Posted By |
Discussion Topic:
Accessories on the Concourse
-- page:
1
2
3
|
|
Rusty |
10-14-2009 @ 6:30 PM
|
|
|
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Oct 2009
|
42wagon, Here is the exact quote from the inside cover of the 1942 Mercury catalog. “This catalog, on the press prior to August 23, 1941, shows cars illustrated with white sidewall tires for which there is an extra charge. The manufacture of these tires being discontinued after that date to conserve materials for National Defense, makes them unavailable after stocks are depleted. “ I interpret this to mean that if there was a car in dealer stock with white sidewall tires, there was an extra charge for those tires.I also interpret this to mean they were not going to be making any more white sidewall tires for the forseeable future. Addressing if a dealer had sets of white sidewall tires in stock, or any tires for that matter, probably not a common practice at the time and if they did, they weren't replacable once they were sold. If you look at period photos, you can find your answer. Few Ford or Mercury cars at the time, even Lincolns, sported white sidewall tires. Rusty Davis
|
Roy Nacewicz |
10-14-2009 @ 8:39 PM
|
|
|
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Oct 2009
|
Ted, I learned a long time ago to never say "never" and never say "always", especially when it comes to Ford V-8's. I also learned not to try to interpret some one else's conclusions that are drawn from a given set of facts. I may agree or disagree but will not attempt to explain some one else's thinking. I assure you that I am not a speed reader. I purposely ignored the statements cited since they are merely conclusions reached by the author(s) of the book without any thing to substantiate them in the absolute. That said, given the facts which for me speak for themselves, I believe it to be a "stretch" at best to subscribe to your theory. Your logic pattern suggests that one could explain away other inconsistencies that are highly improbable. I submit that such activity is beyond the object of the exercise but that is just my opinion. I also believe there is something to be said for the "norm" with out much comment on the "exception", especially when the exception is far fetched at best. Again, this is just my opinion. To be sure, Ted, there are strong feelings by many on this subject. Personally, I do not have a dog any where near the fight, but I do believe as others do that the JSC should/could bring this to a logical conclusion and allow all of us to go back to work on our cars. Respectfully, Roy Nacewicz
|
Roy Nacewicz |
10-14-2009 @ 9:13 PM
|
|
|
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Oct 2009
|
I will be the first to admit that I know little or nothing about the referenced "early" and "late" 1953 accessories, much less the availability of same. That said, I would be hard pressed to accept any so called "late" accessories on a vehicle purchased in the middle of the model year. If you wish to revise your exemplar to a sale later in the model year, I would react to this situation as follows: I would attempt to shake the owner's hand, thank him for sharing his vehicle with those of us attending the meet and then gently request the documentation he may have to explain away the anomaly he has presented. The burden of proof is on the owner. "I remember when" and "if my uncle was still alive he would tell you" responses are good, but do not necessarily validate reality. Without sufficient proof, I'm afraid our senior Club member would be subject to the same deductions that any other club member would/should receive under these circumstances. Respectfully, Roy Nacewicz
|
|