Tucker Convertible on Ebay

[plancor 792]

Tucker 1034 sold at auction October 30, 1950 to Hanson for $2,200.00. He sold it to James Amderson 27 Dec. 1950. Allen Koprbel purchased it from Joy Bros. Motor Car Company on 3 july 1968 for $6,000.00. He later sold it to Clayton Stone.

Richard

[plancor 792]

Allen Korbel only had 1034 nothing else as I recall. As far as I know he is still living in the area.

Richard

[TUCKER]

Have great news here to be posted later today on who sold 1027 and to who.

[Tucker Fan 48]

Tucker, I'll hold my breath until then !

[TUCKER]

there are a few people out there who I have talked to and they remember seeing the blue 1027 frame and coul at Gilliland. One even tought of buying it but it was not for sale at that time. Only 1052 was for sale. Gilliland also admited selling 1027 to Allin at one time! I am writing the story but it is very long. I will post the story later since I am not done with it. It may need about 100 pages if I really wanted to write the complete story out of all my notes!

[TUCKER]

I just got a last minute phone call that took many hours and made many things clear on many of the mysteries. Remember it said something that looked like No.54 on the blueprint or picture of the convertible? There is a reason. Once again it was a clue from Al like I have said before. Also the 57 hood. Remember there is a 57 under a 51 and another 57? That is another clue and was ment to be shown like the No.54 on the picture of the Convertible on the side of 1052. Why would they have something that look like "No.54" on the picture? Why would there be a clear 51 under a 57? Think about that. I have 99% of the true history on a few cars and will share it with all after you all think for some time here about the clues by Al.

[Tucker Fan 48]

I'm still holding my breath. Enquiring minds want to know the answer.

[Tucker Fan 48]

Four days of holding my breath has turned me as blue as the easter egg. What gives?

[TUCKER]

That is good, It is good to turn blue like the easter egg. Yes well the 1027 car was owned by Stan Gilliland and then he sold it to Alin Reinert. It was seen by more than one person at Gilliland along with the "Test Car #2" in the early 1980s when the test shassis was out for sale the first time. They were both in the same building but this 1027 parts lot was not for sale and later the same year Gilliland said he sold the parts to Al Reinert. The car parts were seen "Blue"!

How blue do you want to get "Tucker Fan 48"?

I also have a story on all the other junk sold by Al.

1051 was also owned by Al Reinert when it had front fenders and hood but later one of them sold it to the Poll Museum without the front fenders and no hood! That may have been where the hood with the 51 under the 57s came from.

54 on the blueprint is related with one of the cars Al had like all the other numbers! 1051 have 1054 body!

1027 which Al said you could make the test shassis into is also one of his other cars! Al owns 1027 as a convertible!
(The test shassis he bought in October 1950!)

51 under the hood was another of his cars if not Gilliland his partner in collecting the scattered parts thrue the country, not a trailer!

Now 1057 may be one of the other cars he have! Where did he use the rear fenders from 1042 along with all the interior parts?? Have never seen that but know Al parted that car out. Also where are the front fenders from 1051?

57 was owned by Erza who sold his collection to Les Schafer so then sold the collection to Gilliland, the buddy of Al. Al worked with Gilliland and bought many parts from Gilliland! 57 have never been seen after the first owner!

[Turbopackman]

I've been reading all 33 pages of this thread with great interest. And when I got to a certain point I decided I needed to join here and make a comment. And I'm inclined to agree with the consensus on here that the convertible is nothing more than a collection of original Tucker parts. But one thing has me wondering, and it's these pictures. Now, what has me wondering is what's being called blue paint on the frame rails in these pictures. After working on metal for many years, and building my own cars (Packards) it looks to me like the "blue paint" in these photographs are actually the bluing that occurs when you heat metal up to reshape it. Now, if #1027 was damaged bad enough, I would think that the only way to straighten it correctly would be to heat the metal back up and reform it, or cut it out and replace it. To me, with the way the bluing turns from blue to white/yellow to rust colored, it just seems that this was heated intensely and reshaped. I'm not trying to discount the #1027 theory, as I think it's an excellent one, I'm just pointing out something that I believe is true, and it sure looks like that to me. I'd like to see a modern digital picture taken of the chassis when it got to Benchmark so we can see the detail a little better and know for sure. But for now, I'm voting on high heat as the cause of the blue color, and not necessarily paint. What do you guy's think?

BTW, Tucker, I LOVE the car you're building! Kudos to you for the work you're going through to build it, and I wanna see more!

[TUCKER]

Hi all I can say is that it is brue paint on the frame and coul and I know what I see there, same damage on most of the body panels that were on 1027 and same owner(s) who had 1027 when last seen in the 1980s. There is no way you can have two cars with the same color and same damage on so many places and not be the same car. What do you think about that? Coul and frame of the convertible both had blue paint at one time and same damage on same place as 1027 as you seen on the many pages you read and also the front fenders and rear quarter panels had repairs on the same exact spots as the damage on 1027 when it rolled over. One more thing is that at one time in an early photo of the convertible the body is seen with what looks like #27 stamped on the coul. Also one more funy thing is that the test chassis #2 that was owned by the same owner was stamped #52 on the coul which is not #52. Looks like someone started stamping and restamping numbers on cars.

[SuperFleye]

It's nice to have this thread revived, splitting it up in several subthreads killed all activity on it like I feared. Ricardo, have you been able to find out something more about the wraparound-windshield prototype?

[Turbopackman]

I'm not pretending to be a Tucker expert by any means, I'm just stating what I see. And, I think you're right that it's #1027, it's just not that it's paint on the frame, but the bluing that happens when you heat up metal, which would happen if #1027's chassis was bent enough and someone tried to straighten it. I'm not making any reference to the cowl, (coul is short for coulomb, a unit of electrical measure) fenders or any other part of the car, just the frame rail in the picture. So before you jump down my throat thinking I'm trying to discredit you, I'm not. I agree with you that the convertible is the remnants of #1027, and that they've done a heck of a time trying to hide that fact, for whatever reason. All I'm saying is that it's NOT blue paint on the frame in those pictures, but the discoloration associated with heat used to bend the chassis back into shape. Given the looks of the car after the wreck, do you really think it's not at least possible that the chassis was bent up enough to require heating to straighten it? I stand by my statement that it's not blue paint on the chassis, but discoloration caused by heat. At least until someone can produce a high quality picture of it proving it to be paint. I'm sure you've all seen a flywheel that's been heat marked by the clutch, same idea here. I'm not arguing the stamping marks or paint on anything else, just the chassis picture. Keep that in mind please.

[TuckerCar]

And, I think you're right that it's #1027, it's just not that it's paint on the frame, but the bluing that happens when you heat up metal, which would happen if #1027's chassis was bent enough and someone tried to straighten it.

I concur. Or if they just weren't too good at welding.

[john]

The picture we posted quite a while back is authentic.

It is obvious that it has blue paint over primer which is over the sealer.
Please look at the layers of paint, primer and sealer obviously shown.
Get real, any heat from welding or shrinking purposes would have burnt the paint off, PERIOD.
ANY metal man should and would realize this.

No one dropped the topic, it was to be set in order by the ones that control the board, this was not done.
Splitting it up had nothing to do with the thread dying.
Tucker, I told you it would run amuck again!!
John