alsancle

I was having this discussion over in the traditional hot rod forum. I've always thought these tachs were as rare as hen's teeth. Until today I had seen 3 in the last 25 years, and today a guy showed me one he put in his car that came out of a boat. They fit in the glove box where the clock would go on the 39/40 packard.

The correct term in this case is "rebody". A correct chassis and a new body built to 1934 specifications but not original to the car. A fiberglass body would be a "replica". A fiberglass body on an original chassis would be a "crime". Btw, The blue one went for 3.5 million back in Arizona a couple of years ago. In the 1950s the black (I don't know what color it is now) phaeton was available for 7500.00. About the same time the Mormon Meteor was available for the same amount. As interesting aside, the original buyer of my Mercedes traded a 34 Lebaron Packard towards it (June 1936) and was given $4600.00 credit. The $4600.00 was a huge amount for 2 year old trade in back in 1936. The Mercedes was $10,000.

1. There seems to be a lot of hand-wringing going on here because the title was signed by the previous owner. I'm assuming that the car is NOT stolen. If it's not stolen, there are very few title issues that can't be straightened out - although sometimes it means somebody is going to have to pay some back sales tax. 2. If the title you have is not dated, I will restate that there will most likely be no issues with getting a new title in your name. However, if this concerns you enough then have the guy selling you the car get the title in his name first before he sells the car to you. The state registry's care about only 2 things: Is the car stolen? And is the sales tax being paid?

The real issue is if the title was dated when the seller signed it. If you are in a sales tax state then they will not be happy about the 1 year late on getting the sales tax paid. If it was not dated then there is really no issue, although in a perfect world the seller would have the title in his name. Depending on how great a "deal" this is you may or may not care but you should be able to sign it and get a title in your name without too much trouble.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Other-Mak...bayphotohosting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim Bollman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm in the minority as a seller, and post feedback when payment is received. With only one exception when I didn't feel real good about the buyer. As far as I'm concerned when I have payment the buyer has done their part of the transaction. Maybe I have just been lucky but I have never had a problem. I see no reason to hold their feedback hostage. Jim... </div></div> Somebody has to leave feedback first. If the buyer pays, then the only reason I can see for a seller to withhold feedback is to retaliate for negative feedback from the buyer. Out of the 400 or so things I've bought, the few times I was unhappy was because I didn't read the description with a microscope and I simply left no feedback. There was once where I didn't receive the item, the seller was withholding feedback on me and it wasn't worth the 15 dollars to have him give me a negative so I kissed the money goodbye.

That's definitely a great car. Unfortunately, almost all the late towncars, say anything after 1938, are not that visually appealing. I think that fact is reflected in the price, however.

There is nothing more annoying to me on eBay then sellers that don't leave feedback until the buyer does. As a buyer I always pay immediately - that should be automatic A+ feedback. I would say 20-25% of the sellers don't leave feedback until after the buyer.

I can tell you that the prices at Gooding and RM were very strong. I only saw 2 cars at RM not sell. I watched 30 at Gooding and 28 sold, all for strong money. The Duesenberg sedan brought 1 million which I would say is very very very strong. I didn't sit for any time at BJ so I can't comment on that (it's more of a circus then a car auction). I watched a few go through at Russo and Steele and they sold pretty well too.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1941-Pack...sspagenameZWDVW Horrible ad.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1941-Pack...sspagenameZWDVW I think a few more pictures would be nice. A description other than, "it's really bad" would be better. I guess I can't help myself from critiquing eBay ads.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: D Bosco</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Lancefield fabric bodied Stutz that AK Miller had found and purchased in England was supercharged. The factory supercharged chassis was exported to England where it was bodied, as AK recounted the story to me when he showed me the car in the early 1990s. </div></div> Don, that's neat that you got to see the car when AK still owned it. Did he ever actually drive the car? I have a picture of that (AK's) blower on the dyno at George Holman's place when he was setting it up for Skip Barber. I know George had to do quite a bit of work to get the blower to run properly. regards, A.J.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1937hd45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DON'T do a thing to it other than get it up & running and safe to tour. Just got back from LA and saw that Woods in the Petersen collection. Post that photo & info on Jay Leno's Garage website, he's nuts over steam cars and alternate power cars. There has to be 20-24 Stanley Steamers within a hours drive of my house here in Connecticut so you should be able to get all the info you need. That was one smart buy on your part, enjoy it. </div></div> I agree with Bob. Very cool and should be touched as little as possible. There was a early 20s Stanley roadster at the Mount Wachusett show a couple of years ago that still had it's original paint - super cool.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1937hd45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, The Stutz Special has the record for longest wheelbase, my 1925 Henderson 4 powered midget may have the shortest. It's put my '37 Harley restoration on the back burner. The wheels are all rebuilt and have new tires, body fab work should start this winter. Does anyone know what Hunters Lodge on 167 Causeway St, in Boston was in the 1925 - 1930 era? They sponsored the car, and I need photos of the car in that time. </div></div> Bob, did you ever get any info on the Waltham fire? If they ever get the boston globe optically scanned like the NY times, you would be able to get info on the Hunters Lodge in about 3 seconds. Right now they have scanned only up to 1924, and start again in 1979. I searched for "Hunters Lodge" and got 4 hits but they were early (and you have to pay to see the details!). I got nothing on "167 Causeway". A.J. ps, the link is http://search.boston.com/local/Historic.do?s.tab=historic

If you guys are interested I updated the page on Stutz Superchargers and there are a few more pictures there plus a comparison with the 540k system which is the most similar of the prewar blower setups. http://home.townisp.com/~alsancle/StutzSuperCharger.html

I think "stock" antiques (anything older than 1975 is my definition) are alive and well. I have a buddy that does bone stock prewar classics and he's up to his eyeballs. I'm restoring my Stutz Special, of course it wasn't exactly "stock" when it was new so maybe it falls more in the hot rod category :-).

I hadn't thought out the plan that far forward. :-). A.J.

Steve Pugh casually mentioned in a thread up in the AACA general forum discussing AK Miller that he knew of a Stutz Blower for sale. About a month later it was sitting on my desk. I was going to bring pictures to the meeting at Hershey but naturally forgot them. I figured you guys would enjoy some so here you go. This blower was removed from a car in a wrecking yard outside Chicago by William Johnson in 1937. Mr Johnson was an engineer and as a side job worked for local racers. He wrote a letter to Stutz in 1937 inquiring about parts and the availability of more blowers, as well as the performance characteristics of the SV16 and DV32 engines while supercharged. The response from Stutz came back within 2 weeks and informed him that all the engineers were gone and that the company was more or less gone with just a service shell remaining. He also made detailed engineering drawings of the blower with the idea of adapting it to racing. After WWII he moved to southern CA and around 1951 his dad packed up all his "junk" including this supercharger (in the crate pictured below) as well as other racing parts including a Duesenberg Grand Prix engine and Model A Duesenberg blower and shipped everything to him. He seems to have "retired" from the racing hobby with his move to California so everything stayed locked in his garage until his death a few years ago. Most of the contents of the garage were purchased by a well known restorer and his even more well known celebrity client. Fortunately they were not in to Stutz so I got this.

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?sofocus=bs&sbrftog=1&from=R10&_trksid=m37&satitle=watson+stabilizer&sacat=-1%26catref%3DC6&sargn=-1%26saslc%3D2&sadis=200&fpos=01545&sabfmts=1&saobfmts=insif&ftrt=1&ftrv=1&saprclo=&saprchi=&fsop=1%26fsoo%3D1&coaction=compare&copagenum=1&coentrypage=search&fgtp=

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 58Mustang</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree with Mr. Wolk. The MKIIs, Cad Broughams, Ghia bodied Chryslers are as much Classics (upper case) as the Brewsters with lowly Ford underpinnings. How about Jensen Interceptors? Lovely coach built cars. Dual Ghia? There is a long list that should/could be included but are not because of year or by dint of having a, somewhat, pedestrian chassis </div></div> In my younger days I thought the same thing. I've come to understand that the CCCA is about an era as much as the cars themselves. The biggest mistake they made was going from 42 to 48. It is much cleaner to stay on the early side of the war, and the era was done by WWII. Btw, although there are applications for inclusion that happen to this day, there is next to no change to the actual list. What gets applied for is generally some obscure chassis variant of an existing accepted car and it's almost always on the pre-1928 side.

All that you say is true with regard to the CCCA defining the term within the context of their club. I differ in that I think sticking with their definition in all contexts is the right thing to do as it keeps things clear. With me it's a "precision of language" thing (to quote someone from the CCCA forum). I'm just not a big believer in the idea that if someone wants to call their "insert any car here" a classic, because they feel like it, we should all pat them on the back and say "wonderful". Doesn't mean it's not a great car - in fact if it's a certain Ferrari model, it could possibly be worth more then every Classic in existence, it's just not a "Classic" using the definition mostly accepted within the car hobby.

I think the correct term is "rice rocket".

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mrpushbutton</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Go look at the Classic Car Club of America's website--they explain their definition of what a "full classic®" (their new trademark term) is and the list of what vehicles they consider to be a full classic. In short, they are cars that were luxurious, powerful (for their day) and expensive when new, usually not produced in huge numbers. Not Chevies, Fords and Plymouths, very few models from the big three are accepted full classics. The term has almost been rendered useless to them (hence the "full classic" invention) by the mass media and other members of the car collecting community, who use the term to describe anything no longer being produced as a classic, from 55-6-7 Chevies, 65-up Mustangs, to Monte Carlos. A Caprice classic and a Rambler Classic are not full classics®. It's a free country, you can use the term however you want and apply it to any vehicle you wish. I prefer to be more literal and use the more descriptive terms used by the more knowledgeable in the hobby e.g. early cars brass cars antique cars (all encompassing term) classic cars (the CCCA list) post war cars (including decade descriptions, "40s cars", "50s cars" etc.) muscle cars sports cars Ghetto cruisers party vans beater cars British cars Jap cars hooptie cars (see: beater cars) struggle buggies </div></div> Well done. This topic always starts a lively discussion that usually ends up with someone pissed at the CCCA because their car is not included in the CCCA list.

Bob, you are 100% right about being overused. Required: 1. Unknown but maybe rumored to exist. 2. Unseen for years (at least 25 but 50 is better) 3. Cannot be owned by a collector or somebody that knows what's going on. I've got one that hasn't seen the light of day for 40 years or so but I'm not going to call it a barn find. On the other hand my Stutz qualifies on every count (including the barn): http://www.townisp.com/~alsancle

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mrpushbutton</div><div class="ubbcode-body">RM does not offer the cars they sell with reserves, and they have been getting pretty good results on their auctions. </div></div> RM will take cars either way assuming the car meets their auction criterion for that auction and that your reserve is not crazy. In the last few years they have conducted a number of no-reserve estate auctions and have achieved huge sales results.