounting inverted above the transmission...maybe a long shot but can this be seen in any photographs? Also please correct me if this assertion is wrong, I'm unable to wrangle up my photos of #1026's engine compartment at this time.

[TUCKER]

It shure is the same car the car in the Tucker promo movie and 1052 or Test Chassis #2. I have photos of each and they are all the same car. I posted some on this site.

[Tuckeroo]

Still, confusing because of when it was built. I've heard to it referred as test chassis #2, test chassis #3, and #1052. I suppose it's possible that all bodies with 1-58 had been stamped at this time and they randomly selected #52 (on the cowl?) to turn into a test chassis?

I read in Topics years ago that the following components were married together:

The chassis (Test #2/Test#3/#1052/#52/?)
Front fenders (#1018)
Almost everything else (at least FR door an exception) (#1027)

Am I missing something? If that car is sitting on the R-1 test chassis and the R-1 test chassis has a "52" stamped on the cowl, problem solved(?) If it does not have that number, does that automatically rule it out as the R-1 test chassis? I guess the big questions are 1) does it have a number and, if so 2) what number is it? Pictures please! (recent ones, of "1027's" cowl).

[Tucker Fan 48]

I've noticed in several photos of the Convertible that it has a personalized Wisconsin license plate, TUKR48.
Does anyone know if this is real or is it fake as well. If it is real, what is it registered to, what is the serial number of that car, and who is the owner?

[TUCKER]

coud anyone check who this car belong to if any?
Vin: 33590 it was told to have a valid Michigan title. That was for the test chassis #2 or known as 1052. Lets see if there was ever anything like this out there.

[TuckerCar]

I've noticed in several photos of the Convertible that it has a personalized Wisconsin license plate, TUKR48.
Does anyone know if this is real or is it fake as well. If it is real, what is it registered to, what is the serial number of that car, and who is the owner?

Fake. https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/pinq/pinqservlet

[Natalie]

coud anyone check who this car belong to if any?
Vin: 33590 it was told to have a valid Michigan title. That was for the test chassis #2 or known as 1052. Lets see if there was ever anything like this out there.

Non standard VINs are very hard to track, especially since most computerized systems only go back to the early 1980s.

[Prototype]

I've noticed in several photos of the Convertible that it has a personalized Wisconsin license plate, TUKR48.
Does anyone know if this is real or is it fake as well. If it is real, what is it registered to, what is the serial number of that car, and who is the owner?

TuckerCar is correct. They are in fact fake novelty plates. These are available from many mail order and internet companies that will put almost anything on them. Some of the pictures of the plate are quite clear and you can see there are no tags on it. The Wisconsin DMV has NO record of this license tag.

[Prototype]

coud anyone check who this car belong to if any?
Vin: 33590 it was told to have a valid Michigan title. That was for the test chassis #2 or known as 1052. Lets see if there was ever anything like this out there.

When auto manufacturer's went to the federal mandated 17 digit VIN is when computerized records began to be kept on computer databases. Older vehicles beyond 1978 or so, unless the car has been registered consistently, information is usually stored on micro-film pr (gasp) punch cards. Some State DMV's are slowly updating this info, but if it is still on micro-film, you are either out of luck or have to pour over the reels yourself. I have had to the latter and let me tell you, a very dizzying task! Don't drink coffee beforehand! Tucker- If 33590 is an engine # used as VIN, most likely the issuing DMV will ad there own ID code, just as if you were registering a kit car. The DMV will use the numbers that come with the kit and combine their numbers for a complete 17 digit VIN.

[Tuckerfan1053]

coud anyone check who this car belong to if any?
Vin: 33590 it was told to have a valid Michigan title. That was for the test chassis #2 or known as 1052. Lets see if there was ever anything like this out there.

Non standard VINs are very hard to track, especially since most computerized systems only go back to the early 1980s.

You're not kidding. I had a 1969 Chrysler Newport that I never was able to get the VIN sorted out on, all because the computer system thought that since the VIN began with a "C" the car was a Chevy. I kept going round and round with the DMV, trying to get them to give me a title with the proper manufacturer on it, but never managed to do it before I was forced to sell the car.