Accuracy in the histories of antique automobiles

[StanleyRegister]

I like to talk about old cars on forums.  I'm not too keen on discussing forums on forums.  But I wanted to get something off my chest:  Forums are a great place to kick back and shoot the breeze, but they are not necessarily suited to being a repository of accurate histories of antique cars. 

 

I've done a fair amount of hired provenance research, and one of the primary things I've learned is that anecdotes are not reliable truth.  Stories are not facts.  It's possible that they could contain correct information, but they are not proof.  The proof of any antique car's history must come from a combination of: photos of the car during its lifetime, from its early condition to the present; dated period documents; other primary or near-primary source material; and first-person accounts. 

 

Even the latter cannot be completely relied upon without some other corroboration.  Some people's memories drift after 10 years, 20, 50 years.  As an example, it can be shown that a widely-circulated story about a fine brass car, originating with the recollections of the elderly son of its original owner, could not have occurred as related, because public records and period newspaper accounts contradict it.

 

Anecdotes passed on in good faith are even weaker.  Each time the story transfers from one person to the next, there's a possibility that it will drift.  The last person in the chain could be faithfully repeating what they heard - so they're not fabricating anything.  But if what they heard was inaccurate, faithful repetition doesn't add any validity.

 

"Well, I got that directly from X, and I know he would never lie."  I have no doubt that he would never lie about what he heard.  If what he heard was incorrect...

 

The time when you must be most on your guard is when the car's story makes it somehow special or unusual.  "Factory racer", "prototype", "experimental", "transitional car", "formerly owned by Famous Person Z", "raced by Well-Known Driver Q" - you MUST do your own research on stories like these, or see the documents upon which the stories are based.  NOTHING else is proof.

 

Maybe the least valuable histories of all are the ones that are created by simply aggregating the anecdotes and guesswork of other people.  I was recently in a side conversation with someone who frequently contributes to these forums, and likes to present themself as a documentor and a clarifier and an authority on cars' backstories.  Here is what they wrote to me, verbatim - "My history is just as valid as any one else, even without documentation."

 

Is this the kind of "authority" you're going to get your facts from?  Is this the kind of "history" you're going to believe?  About a car that's important because it's a prototype or was formerly owned by Famous Person Z?  You can't rely on people like this.  You can't even tell who they are.  You can't rely on me, either.  All you can rely on is documents that I can unearth and present.

 

Please, be on your guard for anecdotes.  Learn to recognize guesswork.  And insist on valid documentation.  Don't fall into the trap of believing (and repeating) a story on the internet, just because it happens to be written confidently.

[8E45E]

7 minutes ago, StanleyRegister said:

Anecdotes passed on in good faith are even weaker.  Each time the story transfers from one person to the next, there's a possibility that it will drift.  The last person in the chain could be faithfully repeating what they heard - so they're not fabricating anything.  But if what they heard was inaccurate, faithful repetition doesn't add any validity.

 

"Well, I got that directly from X, and I know he would never lie."  I have no doubt that he would never lie about what he heard.  If what he heard was incorrect...

 

Please, be on your guard for anecdotes.  Learn to recognize guesswork.  And insist on valid documentation.  Don't fall into the trap of believing (and repeating) a story on the internet, just because it happens to be written confidently.

I think we ALL remember the exercise in early grade school, where the teacher whispered a sentence in her leftmost front pupil's ear.  He turns around and whispers it into the person's ear behind, and so on, until it gets to the teacher's right rearmost student, and she asks that last pupil to say out loud the sentence.    How many times is the sentence exactly the same?????

 

Craig

[hidden_hunter]

12 minutes ago, StanleyRegister said:

Forums are a great place to kick back and shoot the breeze, but they are not necessarily suited to being a repository of accurate histories of antique cars. 

It’s not just forums, plenty of “tall tales” when you’re out and about

 

Unless it’s period documented it’s just a nice story

[Akstraw]

I agree.  I always think of the TV show X-Files: “The truth is out there, … somewhere.”  Each conversation, anecdote, picture, story, and news clipping potentially has a piece of the truth, but often not all of it (and maybe some falsehoods).  Only when you put them altogether can you confidently close in on the truth.   Last year I looked at an ‘05 Reo claimed to be the oldest in existence, and I think the seller truly believed that.  A five-minute internet search showed two with lower serial numbers having been presented at auction over the past two years.   You are right on with the documents; Serial numbers, titles, registrations are the best.   Anything else is just an interesting story.

[Walt G]

I agree with the above. Trying to be as accurate as possible is just that - we do the best we can with the resources we have. Hopefully something that was in print ( trying to find that can be interesting as well) when it was written about decades ago is accurate - mostly! First person accounts rely on perspective of the viewer.  If someone wrote a first person account of the Vanderbilt Cup Race they attended when they were run where were they located? In or near the finish line? grandstands? up in a tree half way around a corner of the race?

One does have to start someplace, but gathering the stories, written facts , photographs is a huge puzzle that has to be taken to the point most of the pieces fit together.

I do this in my research for the stories I write, have what I write proof read by people who I consider are knowledgeable about the topic/subject being covered, usually do not rely on what was printed in a story 30+ years ago and is "fact" to most people, that needs to be verified.

The same applies when you restore a car - much easier to do with an untouched original if possible to look at. Especially now with the instant history available at the touch of a button - conjecture , and the "well it had to be that way" by "experts" has to be taken somewhat cautiously.

this goes well beyond the field of automotive/vehicle history . The local, state, national history to me has to have the same set of standards . I am both an automotive historian, as well as a local and state historian for the area I live in and have been for over 50 years. Do I consider myself and "expert"? Absolutely not, I am still learning and always will be.

Walt

[Billy Kingsley]

That's why I suggested the AACA forum (not the club proper) should have a space for documenting new cars now, so that when they reach 25 years old the accurate information and images would have been properly documented already. 

 

You can guess how well that went over. 

[Jim Skelly]

and I saw - AGAIN - on the news recently that Henry Ford invented the assembly line

[8E45E]

1 hour ago, Akstraw said:

I agree.  I always think of the TV show X-Files: “The truth is out there, … somewhere.”  Each conversation, anecdote, picture, story, and news clipping potentially has a piece of the truth, but often not all of it (and maybe some falsehoods).  Only when you put them altogether can you confidently close in on the truth. 

WHO designed the '49 Ford story comes to mind!!   

 

Too many wanting to take credit for the car that ultimately saved FoMoCo.

 

Craig

[Terry Harper]

1 hour ago, Walt G said:

we do the best we can with the resources we have.

I would ad to that a historian must have a willingness to be humble and teachable and willing to alter or even discard conclusions based on new evidence. I see way too often people sticking with a "fact" (often folklore) when the evidence (primary source) clearly points to a differing conclusion. 

[Scott Bonesteel]

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw recently, attributing a quote:

"You can't believe everything you see on the internet."    -----  Abraham Lincoln

[3macboys]

3 minutes ago, Scott Bonesteel said:

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw recently, attributing a quote:

"You can't believe everything you see on the internet."    -----  Abraham Lincoln

Or - Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see

 

With regards to history I'm drawn in by the stories and stick around for the facts.  

[1912Staver]

In many cases on very old cars you just are not going to be able to document anything about the car prior to collector ownership. And even then as the decades go by  hard facts and documentation are elusive . Even if an early owner took photos, in many cases the photos either have been thrown away or lost by some other means, or the people who have the photos have no idea of the facts behind them. Possibly not even related to the person who took the photos or owned the car.

I have a few photos of cars that either my grandfather or other family members took from when my father was a child { born 1934 } but no way of knowing things like serial numbers of the cars to make a 100 % sure linking with a surviving vehicle. People in my family owned cars close to 25 years before my father was born. But as far as I know no photos exist from any of those first family cars. Brass T's and a brass lamp Overland according to my father and grandfather. I doubt any of them still exist. Two of the early T's { and a bunch of later teens / twenties cars } still existed in my great uncles pasture when I was a child in the early 1960's. But when my great uncle passed away in the mid 1970's all the old cars and farm machinery was scrapped by the new owner of the land.

Edited April 18, 2022 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

SO!  Your point?😇

 

  Ben

[Buffalowed Bill]

When I read the posting it made be chuckle. It made me think of the Studebaker Addicts forum on Facebook. It's the place where the enthusiasm of of the young meets reality. There is no structure, no form, and no archival data source. There really is substance lurking there, but unless someone is aware of it beforehand, there is no way to segregate it form the tremendous amount of misinformation. But I do like it because it is the only place that I know that the young people are willing to mingle with us old timers. It restores my faith that some young people really are interested in old American iron.

[1937hd45]

Just think of all the information we all know about cars that have been restored in our lifetime so far. If you wrote down all the details, and made them public you would go broke defending yourself in court. 

[Restorer32]

We had a client who converted a 1930 Packard from a Coupe into a Convertible Coupe.  I know for a fact he did this.  I know the fellow who did the work.  Over the years he convinced himself that the car was originally a Conv Coupe that someone had converted to a Coupe.  While researching the car he found the elderly Daughter of the original owner.  She "remembered" rides in the car with her Dad when it was a new "Conv Coupe".  Waters always get muddied.

[Mark Wetherbee]

When I was in Engineering school one professor, when talking about stress fracture and failure, would remind everyone that “An EXPERT is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows positively everything about absolutely nothing”

 

I think about this every time an “EXPERT”  is involved with anything…

[John_S_in_Penna]

Even in some of the major antique-car publications,

the stories can be greatly improved.  Some are merely

"surveys of literature":

 

For the subject car, they merely tell what engines were

offered;  what features came standard;  what options

were offered;  how one trim level looked, and the moldings

on other trim levels.  And they provide a shallow history of

the make or model leading up to that particular year.

There are few if any new insights.

 

How about:  What is it like to own one?  What features

are problematic, and what sources are available today to

fix that specific problem?  Comfortable driving speed?  

What were the designers' intentions when creating it?

What features were eliminated during the design process?

Were there any difficulties on the assembly line?--talk 

perhaps to an old-time foreman.

 

What did reviewers at the time like and dislike?  What did

dealerships think of it--quoting old-time dealers--if the

model was controversial or followed a great success?

What comments were heard in the showroom on introduction

day?  How many years before major rust or mechanical needs?

 

Many magazine authors can't do this because they don't have

the time for thorough research.  The information might have

been lost, too.  But when these things are part of an article,

history really comes alive!

[8E45E]

11 minutes ago, John_S_in_Penna said:

Even in some of the major antique-car publications,

the stories can be greatly improved.  Some are merely

"surveys of literature":

 

How about:  What is it like to own one?  What features

are problematic, and what sources are available today to

fix that specific problem?  Comfortable driving speed?  

What were the designers' intentions when creating it?

What features were eliminated during the design process?

Were there any difficulties on the assembly line?--talk 

perhaps to an old-time foreman.

 

What did reviewers at the time like and dislike?  What did

dealerships think of it--quoting old-time dealers--if the

model was controversial or followed a great success?

What comments were heard in the showroom on introduction

day?  How many years before major rust or mechanical needs?

 

Many magazine authors can't do this because they don't have

the time for thorough research.  The information might have

been lost, too.  But when these things are part of an article,

history really comes alive!

That is why I really like the British vintage car magazines.  They actually get in and DRIVE the cars as they were meant to be driven, and give an accurate report on how it rides, top speed, ideal cruising speed, etc.

 

Some have balked at the cost of them compared to HCC and other US vintage car magazines, but one really does get what they pay for.

 

Craig

[JCHansen1]

Man, the OP made such good points. Had a similar experience about two months ago with an Olds 442 W-30 that supposedly had a wonderful provenance and "known history" from new. Verbally anyway. Zero documentation to back up a word of it. On close examination, it was full of wrong parts and was a provable (not probable) re-body to boot. But it sure was a beautiful car, nice and shiny, with a mid six-figure asking price. Unfortunately, told by the right salesman, somebody is going to fall for it and pay too much money for a figment of someone's imagination. 

 

This is why younger buyers in the hobby sometimes make me nervous. A 30 or 40 year old can sometimes have a warped sense of time compared to someone twice their age. In the case of the Olds- it's been around since the Nixon administration, yet the buyer may have been born two decades after Nixon left office. My point is these cars are older than I think some buyers mentally really grasp, with big chunks of history simply lost to time. To a 40 year old, 1997 almost seems like six months ago, but in reality, it was 25 years ago (I'm 42, I oughta know). Complicate that with a younger buyers mindset (because of the world they were raised in) that these days they can simply point and click on a computer screen and buy whatever they want, delivered right to their door within 2 days, with little research or due diligence other than what they might read about an item on the internet (which has proven 100% trustworthy so far). That same buyer, who is used to that sort of transaction, decides they want an old car, and becomes a remote bidder in a classic car auction, placing bids through a computer from home, spending big bucks on a car they know little about, based on whatever the auction listing chooses to share, which is often a tiny, tiny fraction of the history of a particular car.

 

To be sure, there are many really well-documented cars out there with excellent documentation and provenance, and they rightfully should sometimes command premium interest and values, but there are also a lot of phantoms. In the context of our hobby, that Olds is only middle-aged, in a hobby now well over 100 years old. Time compounds these problems sometimes, folks fooling around with pre-war, brass era and such can really have their work cut out for them trying to prove some of the information about their cars. 

 

But here's some good news...  We also have a hobby where most of this information and history is not vital to most cars- the overwhelming majority of the cars in our hobby can just be bought, driven, loved and enjoyed, without worrying about all this stuff. Thank goodness, because I suppose if that wasn't the case I'd probably take up some other passion in life.        

Edited April 18, 2022 by JCHansen1 (see edit history)

[TAKerry]

Its not just 'old' cars. I have read every publication that I know of, along with shop and service manuals, factory literature and the such in regards to the make of car that I own, Pontiac Trans Am. I am very low on the scale of being expert but do know enough about them to get myself into trouble, LOL. Every time I am at a show I hear 'definitive facts'  about these cars from someone that had one back in the day, or best friend had one etc. Most of the time their memories are clouded with who knows what as they hardly ever state a real fact. I just nod and grin.

[hook]

14 hours ago, Walt G said:

I agree with the above. Trying to be as accurate as possible is just that - we do the best we can with the resources we have. Hopefully something that was in print ( trying to find that can be interesting as well) when it was written about decades ago is accurate - mostly! First person accounts rely on perspective of the viewer.  If someone wrote a first person account of the Vanderbilt Cup Race they attended when they were run where were they located? In or near the finish line? grandstands? up in a tree half way around a corner of the race?

One does have to start someplace, but gathering the stories, written facts , photographs is a huge puzzle that has to be taken to the point most of the pieces fit together.

I do this in my research for the stories I write, have what I write proof read by people who I consider are knowledgeable about the topic/subject being covered, usually do not rely on what was printed in a story 30+ years ago and is "fact" to most people, that needs to be verified.

The same applies when you restore a car - much easier to do with an untouched original if possible to look at. Especially now with the instant history available at the touch of a button - conjecture , and the "well it had to be that way" by "experts" has to be taken somewhat cautiously.

this goes well beyond the field of automotive/vehicle history . The local, state, national history to me has to have the same set of standards . I am both an automotive historian, as well as a local and state historian for the area I live in and have been for over 50 years. Do I consider myself and "expert"? Absolutely not, I am still learning and always will be.

Walt

I've heard it said that God loves the historians because they're the only ones that can change history. This applies to any and all history.

 

No offence meant Walt, I think you understand my meaning.  

[Walt G]

I do understand your meaning and that is why the diligent historians who take the time and make the effort to look at the material of the era they want to write about need to be encouraged to do so . Experience and time has shown me that a lot of the time researchers and historians get little respect for their work as it all is taken for granted just because it is there . If any find that it is incorrect - immediately or decades later ( because new information comes to light) then it is up to the people who find the "real" story to then write their own, or a correction/addition.  As with all things in life it is easy to sit back and say "yeah sure, that's wrong, I know the true story" but then do nothing about it.

This really applies to all those who are editors of club publications - be it a national or local chapter. Editor's are suppose to edit, not write it all and then publish it.  I have been in the position as a contributing author and also as an Editor ( who for a national historic society not only edited the journal, but saw it typed ( me) , go to the printer ( me) and then mailed ( me with some help of friends) , I did that for over 5 years many times a year .

[chistech]

I have brought this same thing up before. There are some “gurus” on these pages that will make statements that no one seems to question or worse yet, cheerleads even more. Many of these “learned” ones are extremely knowledgeable but that doesn’t mean they are always correct. Then when you question them, most won’t have the decency to respond never mind admit they were incorrect in their statement. Many also get their “facts” off of other published data and many times that data is way off. Unfortunately today, many “facts” are made facts not because they’re the truth but for politics. I tend to only believe doers, those who get their facts and base their statements on things they have personally discovered and worked on and I can trust their credibility. I have been personally questioned by very experienced judges on my 32’ Olds at shows where they end up looking at me cross eyed because they believe my statement is a bunch of Bull. Then I pull my documentation on the very subject, with some just pulling a face and walking away and others shaking their heads in disbelief. I keep over 50 pages of documentation on my olds for the many not even having the slightest clue what is correct or incorrect. I’ve researched it, I’ve DONE it, so in the case of my 32’, I’m the “Doer”. My dad told me many years ago when I was just a kid to “ believe only what you see with your own eyes and hear with your own ears,,,,, and only believe that half the time!”  When you think about that statement it’s so true. When you have someone like a David copperfield making a jet disappear right in front of your eyes, and you’re watching that jet intensely, you know your eyes have lied to you. 

Edited April 18, 2022 by chistech (see edit history)

[JV Puleo]

Quoting an old friend (who made his living as a University professor) "The internet is the most efficient means of disseminating bad information ever invented."

 

That said, I think we agree on the the basic premise here. In my professional capacity I deal with material from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and one major thing I have noticed is that most "stories" simply aren't plausible and often can be easily disproved. Here's an actual example: "This is the sword carried by my ancestor at Lexington & Concord". Except, the the sword in an English-made officer's spadroon from about 1800. It's at least 25 years too new to have been at Lexington. In that case, I was able to demonstrate to the person who sent me that query that their ancestor, while he was at Lexington in 1775 (when he was 17 years old), he was also a Major in the Massachusetts Militia in the War of 1812. He could easily have owned the sword, but not that early.

 

Where cars are concerned...always start by looking at the story from a critical perspective. Many, maybe even most times it simply does not hold water. Like "This is the 1917 Dodge used by General Pershing in France." Except Pershing was photographed many times in a Cadillac staff car. High ranking officers had the use of more expensive cars....a Dodge makes no sense.

 

The same can be said for colors..."This chrome yellow is the original color" Well, it could be but you'd have to show me some documentary proof of that because, at the time, it would have be extremely unusual.

Edited April 18, 2022 by JV Puleo (see edit history)

[60FlatTop]

I was in my preteens when I became exposed to this bunch and they appear to have maintained their status as a group for at least 6,000 years.

They have listened and repeated so many lies that they believe them and think they did it first.

 

I live in a college town where students actually record oral histories from members of a bunch like this, publish them, and use the work as references to their credited skill.

 

22 minutes ago, JV Puleo said:

I deal with material from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries

I had to laugh at the centuries reference. Imagine asking the general public what years that would include.

[edinmass]

 

 

My favorite "expert proved wrong" was at a top show and the judge said my side curtain snap was three inches out of place and he was going to deduct for it, and I would automatically lose out on a first place award.........so I explained to him, it was body number one, and that was where it was placed on the first body. He said nope.......it's a deduction. So then I showed him an 8x10 factory photo of the car in the plant......and you could see the snap in it's current and correct location. He got pissed off..........and kept looking for ways to knock us down. Scholarship on auto history is always evolving, NOTHING is set in stone.....or concrete. Learning can only be done by listening, research, and documentation. Just when I think I know everything there is to know about a 1935 Pierce Arrow, I read a factory engineering document that states the first ten cars had a battery, startex, and cables done a different way. I always ask an owner if I see something strange........weather or not I believe it....that's up to the situation. THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT ALWAYS GOES TO THE CAR,OWNER, AND RESTORER. After all this is suppose to be fun...........

 

There is NOTHING wrong with making a mistake........what is important is correcting it. Publishing is particularly difficult.........as new information comes up it can make someone look like they weren't doing their homework or research. The best example........Pierce Arrow "New York State" headlights...........no such thing. 

 

 

The only thing I am certain about on any car I look at is I have a lot more to learn. I certainly have opinions and impressions of what I think is right or wrong. Just today I have seen seat cushion construction that was higher end and better engineering design than I have ever seen before.........and I have seen countless cushions. The manufacturer of the cushion? Rollston, 1935.

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2022 by edinmass (see edit history)

[Walt G]

5 minutes ago, edinmass said:

Scholarship on auto history is always evolving, NOTHING is set in stone.....or concrete. Learning can only be done by listening, research, and documentation

I too believe this, but there are those that will never believe you no matter how factual you are and can prove beyond doubt that you are. Some people just like to be "correct" no matter how wrong they are. This goes for authenticity, correct colors, upholstery fabrics, choice of leather, top color, pin striping - everything.  to have seen what you know is correct because you can study it. There is so many avenues of history - about how a company evolved, about how a car evolved, what accessories are/aren't correct etc. it is a major task, one can not know it all.  But can learn at any age .  

[1937hd45]

All of the above is good, but let's not join the zealots restoring Model A Fords, Corvettes, and 1970 Barracudas. 

[1912Staver]

I would invite anyone to prove or disprove the correctness any detail about my 1912 Staver Chicago model 40 , Racing Roadster { 1912 } , or the same car renamed by Staver  for the 1913 and 14 season Greyhound.  Apart from somewhat re- touched, catalog illustrations I have never found a photo of one.  Staver cataloged them for 4 years, so I expect at least a dozen or more were produced. But as far as I know no documentation exists , photo or otherwise of one in the hands of an owner. Almost no factory documentation exists apart from the odd letter that turns up from time to time on the bay, and nearly always that has to do with Stavers horse drawn products. Even sales brochures and the like are very rare.

Edited April 18, 2022 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[TexRiv_63]

I agree with the OP regarding the reliability of anecdotes and verbal history regarding old cars but most of the time that is all there is. Out of the hundreds of cars I have bought and sold over the years only a handful had extensive legitimate documentation back to the original purchase. The vast majority had no documentation at all other than the title from the previous owner. In less sensitive past times you could search and find po information and possibly contact them for verbal background but even that was rare. The most extensive history I ever obtained with a car was my 1934 Packard which came with a large packet of paperwork back to the original purchase, all documents that came with the new car, all subsequent owners names and dates of ownership and extensive service records. This increased the value of the car to me and also to the person I sold it to. Of my current two hobby cars only one has any paperwork and that only covers the things done by the po.

[edinmass]

3 minutes ago, 1912Staver said:

I would invite anyone to prove or disprove the correctness any detail about my 1912 Staver Chicago model 40 , Racing Roadster { 1912 } , or the same car renamed by Staver  for the 1913 and 14 season Grayhound.  Apart from somewhat re- touched, catalog illustrations I have never found a photo of one.  Staver cataloged them for 4 years, so I expect at least a dozen or more were produced. But as far as I know no documentation exists , photo or otherwise of one in the hands of an owner. Almost no factory documentation exists apart from the odd letter that turns up from time to time on the bay, and nearly always that has to do with Stavers horse drawn products. Even sales brochures and the like are very rare.

 

That's a big advantage..........no one to hassle you! 

[PFindlay]

18 hours ago, StanleyRegister said:

The proof of any antique car's history must come from a combination of: photos of the car during its lifetime, from its early condition to the present; dated period documents; other primary or near-primary source material; and first-person accounts. 

Yes, a combination.  Period photos are great, factory documents also.  In my digging around I have found period (i.e. brass era) newspaper or magazine articles to sometimes be very questionable.  Often they were provided by the company itself and were little more than advertising.  Other times the reporting was just inaccurate, with makes, models, or specifications being incorrectly stated.  Corroborate everything as much as possible.

 

And those factory drawings that appear in advertisements or catalogs - they were often created very early, or even before, production got underway.  It's not unheard of for the production car to have significant differences.  And then there are those mid-year changes.

 

Even when you contact the descendants of "the original owner" often the legend has evolved a little as it has been passed down through the generations.

Edited April 18, 2022 by PFindlay (see edit history)

[1912Staver]

I agree Ed !  I have looked at 100's of " unidentified " 1912 era touring car / 4 pass. Torpedo { what my car was } photo's and nothing I can identify as a positive, post factory  photo. Also searched through all the periodicals that are on line through the HCCA Foundation. Several photos of the cars at various auto shows , but all the same 4 or 5 factory photo's . Pretty sure there were at least 2 made , the 1911 \ 12 Racing Roadster and the slightly revised 1913 / 14 Greyhound. The photo's show enough differences { cowl lights for example } that I am reasonably confident 2 different cars are depicted. But how many actually sold to the public  ? , who knows . No one even seems to know how many Stavers of all types were produced.  Lowest known serial is  #217, highest is # 1613. My car is # 1276.  But only 5 known survivors , and all different years and models, so a very small sample size.

 

 

Edited April 18, 2022 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[edinmass]

 

The strange and obscure..........they are the most fun, and often the most challenging. Even the handful of others are probably modified/changed over the years. The one great downfall of all pre 1920 cars..........when they were no longer valuable as a car.......they were modified into so many different things, it's almost impossible to find something totally unmolested.......and the larger horsepower the more likely it has been messed with. 

[edinmass]

29 minutes ago, 1912Staver said:

I agree Ed !  I have looked at 100's of " unidentified " 1912 era touring car / 4 pass. Torpedo { what my car was } photo's and nothing I can identify as a positive, post factory  photo. Also searched through all the periodicals that are on line through the HCCA Foundation. Several photos of the cars at various auto shows , but all the same 4 or 5 factory photo's . Pretty sure there were at least 2 made , the 1911 \ 12 Racing Roadster and the slightly revised 1913 / 14 Greyhound. The photo's show enough differences { cowl lights for example } that I am reasonably confident 2 different cars are depicted. But how many actually sold to the public  ? , who knows . No one even seems to know how many Stavers of all types were produced.  Lowest known serial is  #217, highest is # 1613. My car is # 1276.  But only 5 known survivors , and all different years and models, so a very small sample size.

 

 

 

 

Post some photos of what you have to work with.........I can't remember seeing any photos. Was it built or assembled. What engine? Theirs or purchased?

Edited April 18, 2022 by edinmass (see edit history)

[1912Staver]

Two of them are quite original. The Roadster in the Owls Head museum and the 1914 touring that belongs to descendants of the Staver family. Both cars were found stored away together from almost new until some time in the early 1940's. Both have been re - painted , but as far as I know  never any modifications. The others have modifications.

 

Ed, it's a floor sweepings car to be sure. But I will look through my material and post on a separate thread in the projects section. Might take a while, most of what I have is old fashioned film photo's and my scanner is quite cranky. Teetor Hartley monoblock 4 , 4 1/2 x 5 B&S. Almost the same engine used in the middle size American Underslung Tourist. Mount location on the crankcase casting may be in a slightly different location { unconfirmed }. Same engine also used on some Pilots and for one year on Auburn 40 's. Assembled car, Staver was primarily a carriage and buggy  builder. All the mechanicals are bought in.

Edited April 18, 2022 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[8E45E]

49 minutes ago, edinmass said:

 

The strange and obscure..........they are the most fun, and often the most challenging. Even the handful of others are probably modified/changed over the years. The one great downfall of all pre 1920 cars..........when they were no longer valuable as a car.......they were modified into so many different things, it's almost impossible to find something totally unmolested.......and the larger horsepower the more likely it has been messed with. 

In some instances, its the cars that were assembled in other plants, including Canada, Europe, and Australia that can really put an authenticity judge to the test.  Very often, factory photos were still used for publicity purposes in these other markets, without showing the subtle differences in trim, etc., local content law would have mandated at the time.  Every once in a while a photo of the branch-plant does show up, and proves something like year-before trim being carried over into the next year on Canadian models. (A prime example is 1954 Studebakers assembled in Hamilton still used 1953 bumper guards.)  And then there are 'one-offs' that were made in Canada, including hi-po 289 Falcons that weren't offered in US literature.

 

Craig

[chistech]

I have to disagree partially with the notion that photos taken through the years of a particular vehicle are a good source when restoring a vehicle back to original. Cars aren’t any different than people who can change their look and be subject to one’s tastes at any moment. Photos are a great source to show a vehicle’s journey through its life, where things are added or subtracted, but unless that photo can be proven to have been taken at a specific point in time (like Ed describes), then that photo only shows what it once was at any given time. I apologize for using 32’ Oldsmobile for reference but it’s what I researched extensively and know a fair amount about. An example of what I’m talking about is a gentleman who said his 32’ had both the automatic choke and a manual choke from new. He owned the car since 38’ and claims that it was never altered in anyway. He has photos of the manual choke installed. The Stromberg automatic choke was first supplied on the 32’ Olds and most, including mechanics, had no idea of adjusting or servicing it. A quick fix was to add a manual choke. I have adjusted and rebuilt many of these chokes and can tell you they will NOT work correctly when set up per the Stromberg instructions as they always over choke and run too rich. This would suggest that many, right from new would not work correctly and were bypassed with a manual setup and I’m willing to bet, this procedure was often done right at the dealer. So a early picture of one’s car might show that manual choke in place and many would claim it to be original but there is not one factory technical bulletin or record of meeting minutes that suggests a manual choke was ever installed by Oldsmobile in 32’. I have read through pages of those documents and have never seen anything. 
      On the flip side, most 32’ olds documentation says that there were 4 colors of convertible roadsters with black or black and maroon getting both black tops and interior. My own car was a black car but original roof and interior remnants showed a brown. Digging deeper and beyond the easily found information, there was a mention of a brown whipcord roof and interior as an option on ALL roadsters. So this technical info helped me prove the originality of my own car, I just had to work to find it.

[PFindlay]

22 minutes ago, chistech said:

I have to disagree partially with the notion that photos taken through the years of a particular vehicle are a good source when restoring a vehicle back to original. Cars aren’t any different than people who can change their look and be subject to one’s tastes at any moment. Photos are a great source to show a vehicle’s journey through its life, where things are added or subtracted, but unless that photo can be proven to have been taken at a specific point in time (like Ed describes), then that photo only shows what it once was at any given time.

Agreed. It's a snapshot at best.  My 1912 REO came out of the barn in the 1970s after a 45 year slumber.  At that time ('70s) it had 1913 REO rear fenders and missing lamps.  Today it has been put back to proper fenders and lamps.

 

But recently I've received family photos of the car going as far back as 1914.  They reveal that by 1914 the car had electric cowl and tail lamps and perhaps even the 1913 fenders.  The car was not registered until February of 1913, so could it be that it was updated by the dealer to help it sell alongside the 1913 models?  Yes, we (probably) know how it left the factory, but the history of the car may be that it was purchased with electric lamps, so who's to say what is "correct?" 

 

There are probably all kinds of stories like this.  It goes to support the need to get all the documentation you can, and to accept the fact that there were variations or exceptions along the way.