Al Prueitt says Nick Jenin owned the Convertible !!

[Tucker Fan 48]

Just when you think this thing is dead and buried out comes Justin Cole with a new allegation. Get ready for this one.

Al Prueitt, the guy that verified the authenticity of the Tucker Convertible, now says it was owned by Nick Jenin !!!

He says in January or February of 1966 he went to Detroit MI. to by a Tucker for Gene Zimmerman. While there he saw a
rolling chassis which was completely made except for the steering gear and that the frame had been boxed on the inside.
He said Nick Jenin told him it was to be a convertible frame. Along the wall was the sheet metal parts for the car which
was to be eventually built but Tucker went bankrupt and they never did build the car. He saw that it was #57 and it was
stamped on the cowl. He went on to say that the same stamping is on the Tucker convertible. He feels it is the same car
he saw in 1966.

Check out the video of Prueitt's conversation with Cole:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytJN2bBCdhk

So after viewing this I picked myself up off the floor and started digging through all my records. Prueitt mentions he was
the curator and manager of Gene Zimmerman's Automobilorama in Harrisburg PA for the entire time it was open. The
museum held it's Grand Opening on May 27th-30th, 1967 and closed in 1972. It seems odd that he was buying cars for a
museum that didn't open until almost a year and a half later but I suppose it is possible. Of course Prueitt and Zimmerman
swore that their Tucker (really #1049) was one of only 19 Tucker's built.

What really blows me away is that Nick Jenin traveled the country displaying his Tuckers and made appearances all over
to talk about the car. He drove to New York in late April of 1960 to help promote Charles Pearson’s new book, The
Indomitable Tin Goose. Jenin advertised his collection for sale in several car collector magazines. He knew several TACA
members well, but at no time before his death in 1978 have I read anywhere that he told anyone that he owned a Tucker
convertible.

Nick Jenin did own a test frame and that is the one Dave Cammack now has. There is no cowl on that frame. Does anyone
know if it is boxed on the inside?

One more thought on this. If Al Prueitt saw the Tucker convertible in 1966 at Nick Jenin's "warehouse" in Detroit, doesn't
that shoot the heck out of Al Reinerts story about Joe Lencki and the Lencki employees that had the car hidden in Chicago?

I know that Richard Jones doesn't have a lot of time to spend here anymore but he knew Nick Jenin well and I would love
to hear his thoughts on this new twist.

[plancor 792]

Someone just fired up old Richard again. So here goes. I never ask Nick Jenin about a Tucker convertible. Back then no one had ever heard of it and Nick never mentioned it to me. With Pruiett as Manager and Curator, no wonder the museum had a short life. Pruiett, Gene Zimmerman and Les Sheaffer had a heated discussion about Zimmerman's Tucker being only 1 of 19. At that time we really hadn't narrowed it down to Tucker 1049 but Les had pointed out to them the changes in the frame and body and they still would not change the sign.
For a cup of coffee, Pruiett would say almost anything and throw in a doughnut and he would swear to anything. Is it possible that there were actually 2 convertibles being built so Mrs. Tucker could select the one she liked best? I don't think so but would like to ask Pruiett and throw a $20.00 bill his way. He would probably swear that there were 6 Tucker convertibles being built for that amount. I'm not buying this hogwash.
Nick and I had many telephone conversations and at one time he had said he would never sell 1026 but when the fairgrounds changed ownership the new owners wanted his stuff moved. One night Nick called me and ask if I wanted to purchase it. I told him I did not have the money but knew of a person who might be interested in it. After we finished our conversation I called Dave Cammack and told him and you know the rest of the story.
Richard

[Tucker Fan 48]

Richard, thanks for taking the time to answer. From all of your postings it seemed like you knew Nick Jenin
very well and you have more first hand knowledge of Nick's cars than anyone on the planet so your answer is
valuable.

It seems that IF Prueitt's statement were true that would mean that Reinert's statement would be discredited.
The story has always been that the car went out the back door to Joe Lencki, then to an employee that retired,
then to another former Lencki employee, and then to Reinert. IF Nick Jenin owned the car in 1966 and had it
in Detroit, the Lencki story is out the window because Cole himself has just provided DOCUMENTED PROOF
that the story is false. If the Reinert story is false then there is no way to prove it was started at the Tucker
plant.

IF Reinert's statement is true then it discredits the affidavit by Prueitt because the car could not have been
in Detroit in 1966. Reinert has always said it was in the hands of former Lencki employees and thus could be
tied back to being an authentic Tucker car. If the Prueitt affidavit is proved to be bogus then all of Justin's
credibility is gone because he has gone on record saying Prueitt is the expert that verified the car as being
authentic.

Either way the car now has a HUGE problem with its history as it, like any other classic car, cannot be in two
places at the same time. For one story to be believed the other has to be false and if either one is false then
what does that say about the guy that has spent the last 16 months telling us his stories are true?

Justin must have no knowledge of Tucker history (other than the convertible) because there are way too many
people around that have first hand knowledge of Nick Jenin and his Tuckers. At last someone has provided
the DOCUMENTED PROOF that the convertible story isn't true. I'm surprised it was Justin Cole that supplied
it but want to be the first to thank him for doing so

[Tuckerfan1053]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't Nick Jenin best be described as a Tucker "Super Fan" who used his cars in a precision driving carnival act? I would assume that said act would have consisted of, at some point, a ring master of some kind, giving a spiel about the cars and the history of the Tucker Corporation. The "sexier' the story, of course, the better, since it attracts more people with money. If Jenin had the 'vert, then why on earth would he not show it off to people at the events? No matter what kind of condition the car was in, it would jazz up the patter immensely to be able to (at some suitably dramatic moment) point over to the pieces of the 'vert and say, "There it is, ladies and gentlemen, the car which so frightened the Big Three that once they destroyed Tucker, they tried to have it cut up and melted down for scrap! Mr. Jenin was able to save it through heroic efforts, but unfortunately couldn't get to the car before many of its secrets were destroyed by the Big Three! Think of it, ladies and gentlemen, a car, a simple, inanimate object so scared the Big Three that they destroyed not only the Tucker Corporation and Preston Tucker, but they also tried to destroy his greatest invention!" (Or perhaps a tale about dedicated workers smuggling the top secret prototype out of the plant in pieces and trying to reassemble it after the company was shut down in hopes of using it to launch a new Tucker Corporation.)

Now, I never saw the show Jenin put on, never met him, so I'm just speculating on things based on my knowledge of carny types. It seems to me that any prospective buyer of the 'vert is going to have similar thoughts run through their head when they hear that the 'vert was "owned" by Jenin and that Jenin used to show his collection of cars at carnivals. I know that there's copies of newspaper articles about Tuckers being shown at carnivals in the 60s, and were the story about Jenin owning the 'vert true, then there should be mention in at least one of those articles about the 'vert, or at least cryptic hints by Jenin that he had something "special" which he didn't dare show. (Google's got a bunch of back issues of newspapers scanned and online now, I think I'm going to have to give them a search to see what I can find in them about Tucker.)

[Tucker Fan 48]

This is from the May 1993 issue of Tucker Topics which reprinted it from the March 1993 Old Cars Weekly.

No mention of a convertible

Tucker Topics -May 93 p3a.JPG (78.84 KiB) Viewed 3404 times

[Tuckeroo]

Well that's not the total ad from the May 1964 Motor Trend, but the total ad makes no mention of a 'vert. Also probably not the total Jenin collection prior to May 1964 but if Prueitt is saying it was a part of the Jenin collection in 1966, and the ad represents Jenin's total collection by 1964 then shame on all of the myth perpetrators once again. So now what? Is Cole going to claim that he has one of the two Tucker convertibles built??

[cicero]

I guess the value of his convertible was just cut in half...

[Tucker Fan 48]

Complete May 1964 Motor Trend Ad ... and still no mention of a convertible

May 1964 Motor Trend Ad-.JPG (81.27 KiB) Viewed 3345 times

[Tucker Fan 48]

Could the complete chassis in the ad have been from #1046 ???

[fordracer]

Could the complete chassis in the ad have been from #1046 ???

I am "lurker" so forgive me if someone else has already pointed this out.

In another post on this board (Goodies needed for #1046), Don from RM Restoration noted that car 1046 still had the main frame under the car. Only the front and rear clip had been removed to add the Lincoln (64 Ford) chassis.

Would there be a complete 1046 chassis there?

[Tucker Fan 48]

Could the complete chassis in the ad have been from #1046 ???

I am "lurker" so forgive me if someone else has already pointed this out.

In another post on this board (Goodies needed for #1046), Don from RM Restoration noted that car 1046 still had the main frame under the car. Only the front and rear clip had been removed to add the Lincoln (64 Ford) chassis.

Would there be a complete 1046 chassis there?

We determined several months ago that much of the #1046 chassis was still under #1046. Jenin, and later Janacek, only cut out what was in the way and set most of #1046 right on top of the Olds and later Merc frames. This is much different from what was done with #1035 where they cut out everything between the rocker panels and the firewall and welded the Caddy floor and firewall to what was left of #1035.

As far as the car without a roof. Once we knew that Jenin once owned it we were able to determine when Jenin bought it and from who. It was also determined that the frame and firewall truly were from #1057, the car with the big back window which Jenin bought the remains of and cut the body off to use to show the drivetrain in his show. (at this point there would not have been much body to save). He re-inforced the frame as would have been needed with no body on it.

[john]

Guys,
Checked in this morning to see the latest at the club.

I would like to point this out:
The Lencki operations where in several area's of Chicago.

A close member of the old Lencki group told me a long time ago that Lencki occupied a shop in the same building that the Tucker plant was in, guess what one would say they were "neighbors".
The original tucker car was built, for the most part, by Lencki and a group of his trusted body shop friends at the address of Lencki's shop in the same building as what became the Tucker plant.

I checked the story that was told to me by the old Lencki group member, it was true.

The whatever it is body/chassis, was not secreted away, it remained there for quite sometime before being moved to another Lencki shop location.
Again, as noted before, why wasn't the special Concept 49 body at the auction, why was it not at Ezra's,
what happened to the tucker body tucker's son said had a roof cut off of it, "it is in the museum>correct," it apparently was not the test chassis, the chassis had to be reinforced to carry the passengers onboard> correct.
Which test chassis was on the car carrier shown here in>>> is it at the museum and if "IT" is that chassis, where is the documents stating what chassis number it was, >> IF it even had a Chassis number.

Where is the roof off of the concept 49 that "we" seen herein and is it the body tuckers son said had a roof cut off of it, and is it the cowl remnants that was seen at Ezra's?

Perhaps the accounting of the #57 stamped on some parts at Ezra's was the concept car with the roof cut off?
Was the roof buried at Ezra's, yes, tucker bodies and parts were bull dozed, did the roof end up bull dozed under.
Do you really think the roof ever left the Tucker plant, it was never seen again, was it ??

Ezra would have known and seen the obvious alterations of the roof, as would any other Tucker buyer at the auction and liquidation sale !!!!!

These points in order, together with many others, will tell the whole story in a comprehensive manner.

>>>You all know we walked from the whatever it is chassis and body which allowed Cole to move in !!!.
I add this, because we found too many holes in the history that did not add up.

The Blue Easter egg was one such small part of the story to kind of get everyone to slow down, it is but a small part of the entire story though.

In researching and documenting the Harris fwd Speedster, that's all I have dealt with, Historians and Archivists, they "demand" fact, time lines and document, here say and assumption is thrown out by these guys.

Perhaps laying out a chronological order, "noting documents " of all events that tie into the whatever it is chassis >>Then perhaps summarize/insert a Theory based upon the time line of facts to fill in each VOID area.
Roof, reinforced chassis, Lencki time lines, body parts off of the 49 etc ?
These facts above need address, wouldn't you agree?,
John

[Tucker Fan 48]

John,

I guessing by the date of your post it was meant to be a joke. Those of us that have done "real" research have long moved on. The points you bring up are so old and so debunked that they are hardly worth mentioning. There are documents and photos that show exactly what happened to Body # 57. It was never squirreled away to Lencki's. It never stayed in Chicago. Hints of some hidden magical "proof" have just got as old as that blue egg.

It turns out the car was accounted for and the car without a roof really does have what remains of Body # 57, although it is only a firewall. The rest was pretty much fabricated as the photos of the car being built document. The parts used were all accounted for as to their origin. There is no mystery any more. Even the owner has been pretty quiet for some time.

All the facts have been addressed. If there is some evidence that you/"we" found then post it up rather then mickey mouse around with freckin eggs that never hatch. There is no "theory" to come up with because after all the stories only the truth remains. The facts HAVE all been addressed. Real historians and archivists are more than satisfied with the truth.

Chasing more eggs is as much a waste of time as it was the last time. This story has long been over.

convertible story finished.jpg (41.95 KiB) Viewed 2307 times

[john]

Yes, part of it was a April's fools joke.
Part of it was not.

1-How many Tucker bodies were burried under at Ezra's?
2-What serial numbers were they?
3-Has anyone ever accounted for the roof off of the 49 concept car?
4-Which Tucker body & serial number was it that Tuckers son mentioned having a roof cut off of it?
5-Seems that it is assumed that the chassis on the car carrier is the one in the museum, are there serial numbers on record to back this up for the cars on the carrier?
6-It seems that "Tucker" displayed a cowl , which we think you refered to above, with what looked like a restamped number over a stamped serial number, what gives? Is this the remnants of #57 and the documented proof, a possible restamped number brought up by a fellow poster together with others that worked very hard on this story?
7-Is this the documented proof refered too?

Please remember, before any of this really started at the club that we walked away from the car , we were the others mentioned in magazines, NY Times and a host of TV shows. We turned down many of interview offers to offer counter points to this car, we rejected all in a dignified way!

Seems that the old Blue Easter egg and our in depth research together with Tucker's and others noted herein the site did have value Tuckerfan 48, it helped display, to True Historians as you put it, that there were problems that were documented now !!
As they say and 100 % of true historians agree upon, a picture in itself is Golden, and is worth a thousand words that mean nothing when not backed up by document or a like picture.

Seems the 10,000 or so + hits/views on the topic was quite historical in itself at the Tucker Club, we were proud to be part of the Historical work.
Blows us all away that you think the Blue Easter egg was a waste of time, wow!
BTW, what is the serial number of the Tucker chassis with the blue easter egg rocker panel, is this the 49 concept car that was painted blue that is pictured herein as bare metal we think you are refering too,>> and then having a unpainted cowl applied to it with what might appear to having been double stamped ?

Many believe that the facts and documents on the "chassis number so written about" should be listed in a chronological order for histories sake, perhaps it will be a interesting read when all compiled that way?
This my friend will answer the above questions and fully document a thought out History for all to read and comprehend.
Might make for a great story and interesting work that will bring other new memebers to the Tucker site to read and enjoy, I myself would enjoy reading it !

Is anyone working on a world registry book for Tuckers?
It would be nice to read about "all" Tuckers from their inception date on the factory line, through the decades and to their wherabouts to this very day !
It is easy for us, "sometimes" that post at the Tucker site to "know" where certain documents of fact are located because we posted "facts" in them, to a outsider/visitor, it is most difficult to understand .
John

[Tucker Fan 48]

John,

I guess I'd respectfully disagree with your statements. The blue easter egg thing was a huge waste of time. You jacked us around for month whan you could could have just come out and said hey what's up with the blue rocker panel. As for what it meant, in the end, not a thing. I've read every post on the car without a roof. I don't recall you ever offering up any facts. Just a bunch of vague statements about "we". If you have all this evidence then post it up or shut up. Nobody really cares about "we". You've been asked several times about just who the heck "we" is but you ignore it. If you have some group of historians then come forward. Why hide behind "we"?

As for the other crap there is nothing left at Ezra's. If you want to go dig up his field to prove me wrong go for it. You won't find a nut or bolt because there is nothing to find. Everything is accounted for. It has all been documented. I don't see any point in laying it all out again. Do your own research. Have "we" help you. If you or "we" comes up with some new discovery feel free to post it.

You post plenty of questions but have never once said here is what "we" found. Here are the documents "we" have. If you did so much work quit talking about it and post it. It seems like you want someone else to do all the research and then want to take credit for it. Why all the games? You are correct, there were problems with the car. There were answers that needed to be found. You certainly did nothing to help find any of them so please don't attempt to take credit for it now.

The car without a roof has been so over discussed and a lot of time was wasted by people that sent the "real" researchers on wild goose chases because "they" had some knowledge about buried car bodies or hidden cars at Lencki's. After wasting a bunch of time it turned out there were no cars at Lencki's, no ex-employees with cars, and no buried car bodies. What there was were documents and photos that showed exactly where everything went. It could have been discovered much earlier if we weren't chasing blue eggs that lead nowhere. On top of that, there were first hand accounts by credible people that saw cars exactly where the documents said they were.

If you want to know the history of all the cars then do some research. If there is someone that has done more Tucker research in the past year than I have I'd love to meet him or her or "we". I'm always happy to ask answer a question for someone that is sincere. I don't have any more time to waste on the car without a roof when it has been solved for so long and there are so many other things to talk about. Bringing up the subject again just gives it credibility. It's dead, it's over, the rest of us stuck a fork in it long ago and moved on. Even the cars owner moved on. If you want more answers then go back and read the posts from the last year and it's all there. If you don't have the time ask "we" to do it for you.