Tucker Convertible on Ebay

[TUCKER]

shure it is a photoshop. It said it on the site where it is and was made by "Jennifer" around year 2002

[Tuckeroo]

The front fenders used on this convertible car they are selling must be from an earlt Tucker since there is no fuel tank door on the front fenders.
I believe they are the front fenders and hood from number 1027 but may be wrong.

No, to clarify there is a Tucker that is a combo of 1018, 1027, and a test chassis 1052. The benchmark car is ostensibly 1057 and a different car altogether.

John: Thanks for getting in touch by phone. I think it is safe to say that there is somewhat of a consensus among most of the people on this forum that the evidence does not support the claim that the Tucker convertible should be considered a factory prototype or concept. For some among us this was perhaps a foregone conclusion, for others it involved painstaking and possibly costly research, but regardless of what different inconsistency(ies) was/were noted by us, it seems the same basic conclusion was reached by those who recognized one or more inconsistency. Thank you for sharing what you noticed! The burden of proof truly belongs to both sides - one must either prove that it is or prove that it isn't and it seems that until recently there hadn't been much provided from either side.

[john]

TUCKER wrote:
The front fenders used on this convertible car they are selling must be from an earlt Tucker since there is no fuel tank door on the front fenders.
I believe they are the front fenders and hood from number 1027 but may be wrong.
John writes: Tucker, in all probability you are correct!

Tuckeroo wrote:
No, to clarify there is a Tucker that is a combo of 1018, 1027, and a test chassis 1052. The benchmark car is ostensibly 1057 and a different car altogether.

John writes:
Tuckeroo, so the general public realizes and grasps what "ostensibly" is by definition and what you are saying #57 is:
Definition: seemingly
Antonyms: dubiously, equivocally, improbably, questionably, uncertain, unlikely.

John writes; he agrees with Tuckeroo that #57 is not one in the same as 1052 that Tucker writes about herein.

Tuckeroo wrote:
but regardless of what different inconsistency(ies) was/were noted by us, it seems the same basic conclusion was reached by those who recognized one or more inconsistency.

John writes: we agree and that is why we walked, in part, from purchasing the car.

Tuckeroo wrote:
John: Thanks for getting in touch by phone. I think it is safe to say that there is somewhat of a consensus among most of the people on this forum that the evidence does not support the claim that the Tucker convertible should be considered a factory prototype or concept.

John writes:
Tuckeroo, why don't you break the news of what the obvious distinct difference is between the Mystery Tucker picture and the picture of the Big back window Tucker that we talked of last night ?
NOTE: both pictures are claimed to be #57, just so the club members all know together with everybody else following the story.

Tuckeroo wrote:
, for others it involved painstaking and possibly costly research
John writes, yes it did Tuckeroo.

It does get ugly, huh Tuckeroo,
John

[Tuckeroo]

John writes:
Tuckeroo, why don't you break the news of what the obvious distinct difference is between the Mystery Tucker picture and the picture of the Big back window Tucker that we talked of last night ?
NOTE: both pictures are claimed to be #57, just so the club members all know together with everybody else following the story.

I'm sorry, I thought you didn't want me to let the cat out of the bag yet, at least on the grounds that it would rob others of the chance to discover it for themselves, or rob you of the chance of revealing it yourself, since in all fairness you were the first to notice it...I figured you'd be the better man to put it into words. Still want to give it a couple of days?

[john]

Tuckeroo,
Yeah, lets give everybody a few days, your right, that is what we discussed.

Maybe the newbies or tuckerett's "that pick and choose info to post in other places" might pick out the "major issue" between the Mystery Tucker picture and the big back window Tucker picture.
The obvious is sometimes overlooked,

NOW that it is known herein, that the pictures are claimed to be one in the same, #57, it shall be interesting.

I am smiling Tuckeroo,
John

[john]

To all,
A-If you reference and view the pictures of #57 herein or elsewhere:
B- reference the last 2 or 3 postings herein the Tucker conv at auction:

We ask you now to figure out and post what the major difference is between the big back window Tucker and the Mystery Tucker picture.

The whole story has to change, as the difference between the two Tuckers logicly cements that they are not one in the same.
"""""Again, both are claimed to be #57."""""""

Tuckeroo, best I could figure out on how to get what we shared so someone might see the obvious, we, just as you, passed it by many times before it dawned upon us.

John

[TuckerCar]

What is the prize for getting the answer correct?

[john]

Ahhhh TuckerCar,
Wondered when you would get whimsical again, always nice to have you jump in.
You have your pick of whats behind door:
#1, a brilliant Gold Star
#2, a picture of the look on more than a few peoples faces,

Lets hear it TuckerCar !!!!!!!

John

[TUCKER]

Found it! What do I win??

1- Extra long doors
2- Big back window frame from 1057

(but that is only the part of the roof from 1057 but the frame and other parts are still unknown. Person who took the photo could have made the doors longer. may be parts collected from around Chicago since there is an extra front fender and there were extra frames around.)

[john]

Tucker,
Do enjoy our off site correspondence, thank you again for helping a pea brain like me get the pictures posted of the 1935 Harris FWD Streamlined Speciale.

NOTE: the frame in the Mystery picture is stamped #57, this is the claim of the previous owner that purchased what you see in the early 70's, in modern and current day, the frame we personally viewed was stamped #57 which is the contended convertible of modern day.

Sooooo, as the story goes, the two pictures are one in the same, #57.

Good guess on the Mystery Tucker picture, the part you have highlighted/pointed to, is not part of the big back window, one hell of a good attempt and guess.
No prize awards at this time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________
YOUR arrow is so close to pointing out a major issue between the two pictures though.
Hope this clue/lead helps.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
_________________________________________________________________________
Tuckeroo, are you smiling, and is this clue pretty good?
TuckerCar, are you going to make a guess, never know, you might nail it ??????

John

[Tommy]

I guess it looks to me like the frame in the 70s photo is dead straight with no bends in it. It even looks to be lying flat on the floor from what I can tell. The frame attached to the body in the Life image is bent and curved in many places. Im not sure if this is what everyones talking about though. The 70s photo is so dark on my monitor I cant identify alot of parts on the edges of the photo.

[TUCKER]

Ok, I see something else, the frame on the mystery car have no extra metal to make it stronger like the frame on the Tucker being built right now. See the frame showing on the photo below.

[Tommy]

I was just looking at the Benchmark site and the buildup of the convertible. The more I look the more I see similarities with the 70s picture of the "mystery Tucker". The upside down right side quarter panel just above the white bucket of convertible frame parts has dimples or holes in it in the same spots as the Benchmark car. Of course now the quarter panel is cut out and has the wheelwell mounted to it. In the "Life image" the quarter panel has larger dimples or holes in different spots and the quarter panel is already cut out. I dont see a left side quarter panel in the "mystery Tucker " picture and it looks like Benchmark had do do a lot more work on that side with whatever they started with.

What I dont see is ANY similarity between the "mystery Tucker" and the "Life image" at all. I dont know why anyone would think they ARE the same car. They are in two completly different stages of production, the older "Life image" from 1950 actually being further along.

The benchmark car is looking really good and I think it is probably just about what a 48 Tucker convertiblie would have loooked like if Tucker had made one (which they didnt). Looks very close to the drawing taped to the window of the #1027,#1018,test frame lot that sold a few years ago (not the same car or parts though).

[streamliner]

The prior posted image of the "design room" is both cropped and reversed. Let’s take a closer look at the second Mystery Tucker picture as it should appear:



First, the full-sized car on the mural is one of the first renderings prepared by Alex Tremulis around Christmas/New Years 1946.



His signature leaves no doubt as to its origins.



Look closely on the top front of the mural and four other smaller renderings are shown attached to the mural. These are also Tremulis creations, two of which are shown below:





The clay model on the table is shown below in closeup. Note the table on which it rests is the same as in the “design room” photo.



This clay model is the 3D incarnation of Tremulis’ February 28, 1947 vellum that was used to create the rendering shown in the advertising displayed in the Chicago Hearld-American on March 2, 1947.





It’s also the same Tucker version that ended up in the Tucker Automobile patent filed on March 15, 1947. They still have the wrap-around rear window.



Here’s a not-so-unrelated photo of Alex Tremulis, second from the right, and three others in front of a wooden buck. It’s not so unrelated because these are the very same men as in the “design room”, still wearing the same clothes. The two gentlemen to the right of the buck are both in the background in the design room. The gentleman with his hand on Tremulis’ shoulder is directly opposite him working on the small clay model.



Some observations: The windows in both the design room and the wooden buck picture are identical.

The support posts have very similar drop-downs attached for power.

A frame is seen in the background of the wooden buck photo that has large clamps attached to it, possibly to hold up the full-sized mural.

Finally, on the backs of the photos of the clay model and the wooden buck, they are stamped Chicago Photographers 2698-3 and 2698-6.



I would venture to bet that the original of the design room photo also is from the same series (2698), same date as the other photos. Anyone have it? Chicago Photographers are the same group that documented the unveiling of the Tin Goose in June of 1947. I’d have to conclude that the pictures were for PR purposes, that they were taken at the Tucker plant, not at Tammen and Denison, and that the design room scene was staged for the appearance of a very busy styling team.

So who are the gentlemen with the wooden buck?

[streamliner]

...And, thanks to John and his scavenger hunt, the following similarities between the "design room" can be made:

Here's different shot of body 57 in the Tucker plant in 1950:



Take a closer look at the "C"-pillars in the Life Photo Archive of Tucker 57.



Take a closer look at the "C"-maked pillars in the photo with the wooden buck.



You would have to conclude that body number 57 is in the same area that they were working in in early 1947...