Tucker Convertible on Ebay

[Tucker Fan 48]

Thanks for posting the photo. Any idea on the date this was taken or how it's known to be # 57? If that picture is truly body # 57 then Benchmark Classics has a lot of explaining to do as to how it became a convertible prototype because in that photo it is clearly a 4-door sedan. Thanks !

[TUCKER]

The photo was taken on September 09, 1950

[NailheadRocketman]

Thanks for posting the photo. Any idea on the date this was taken or how it's known to be # 57? If that picture is truly body # 57 then Benchmark Classics has a lot of explaining to do as to how it became a convertible prototype because in that photo it is clearly a 4-door sedan. Thanks !

I don't think they have any explaining to do. A four door was simply taken off the assembly line and cut down to form the foundation of a convertible. This explains why the convertible did not have any sheetmetal between the doors and the quarters panels while it was being stored in Wisconsin. Benchmark welded in the new sheetmetal that you see between the doors and the quarters in the video. The car isn't really mysterious, it's just that hardly anyone knew or remembered it. The car is from 1948, and you would be surprised how many interesting events in automotive history get glazed over during a period of 60 years. The doors are obviously not original Tucker, but Tucker doorskins were added, the convertible roof frame is from a Buick. It's still a real Tucker to me, it has mostly an original Tucker platform and Tucker running gear, the instrument panel seems to be original Tucker as well. Not only that, i think it would be easier to develop a convertible prototype from existing parts, rather than developing an all new prototype such as the Talisman or the future 1950s design exercise. There even exists a kit today that you can get almost anywhere that allows you to convert a 4 door Chevrolet Bel Air into a two door post sedan, making a four door into a convertible can't be much more difficult, other than having to add additional structural braces to make up for rigidity lost when the roof was cut off. The Tucker seems to be almost like a modern unibody car with plenty of space to deal with both in the underbody and in the rear body area ahead of the engine/transmission, so putting in structural braces and supports doesn't seem like something impossible to do.

[Phantomrig]

Real or not, I think it is a nice looking car and will be really nice when it is complete.

[Tuckeroo]

I have tried to keep an open mind about all this, but I had one observation that I thought was ironic. The photo of #57 in September 1950 shows something which is little more than the roof of a car. What we have been presented with today of #57 may be many things, but it is completely absent the roof. I'm not opposed to the idea that the front cowl has remained "original" over the years, but what else? I also have a hard time believing that this car was "secreted away" from the factory to another location prior to the court appointed trustees taking over the plant if this photo is taken inside the factory in September 1950, a good eight months after the trial ended and even longer from the time that the trustees took over. For that same reason I struggle with the idea that this was a "planned" convertible, it doesn't add up in my mind to start making it into a convertible after September 1950 and declaring it a factory concept that long after the final nail had been hammered into the comany's coffin. I could be content with "customization of an incomplete car body." I give the current state of the car high marks for having some genuine Tucker parts, in spite of being incomplete, and very high marks for desirability (if you are not a stickler for documentation). As for history/documentation, I give it low to failing marks until I see something better from the defense. After watching the video it seems the gentleman in charge of restoration is grasping at threads to site documentation, and/or simply doesn't acknowledge the importance of documentation - siting as he does The Indomitable Tin Goose, Tucker Topics, and a letter from a "Tucker Accountant" who is interested in seeing the convertible, but if it is part of a broader correspondence which the restorer sites this accountant says nothing to the effect of the convertible being started at the factory.

Just sharing my observations based on what I've seen so far, still willing to keep an open mind...

[john]

Tuckeroo,
You are so correct in your last post.

IF EVERYONE WOULD JUST TAKE A MOMENT AND LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE PICTURE OF THE 4 DOOR TUCKER WITH THE MODIFIED BACK WINDOW AND THEN LOOK AT THE ONE DISPLAYING THE TUCKER IN THE MYSTERY PICTURE, """""YOU"""""" WILL FIND A VERY INTERESTING FACT THAT CAN NOT BE DISMISSED THAT DISPUTS THAT BODY BEING THE ONE BENCHMARK AND THE PREVIOUS OWNER STAKE CLAIM TO.

HOLY BE JESUS GUYS AND HISTORIANS>>>""""PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO STUDY THE PICS""""""LETS GET SERIOUS !!!!!!!!

AS TO THE NEWBIES OR THE NEWBIE TUCKERETTE'S, ARE ONE OF YOU THE ONES THAT PLACED THE $1,000,OOO MILLION DOLLAR BID ON THE 1ST EBAY AUCTION ?????? JUST CURIOUS.
THERE ARE "MANY HOLES" IN THE STORY BEING TOLD ON #57, THERE IS ALSO ANOTHER VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH #57, WHICH WAS THE FINAL STRAW FOR US TO PASS ON THE CAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BY THE WAY, I HAVE SPOKEN TO HAMPTON ON OCCASION, HE IS A VERY BRILLIANT AND METICULOUS HISTORIAN !!!!!!!
IN CLOSING, THE ORIGINAL PENCIL RENDERED TUCKER CONVERTIBLE DRAWING WE SAW IN FULL BLOWN SIZE, WAS "NOT" DONE BY ALEX !!!!
TILL THE NEXT TIME,
JOHN

[Tucker Fan 48]

Thanks again for all the great information everyone is posting. I looked at the two pictures that John suggested looking at. One is just a pile of parts, the other is a more complete looking body. Is there something I'm missing? Are these supposed to be the same car?

I still believe the Benchmark Classics has a lot to explain about their marketing. If the picture of body # 57 was taken on September 9th, 1950 then everything that Benchmark claims about the car is untrue. Benchmark says this about the car:

"The Tucker convertible that we now have in our possession started life as a Tucker 48 sedan in the Tucker factory and is stamped 57 in multiple places. When Mr. Tucker gave the orders to start work on the top secret two-door convertible project both Tucker and third party engineers from Lenki Engineering went to work. It should be known that Lenki is the firm that Mr. Tucker employed to build the sedan prototype known as the "Tin Goose". Tucker and Lenki engineers started on the convertible by cutting sedan #57's roof off. Once this was done they noticed that the frame was lagging near the middle of the car. Knowing that the standard Tucker sedan frame was not strong enough to support a convertible and to ensure that valuable torque wasn’t lost in the frame the engineers completely disassembled the car and devised a plan to strengthen the convertible's chassis.

The engineers decided that adding tubular steel beams inside of the boxed Tucker frame as well as thickening the existing frame would probably take care of the problems that they were facing. The end result was a stronger tubular steel frame box wrapped in thicker than stock 10 gauge steel. The engineers' predictions were correct; the modifications strengthened the convertible frame enough to eliminate the unwanted lag.

After the problems with the frame were resolved Tucker and Lenki employees went to work on lengthening the doors and installing a shortened windshield frame. They also modified a late 1940s General Motors convertible top frame by adding a Tucker Corporation designed header. This is as far as the Tucker and Lenki engineers got with the car before the Tucker Corporation went out of business.

Information given in interviews of Robert McLelland, Head of the Tucker Experimental Assembly and Test Department, and Joe Lenki of Lenki Engineering after the Tucker plant closed states that the convertible project was taken to Lenki Engineering headquarters soon after news of a potential Tucker bankruptcy broke. There the car sat untouched and under canvass for many years".

If any of that were true, then how could the picture of # 57 taken on September 9th 1950 exist? According to Benchmark, body # 57 had it's roof cut off, it's doors stretched, and the windshield shortened BEFORE the Tucker Corporation went out of business. Benchmark also claims it was removed from the plant BEFORE the bankruptcy. Again if this were true then how does the car show up back at the plant on September 9th 1950 with a roof on it?

As I've said before, I think the convertible will be very cool when it is finished, I just don't understand why Benchmark continues to make untrue statements about it's origin. Why not just market it as a car made from left over Genuine Tucker Parts? It seems like by trying to tie Preston Tucker to the car they believe they can increase it's value. Mr. Tucker was subjected to a trial for fraud and was found innocent. I don't think Benchmark would get the same verdict. They need to come clean on this.

[TUCKER]

mixed parts can be stamped with matching numbers by anyone also like engine blocks are also restamped many of the times to make the numbers match on classic cars. Just another thing to think about.

[john]

Tucker,
The picture you so kindly posted above does not display what we are attempting to bring forth.
Please post the big back window picture that displays and shows the military personal in a cart going past the big back window Tucker body here>>>>>

The military personal can be seen almost like they are in the Tucker shell through the door openings in a cart they are seated in.

NOW look closely at the mystery Tucker picture and compare it to the one noted above.
DOES anyone see the obvious!!!!!!!!!
Tucker, if you can, cut and paste both of the pictures noted herein this post on the same page for everyone to compare????
As mentioned, we researched for hundreds of hours, we did not notice this at first ourseleves """for quite sometime,"""" don't feel bad if you do not notice it at first glimpse.

A real problem pops up that can not be explained away.
If need be Tucker, you have my phone number, feel free to call.
John

[John Dore]

/

[Tuckeroo]

Well, I'm just guessing here since I could name more than a few differences if we're talking about the same two photos. For instance, while I'm not sure exactly how Tucker frames were constructed starting with #1001 but the September 1950 picture is at the very least missing the rear section of frame (or sub frame) that would hold such vital components as the engine, transmission, and rear suspension. This in addition to pointing out again that a still-born 4-door sedan with a roof now has neither 4 doors or a roof.

[john]

Tucker, I am sorry, it is Tuckercar that has my phone number.
Would like to resolve some of the issues, the newbies, tuckerette's and others will have something new to write and post about regarding #57!!!!!

John Dore, no it is not the center piece in the windshield area.
We need the picture of the mystery picture posted with the one just posted in this post area, thanks to whoever pasted it here,
Compared side by side or one under the other will divulge a serious point and create major conflict that words or surmise can not explain away.
Thanks,
John

[John Dore]

.

[john]

John Dore,
I take it that you posted the mystery tucker picture, if so thank you!!!

NOW, look closely at the one with the military personal seen through the big back window Tucker and compare it closely to the one of the Mystery Tucker.

As mentioned, """it took us a long time,"""" with no guidance, to notice something that completely destroyed our thoughts of what happened.
The point can not be explained away or distorted.

Pictures are worth a thousand words, in this case, tens of thousands of words.

If nobody see's it or picks it out, we will point it out in our next post herein.
John

[Tuckeroo]

I could keep guessing from now until Judgement Day. The differences between the two photos are so extensive I don't know where to begin, but here are a few initial observations:

Pic one from September 1950:
1) Taken in factory
2) Has no fenders, doors, hood, decklid, etc. (though they may have existed outside of the photo)
3) Has roof, b-pillar, intended to have 4 doors.

Pic two from some unspecified later date:
1) Taken outside fatory (safe assumption based on the appearance of the photo itself)
2) Has fenders, doors, and other parts not seen in previous photo.
3) No longer has roof or b-pillar
4) Shows some rust, possibly indicating that even at a much later date, no assembly had yet taken place
5) No apparent cuts/welds made to what I take to be the frame