Latest from Auto Blog

[Tucker Fan 48]

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/12/tuck ... ction-conv

Hopefully there will be more articles like this one.

[Tuckeroo]

Agreed! I can't help but notice what a pretty thing it is, and still quite valuable in my opinion. Taking away the confabulated origin, what would any of us being willing to pay (hypothetically) for such a car if it was being presented as a "tribute car," as I believe it to be? I would be willing to (again hypothetically) bid in the $500,000 - $750,000 range (assets I don't have, hence the hypothetical) plus trade in my 3 cars and some other automobilia (an extra $8,000, maybe not so hypothetically).

More likely I would rather have a replica (not masquerading as "real," but unashamed none the less) Tucker convertible (with a later fuel-injected turbo rear-mounted 6ALV-335) because I would want something I could cruise in without road paranoia setting in (which unfortunately for me occurs when a car hits the $30,000+ mark so I may be out of luck there).

It appears that most of us posting agree what the car isn't worth (eg: <$3,500,000 - 5,000,000), but based on the information we have, would anyone care to speculate on what it is worth, and place a fantasy bid?

[plancor 792]

I would like to get it as a previous owner got it. A piece here, a piece there and many pieces after dark from a shed in Chicago. Would also love to know what qualifications this so called expert has to back up his claim. I have not found his name mentioned as being employeed by Tucker Corporation so where does he get his information from? I do believe that I could stand up against his qualifications, having worked on many of the Tucker's. Restored Dave's 1022 & 1026. I have also interviewed and met many of the former top management of Tucker Corporation and been involved with Tucker in some capacity since 1947. The only major person I never met was Preston Tucker.
Richard

[Tucker Fan 48]

It is just like every affidavit they have come up with so far, no substance. 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." Somehow that statement makes it authentic. How about some facts instead of the continued fiction? Where did he see it in 1966? Who owned it? Why was he there? How does he know this is the same car? How does he know it was started in the Tucker factory? These are all very simple questions that a real expect would put in an affidavit. All these affidavits are so vague. None of them can be verified. The same thing with Reinerts statement as to where he found the car, the 6300 block of Halsted St in Chicago, which just happens to be in the center of an urban renewal area where everything was torn down. This project has been in the Chicago news for many years now and is well known. It's kind of like saying you found the car in the ninth ward of New Orleans. No one could ever say you didn't. Could it be there is nothing that can be verified about this car because it simply didn't exist before they put together a huge pile of parts?

[Tuckeroo]

We already know it was a huge pile of parts, even the (original) Benchmark argument acknowledges that and we have the photos to prove it was a pile of parts for quite sometime. They're suggesting that the puzzle of parts was meant to be built into a convertible and only a convertible (some fabrication required...to the sheet metal, in this case.) My problem is that they insist that the "wrap-around window car" and #57 are two different cars and site that they are in separate paragraphs in The Indomitable Tin Goose. It's actually two consecutive sentences that happen to be in two paragraphs because of a punctuation rule! Quotes always start in a new paragraph. Here it is (again), with the paragraphs (sentences) separated, for anyone who didn't pay attention in elementary school writing classes:

Tremulis continued as chief stylist, working on changes for future models, and had body No. 57 when the plant closed down.
"We were changing the rear window to a full wrap-around and had already started to cut out openings for the re-styling job," he said.

We have pictures of that body, up to September 1950. Then we have pictures of a pile of parts. Same car? Maybe some of the parts were from it. Started at the factory that way? Not if all of the company assets were confiscated and that body was still sitting there with a wrap-around window cut out of it some eight months after the trial ended. There was, sadly, no Tucker Corporation left which could order the creation of a Tucker convertible from that.

[plancor 792]

This Al Prueitt is the same guy that Les Sheaffer talked to about Zimmermans Tucker. Les tried to show them that the Tucker on display was a late one due to the location of the fuel tank and suspension changes. Zimmerman and Prueitt continued to say it was one of only 19 built by Tucker.
Richard

[Tucker Fan 48]

That shows one of two things:

A: Prueitt had no clue about Tuckers and their history. If that was the case, then why would anyone trust him to "authenticate" the convertible?

B: Prueitt argeed with the story Zimmerman wanted told because he was paid to do so and had no ethical problem with lying about it.
If that was the case, then why would anyone trust him to "authenticate" the convertible?

The only reason why is if you owned a car that had a fuzzy history that you needed to "authenticate" because there are only two things you could do:

A: Hire someone that is totally clueless.

B: Hire someone that is willing to lie.

In this case, Justin Cole's answer to his problem was Al Prueitt.