W_Higgins

I'd also submit that the place is crawling with hired support staff, non-car people, that have ample opportunity to case the joint. If there were a better way to look at it, I'd sure hope it was an outsider rather than one of our own.

Was any headway made in finding the thief that helped himself to multiple pre-war radiator caps in the Car Corral? This was the '32 Lincoln KB shown above (already missing its cap in that photo). There was also a '14 Cadillac that had its cap / motometer stolen, in addition to others I heard about.

That is surprising to me because I was under the impression it is mostly an automated system with steps for each party to make. It has worked for me every time. You might check your messages on eBay rather than your email in the event something didn't come through, but at the very least if you formally opened a case for a return using the process I stated above, you should have a confirmation message. Once the process starts, it is like disputing a credit card charge. There are time limits and obligations to respond by each party and if a party fails on their part, default judgement is in the favor of he who fulfilled his obligation.

Did you execute the process I outlined in post #9?

Remove the wheel from the car, deflate the tire, and at the bubble plunge a 4 inch knife into the sidewall. You have now done two things -- you can dissect the problem for the sake of curiosity and you have taken a potentially dangerous tire out of circulation so that it doesn't unwittingly wind up in the hands of a new owner. In the overall grand scheme of the ownership of a twelve cylinder Packard, having to absorb the cost of an extra tire is nothing, particularly when compared to the potential of having to pay someone to come to your aid, damage to the car in the event of a blowout, or even the just hassle of having to deal with it when it's least convenient. It's a money saver in the long run.

Did you actually file the return through eBay or just communicate directly with the seller and let him send the check? If you go to your "Purchase History" / "More actions" / "Return this item" and file the return, eBay will force the refund for the full amount including the shipping in an instance where the item is not as described. Refund of the return shipping can depend on the sellers policy.

Looks like a deal as far as Hershey real estate prices go: http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/20099032/800-W-Hersheypark-Dr-Hershey-PA/

Things can shift in the air, too. Always make sure the arm locks engage and engage fully. If an arm loses contact when the vehicle is off the ground and the locks aren't properly engaged, an arm can kick and then you wind up with zero support in that area or areas. Thanks for sharing your experience.

Your best bet for the '58 - '60 is probably to post a request on the "1958 - 1960 Lincoln and Continental" YouFace page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/585960lincoln/ There are a few nice cars in close proximity to your show and a good chance that they can be reached through there.

They're not the least common post-war car, but they are also not the most popular and can be difficult to correctly restore and maintain.

This is a very nicely run event at a very interesting venue. The Winterthur people go above and beyond in the hospitality department. As a participant, you will be looked after very well. It makes for a nice day out. Do it if you have the chance, you won't regret it.

I can understand the reluctance of a "big brother" subjugation on the part of either party and in the position of the Museum there is likely a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" angle to it since the alternative was apparently for them to subjugate completely. The Letter of Intent does spell out that the overseer "Family" board would consist of "3 elected representatives from the Club, 3 elected representatives from the Museum, and 3 additional , independent, representatives, who may be from outside of the Club or Museum". It is unique arrangement, though an intriguingly inclusive one. I wouldn't say it is without checks and balances. As earlier discussed, the Museum already had a standing spot for a representative from the Club, so such a precedent exists.

There is no "straw man". I used that as an example as #7 was a previously discussed point of contention and I seriously doubt it highlighted itself. Poster "AACA National Board" stated ten days ago, "We are having technical issues posting the LOI and other documents in a format which allows embedded commentary. We will resolve that issue tomorrow." Unless I missed it, I still haven't seen any club documentation pertaining to the last 2-1/2 years. While I understand things change during negotiations, as that is the point of negotiating, many of the points made in Steve's post above (yes, including 1 through 6) are covered if not literally, than in spirit, in the Letter of Intent. That is why I'm curious as to how the LoI went from being something that was worth building upon, to the rejected proposal above being considered so far off the reservation, when in large part it is not earth-shatteringly different.

Steve, this point, as well as many others in the rejected "Family Proposal" of Oct. 2016, were detailed less than a year prior in the Nov. 2015 "Letter of Intent" signed by the respective presidents of both the Club and Museum. In this specific instance, "Both Club and Museum Entities Survive after Unification": http://www.aacamuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/DOC-1_Final-signed-Letter-of-Intent-11-23-2015.pdf I think a lot of why people have trouble getting over the hump with this is: Why were so many of these provisions in the Letter of Intent acceptable enough that a year ago the Club signed it (not to mention 1-1/2 years into the start of the 2-1/2 year negotiations) and then a short time later they were not?

AJ, it's because the membership number for accounting purposes is closer to 33,000 than the often cited 60,000. Attached are two docs. One is Part VIII of the Club's 990 filed with the IRS in 2014 which puts line "1b Membership dues" at $1,027,664. If you divide that by $35.00 you get about 29,362 paid memberships. Add in fully paid Life Memberships from prior years and that probably brings the actual number closer to 33,000. Also attached is the USPS circulation record published on P. 99 of your Nov./Dec. Antique Automobile and it puts the Paid Distribution right about 33,000, so those numbers are in sync. Additionally, quoting the Club's executive director from his post no. 11 in the much loved Nationwide thread, he verifies the same: I believe the 60,000 number is most likely an educated guess when factoring in member's spouses, but in terms of dollars it will do little to aid you in your calculations.

This has become unnecessarily complicated, so I'm going to repost this since it has become buried and was never answered: Tom (or whomever can actually answer the question), Isn't that really just a "different party group" rather than a "third party group"? My understanding is that a "third party" as applied in the traditional sense would be an impartial one. It is hard to see where a different set of Club members is going to be able to act impartially no matter how principled or well-intentioned..

I cannot find anywhere in our exchanges where I have asked you a question.

I quoted Tom Cox and asked a question, you inserted yourself and replied to it, and did so without answering the question. Tom has demonstrated that he's a savvy individual and I would suspect he's quite capable of answering the question on his own. There is a reading comprehension problem at play here. Your comment was directed at me. I did not say that you were blindly following anything. The context is that you expect me to blindly follow (the blind here are those to whom documentation has not been provided.). You also presume that I have no knowledge of the situation here beyond what has been posted on the web. I have not made the same assumption of you and would not given your position in the inner sanctum of the workings here. Also, an interesting note -- the Museum executive director whose post was deleted and was subsequently banned.... he's a Club member, too.

You must be missing part of the puzzle. Both parties have put out statements. The Museum released five docs and thus far the Club has released none. You should not presume that my take on things is based on a singular "media release". In fact, I fail to understand how, as a moderator, that's really your duty at all. There was nothing out of line with respect to my quote and question in #236 above.

Check-o. No attempt to understand the situation is valid unless that understanding supports blindly following the Club without documentation. Understood. So far everything has been without. I think most here are more interested in seeing docs rather than hearing filtered opinions. If the people posting here don't want to entertain questions, they shouldn't be posting.

Isn't that really just a "different party group" rather than a "third party group"? My understanding is that a "third party" as applied in the traditional sense would be an impartial one. It is hard to see where a different set of Club members is going to be able to act impartially no matter how principled or well-intentioned..

Inserting a rhetorical question in a discussion such as this reads as though it was designed to be a cheap shot to fan the flames. I fail to see how it is constructive. Overall, it is a reply loaded with a lot of "he said / she said" and no documentation. Yes, I saw the part about "technical difficulties" with posting documents but, given the context, this looks hasty and given how long this has been allowed to fester, another 12 hours wouldn't have sunk the boat. While we're throwing all these numbers around, I would like to see specific numbers pertaining to the Library. It gets used a lot as a tool in this discussion, but there is nothing that I can find in the Club's 990 that details what it generates on its own and / or what the Club spends to prop it up. It's a wholly relevant part of the equation that to this point is still blank.

Golly, turns out it is a complex and multifaceted transaction. Fancy that.

Actually, I think it's illustrative of the whole thread -- 1. A lot of people are drawing conclusions with inaccurate or missing information. 2. The whole thing is about MONEY (township/borough lesson above).

.... and here everybody is wondering why we couldn't merge a Club with a Museum. When we figure out whether they hook up their sewer to a town, township, borough, city, county, or state we'll be in good shape to move forward.