History We ALL Love a DARE! PIX of TRULY Extinct Makes?

So would you classify this as a "NEVER WAS"? Same as the Tucker Conv't in my book. Nice car, great craftsmanship, But- Just Sayin'.

<TABLE class="details fullwidth"><TBODY><TR><TD class=carlistthumb_alt> </TD><TD class=carlistvalue_alt><TABLE width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD>Lot: 350</TD><TD align=right>SAT</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>1934 Packard "Myth" Custom Boattail Coupe </TD><TD width=80 align=right>$407,000 </TD><TD width=30>Sold</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Some authentic Packard Twelve parts and Phantom bodywork.

1934 Packard[/COLOR][/URL], built by Frank Roxas with a Packard V-12 and an all-steel body built by Scott and Dave Knight. It made a fairly big splash at the Detroit Autorama earlier this year, but I haven&#8217;t seen much of it since. All we know from the RM description so far is that it&#8217;s going up with no reserve.

 

Tucker Torpedo:

Click on this link to a photo and for some other details: http://www.flickr.com/photos/32912172@N00/3228141070/


and....

this is not a Tucker per se:



Some of the photos were from European sites, but, today - here is:
http://www.kustomrama.com/index.php?title=Tucker_48

Plenty more bits, pieces, photos and all in one place.

 

Here is the point though. Cole IS saying the car is a factory convertible. No where has he EVER said this is a possibility or something he thinks. He continues to pound out that the car is a factory convertible.

"He shows written material and other ephemera that seem to offer provenance that some Tucker employees were aware that a side project had been taking place" What evidence? What material?

His "evidence" has more holes than the Titanic. There are NO Tucker employees that were ever aware of the car while the plant was operating. There is ONE former employee that wrote a letter to the guy that used to own the parts. This guy had been to several Tucker Club meetings and said he was building a convertible. The former employee wrote the guy and said I'd like to come and look at your convertible. THAT IS WHAT HE CLAIMS PROVES IT WAS STARTED AT THE FACTORY! All it was is a former employee writing to say hey I'd like to stop by and look at your car.

He has a statement from a guy that did some work on the frame in 1980 saying he believed the car could have been a convertible. The guy had no knowledge of the car or other documents, just his opinion. That does not make it fact.

He keeps posting affidavits from people that say nothing. Even his own expert finally bailed out by admitting the car was NOT in Chicago but was in Detroit. It was just a firewall and a frame. That's it.

There are documents and photos of body #1057 at the Tucker plant after it closed that prove it was NEVER started as a convertible. Life Magazine took photos of #1057 at the plant long after it closed.

You are correct. An error could always be made on an inventory. But is it even reasonable to think the same error would be made over and over and over? Is it reasonable that when there are photos that agree with the inventory it could be correct? Is it reasonable that when the Chief Designer of the Tucker Corporation said many times in interview after interview that he was working on body #1057 in the design department putting a large window in the rear of the body when the plant closed AND there are pictures of body #1057 in the exact spot in the plant where he said he left it, AND there is an inventory that agrees with the designer and the photos that show the body there that maybe the inventory could be correct?

For any reasonable people that like to look at solid evidence I've attached two photos. These are dated were taken after the plant closed. The first shows 7 bodies on the production line. You'll need to count them. You will notice a large gap between the 6th and 7th car on the line. That was where body #1057 was hanging when the Chief Designer pulled it off the line and moved it to the design department where is is shown in the second photo. You'll notice there are numbers on the poles nearby as well as a discoloration on the floor just above the car. That discoloration was caused by the clay used to design the car. The numbers and the floor prove that this body was still in the design department after the plant closed.

I guess I know what it must have felt like trying to convince people that just refused to believe the earth is not flat.

 

OFF TOPIC.

But, of course, there is a Loch Ness Monster.




http://www.wired.com/images/article/full/2007/08/loch_ness_monster_580x.jpg



http://img1.loadtr.com/b-439374-Loch_Ness_Monster.jpg



http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/images/nessie.jpg


See, there is even photographs. .

 

http://forix.autosport.com/8w/rear-engines-postwar.html

 

I remember my grandfather telling me that Tucker never made one single car and that he was just out to steal from his investors. I showed him pictures and he still did not believe that any Tuckers were ever made. Now I loved my grandpa but he was dead wrong on that and went to his grave with his belief that no Tuckers were ever made. I knew I could not change his mind because that is what he was told and it had to be the truth.

Of course he also told me "why do you want to mess with them old damn cars? They weren't worth a crap when they were new only the cars made today (late 80s) were worth owning.

 

MrFire said: But, of course, there is a Loch Ness Monster.




Jimi:
Lost photos further supporting the existence
of an aquatic beast in Scotland's lochs. This
one was known as the "Loch Mess Monster."






(Top view THANKS to AnimatedViews.com.
Bottom pic thanks to JoelBrinkerhoff.blogspot.
Beany & Cecil puppets are from Bob Clam-
pette's original series in the late '50, pre-
ceding the '60s animated TV series.)

 

I agree that the Knights' '34 Packard "Myth" is
a beautiful fantasy car, but it's a Never-Wuz in
my view, as they were shooting for a tribute car,
blending the best of the old and new. Justin Cole
was trying to complete the Tucker convertible as
best he could as it might have been finished at
the factory. Rather different goals and approach,
I'd say.

 

It's been maybe a year since I dug deeper into the Tucker convertible affair and turned from being with the crowd that previously said "Bullshit" (which I'd said earlier) to the camp that says it's POSSIBLE the convertible began as a factory project (meaning directed by Preston, for whatever reason).

I do not believe the factory finished the 'vert. Justin Cole bought it (actually traded a 'vette) as a basket case, as photos show. I don't think he's misrepresented that. Do I think he's a hundred percent convinced the car is "factory." How could he be? It took some 5,000 hours to bring the car to a completed state. So, no, I don't say it's a factory convertible, since it was completed decades after all the other Tuckers. But I certainly don't think it's an outright (nor even unintentional) fraud. What I am saying is I believe the story about it having started as an experimental (I like "R&D") car are quite POSSIBLE; not knowing for certain about the details of this mysterious car makes it all the more exciting.




Above is a photo of the 'vert in the state in which Justin acquired it. (This pic accompanies one of the better article I've read: "The Mysterious Tucker Convertible" by Brian Earnest for Collect.com. Search www.collect.com/Categories/Article/Automotive/TuckerC...). It had already been through the hands of other owners, so how much work or modification others had done (and what was actually "factory"), well, who can say? Various articles on the 'net point out that convertible proponents can't prove it IS, and naysayers can't prove it isn't. On thing's certain: Those two camps will surely always remain polarized! And observers in the middle don't seem to be losing any interest in the cat fight, every time it flares up around this machine!

It's sort of like wondering if Czar Nicholas' daughter Anastasia actually escaped execution to live out a quiet life in France. That the whole family were executed, partially burned, then thrown down a mine shaft seems to be the FACTUAL version -- BUT, there's still the benefit of the doubt.

 

Damn Jimi, where have you been.......?

 

Had a quick look through this thread and have enjoyed it.

How about a rare UK car the Castle 3 -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Three

Guy down the road from me has a body from one in his garage. Would make a great hot rod !

found another link -http://www.3wheelers.com/castle.html

 

So, made only about 350 from '19 to '21, and ONLY TWO survive! That's what this thread is all about, friend: The ultra-rare and the EXTINCT!

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=349><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=left><TD height=219 colSpan=2></TD><TD width=320></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=left><TD height=7 colSpan=3></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=left><TD></TD><TD class=TextObject width=321 colSpan=2>A 1920 Castle-Three (My thanks go to Joe Turner for sending me this photo of his Great Aunt & Uncle&#8217;s Castle Three. The elderly lady is his Great Grandmother. The photo was taken in 1920 outside Worfield School in Shopshire. (UK)).
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

I know everyone is entitled to their opinion. There is volumes of documents and photos that show the car was never started at the plant but there is not a single piece of paper showing that it could have been. I find it interesting that the people like Jimi who insist the convertible is real NEVER address the evidence or photos that prove that the car is B.S. and instead walk around saying.... "la la la la la la la la la... I don't see any photos, I can't read any evidence, the convertible is real". How can someone ignore photos of the 8 bodies at the plant long after it closed but still say one of those 8 bodies is their convertible.

I thought once their own expert "outed" them by saying the car was not in Chicago but instead was in Detroit that this would finally be over with.

Seems like Tucker fans have their own little group of convertible "birthers" that just refuse to acknowledge the evidence no matter how much of it there is.

 

Here's one that I ran into at a swap meet about a month ago, a 1940's Helifino. Never heard pf it before and can't find a thing on it. Looked to be mostly made of wood. Maybe it's a homemade job. Thought the guy told me it was a real car but I'm not so sure.

 

Hell if I know too! Unforgettable lines. Unique.

Vintagride

 

TuckerFan, I want you to know that I mean no disrespect to you. But you and I won't be talked out of our positions on the kookie Tucker convertible story. I've read new material today, even quoting the head and VP of the official Tucker club.

Everyone would love to see some really definitive proof there was such a project under Preston Tucker's watch -- completed or not. You say, didn't happen; I say, it's possible.

Let's just agree to disagree on that. What we can agree on is that we both love the Tucker make. I think we also agree that Preston was a dreamer, not a crook, whose biggest offense was in dreaming too big and, perhaps, reaching too far.

 

SunRoof & AJ, I surely respect the person who created this car (and I
assume there was a "heyday" when it looked way better than it does
on the trailer here! Nyuk, nyuk). Looks as though he/she put it together
out of some factory elements and stuff from the hardware and lumber
stores (sort of like the early Beaver & Benson cars in Oregon, covered
earlier in our thread -- the more things change, the more they ...).
Those little wheels used to get the car onto the trailer don't do much
for its looks, though! I wonder about the drive train??

 

The smokestack of the old Hudson plant on Connors north of Jefferson
falls during demolition in 1961. Photo THANKS to the Detroit News !

<TABLE cellPadding=4 width=360 vspace="6" hspace="9"><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
And down comes the last of the plant.

You say, okay, so what? Well, it didn't start OUT as the Hudson plant
in 1909. It started out as the factory for the Aerocar of 1906-1908.


1906 Aerocar, Detroit, THANKS to Royal Feltner's great site.


1909 Hudson Model 20 from Royal Feltner


1909 Hudson roadster from Royal Feltner

 

The Aerocar didn't have much significance nor impact
in the U.S. auto market, but I found it interesting because
(1) IT'S DAMN RARE, (2) in its short run, Aerocar offered
both water-cooled and air-cooled fours and (3) at nearly
$3,000, it was a very COSTLY car for the day, backed in
part by Henry Ford!

According to Wikipedia, the other major backer was
successful coal merchant Alexander Malcomson.

Notably, the air-cooled engine cranked out 24 horses,
not bad for pre-1910. Other than Franklin and Fox, I
can't think of too many other air-cooled makes. Any
help? And, does anybody have a photo of a REAL,
SURVIVING Aerocar??? I'm thinking this may be a
candidate for the EXTINCT LIST -- unless somebody
can find evidence one or more still exist.

 

For folks newer to early autos, four former associates
of Ransom E. Olds -- Roy Chapin, Howard Coffin, Fred-
erick Bezner and James Brady -- began building a line
of cars that became known for solid engineering, per-
formance and value. Each of the founders had put up
$1,500, not much by auto industry standards, even in
those days.

The big bankroller was Joseph L. Hudson, of Detroit
department store fame. So, the car guys wisely named
the car after Mr. Hudson! Tee-hee!

And for the record, from 1925 through 1929, Hudson
(with its spinoff make, Essex) was consistently among
the five top-selling U.S. makes, often running third after
Ford and Chevrolet! In the '20s Hudson was a real
player, not another Hupmobile or fading Paige. I hope
people will remember what a powerhouse this brand
was before the Great Depression when, unfortunately,
most discussions of Hudson TODAY zero in on the hot
racing Hornets and the pitiful "HASH" decline of '56
and '57.



1910 Hudson Model 20 runabout. Sincere thanks for this image
is expressed to WikiMedia Commons project AND to photographer
Christopher Ziemnowicz who very kindly gave this photo for all
to see a piece of auto history. THANKS, Chris!

 

I thought it looked familiar.

 

Jim, my dad an I were actually talking about this today and his point was that Preston Tucker publicized every single thing he did. There were no "secrets".

Secondly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. There needs to be an iron clad history back until the early 50s. When I looked into this it seemed very murky to say the least. There is every reason to believe its a fabrication and very little, other than wishful thinking to believe it's real.

 

AJ, if wishful thinking, so be it. But we've seen a good deal of mystery on this thread regarding other makes, models, prototypes, etc.

Tucker was full of ideas, sometimes to the point even his own guys couldn't keep up, or affordable technology didn't exist, or Preston wanted something overnight. With all respect to your dad, saying that he publicized every last thing he did is a pretty broad generalization, even though I certainly acknowledge his showboat approach to publicity in the business mix. But acknowledging his flair, I can imagine that even he could envision the value of springing an unexpected body style on the public, even if just a "halo" one-off.

By the time any cars at all were getting assembled, the company was running out of time, so his decimated work force barely had time to assemble 37 cars before the curtain came down (various sources back that number and indicate that the rest of the 50 "production" Tuckers were assembled after the fact). With the number of actual "basic" bodies available well over 50, I can imagine Preston beginning -- but far from completing -- a convertible during this dicey period. If I hadn't read into it, I wouldn't even be aware of the contention that there was a "convertible" body being messed with, at all. Call that rumor, myth, wishful thinking, opinion, speculation, whatever. There's a lot of all those things around the this matter. But impossible? No, not impossible.

But you're talking to someone who still holds hope that SOMEBODY held onto Amos Northrup's unfinished BREMAC of 1932. The fact that it was formally announced to appear at the late-'32 NY auto show, then two months later was a no-show, does say that the car was in some state of assembly. 37Kid says he believes there's a Cutting on Long Island someplace, soewhere. Peter Arno's Albatross was "lost" for some decades before turning up again, etc.

The search is the fun of the quest in this thread. The satisfaction, or resolution, comes in either finding a survivor or relegating something to the stack SWI generally termed "presumed extinct, 'til something turns up." As far as I'm concerned, a Tucker convertible -- started, not finished, in Preston's plant -- remains an open book.

 

It is fun to hope that some of these cars still turn up. I've personally been lucky to be involved with some that were thought to be gone but were not scenarios so I've definitely seen it first hand. But the difference between the BREMAC and others is the existence of period documentation BEFORE the car actually lands in someones lap.

 

I have to concede that point. What exists on the Tucker 'vert seems to have been word of mouth accounts, over time morphing to automotive myth. I don't hold much hope of truly DEFINITIVE evidence ever turning up, but I can always dream!

 

You are correct, it is fun to wish something were true. I wish someone would find a few hundred Tucker bodies in a shed somewhere but that doesn't mean there is a few hundred bodies.

Facts are facts and wishes are just that. Your statement about the Bremac is a perfect example. It is a FACT that it was formally announced to appear at the late-'32 NY auto show. This happened PRIOR to the show. The IS a record of it.

The Tucker convertible is a completely different story. There was no statement that Tucker was building a convertible. No employee has ever come forward and said I was there, I worked on it. I wasn't until 50+ years later when someone said I have body #57 and it is a convertible. The owner at that time said "when I found that car all it was just a firewall and a frame". A few years later it suddenly had doors and a top. Then it had rear fenderwells added that were off an early bodied Tucker. (the owner at this time is documented to have purchased part of the remains of car #18). Finally the car shows up in Madison and is declared to be body #57, the one and only convertible.

That is a great STORY. But is is just a STORY. There are PHOTOS of body #57 at the plant after it closed. They CLEARLY show the car was NOT a convertible. The Tucker "birthers" just ignore the photo. I guess Life Magazine didn't exist either. They just ignore the DOCUMENTED statements by the Chief Designer of the Tucker Corporation that said he was working on body #57 in the design department installing a larger back window. There are documents signed by the person that bought body #57 at the Tucker Plant auction saying that he had body #57 in 1951 and that it had a wrap around rear window. All this proof was dated long before anyone ever mentioned a convertible but the "birthers" just refuse to believe it.

The Tucker "birthers" ignore that their own expert outed their story when he finally admitted that he didn't see the car in Chicago, but it was under the grandstand at the Michigan State Fairgrounds with the Nick Jenin Collection. The Tucker "birthers" ignore that Jenin displayed the body all over the country and even ran an ad to sell it but NEVER said here is the only convertible body.

It is great to wish something were true. There is a big difference between wishing and publically stating that you own body #57 and it was started as a convertible at the Tucker plant. The the number of actual "basic" bodies available was NOT well over 50. There were 58 bodies. 50 actual cars and 8 bodies, #51 to #58. There are photos showing everyone of them after the plant closed. The Tucker "birthers" just ignore them because if they acknowledge that the photos are real then they have acknowledge that body #57 was not a convertible.

When they started their STORY about their car they never guessed that Life Magazine had photos that would prove it wasn't true. They never knew that there were inventories that showed body #57 wasn't a convertible. They never knew Nick Jenin once owned body #57 and he rans ads trying to sell it as a chassis. For them to acknowledge any of those FACTS would mean that the STORY wasn't true.

The Tucker "birthers" will never admit to any of the facts because they would have to admit they were wrong. For some of the people involved it could even pose some legal issues. Until then I guess we just will have to listen to them keep saying ..."la la la la la la la la la ... I don't see any pictures, I can't read any documents, the Tucker convertible is real".

 

Only know picture of this vehicle. How many were made is unknown since the factory records were tossed in the 80s. Had to be made for export market and none are known to exist at this time but unlike the Tucker convert this photo proves that at least one was made. Where is it at? wish it was in my garage but it's not

It is a 1957 Desoto sweptside truck just like the Dodge version that was made in 1957,58 and 59 but it had Plymouth wagon quarters instead of Dodge (PS yes they even made a Fargo version and at least one of those is still around)

 

The trees in the background would seem to eliminate it being in Iowa but I'll keep my eye out for it here. Pretty cool truck !

 

If you are from Maui Hawaii there is a good chance it was there since Hawaii was an export market in 1957 they would have been a good chance. You're right there are not too many palm trees in this area

This is another example of a rarity with a Hawaiian background.

It is a 1958 Desoto Diplomat convertible. Plymouth base body with Desoto from clip and trim made for the export market. This one was shipped to Hawaii when new and returned to the mainland with a service member in 1967

 

This photo was taken on March 25, 2010 in Maipú, Mendoza

By jjay69 Jason Jones