An "Original" 1911 Touring On HCCA

[Tim Rogers]

Surprised that the HCCA would allow this car to be posted in the classifieds as "original" (correct me if I'm wrong) when it's quite obvious that it has been restored. Perhaps the seller is hoping someone won't know the difference?

[TRDxB2]

It all depends on what you mean by the words "All Original" when not used in the context of a sentence to paraphrase Bill Clinton's "is"

The definition of original - existing since the beginning, or being the earliest form of something
So to some "existing since the beginning" may mean as it left the factory
to others it may mean all the parts are original to the car and or year and no reproduction parts were used
and also to many the engine serial number is a 1911 - and 1911 parts original to the car, period or reproductions were used
yet to others it may mean - "existing since the beginning" of its restoration

[Tim Rogers]

It's not open for interpretation when it comes to defining "original" cars. Restored cars are not "original"...

original3.PNG (26.02 KiB) Viewed 2713 times

[ModelT46]

Wrong color for a 1911 T. Most listing for antique autos do not show an automobile that is t"original" when the claim is made that the auto is original. The item speaks for itself, when the claim is made. Just take a good look at the photograph. What you see is what you get. This T is well rebuilt, but not restored. Restoreds mean that the car is restored to original or factory condition.

[Rich Eagle]

Point well taken Tim. You can find several red 1911s on the covers of the Vintage Ford. Other magazines as well.
What to do?
Rich

[TRDxB2]

Based on the above definition - the only original cars may be at the Ford museum if they were transported from the respective Factory to the Museum. Its then unlikely that almost no one else has or can prove they have an original and its easy to prove they don't if it was repainted. Also the ad just says "All Original" but does not say what it is referring to. Its states "correct wood" which sound like reproduction but they didn't explain that either.
caveat emptor
All I am getting at - "the vehicle was maintained aesthetically and mechanically" has a rather broad meaning and is not bounded by a time frame. "maintained aesthetically " is ambiguous while the meaning of "maintained mechanically" is reasonably qualified.
-
Does everyone agree that the infamous 220 then is not "original". The body was documented as missing to begin with and its been documented that the car was restored by Al Vivian a former short term employee of Bill Harrah. But do enthusiasts care that its not "original" ? If you owned it would you say that it was restored to its original condition even though the body was not from the original car.
-
https://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/5 ... 1439509779

220 -1.png (189.1 KiB) Viewed 2651 times

-
-
BUT on the other hand this was just described as a 1917 Model T Runabout- should they have described it differently. Could this be an "original looking 1917 Model T Runabout", "a rendition of a 1917 Model T Runabout", a "full size Shriner's 1917 Model T Runabout"

[sweet23]

I can't believe how many in the hobby don't know the difference between "new old stock" and "new old replacement stock". I see a lot of adds for NOS, that is just newer parts in a plastic bag. Darryl

[Jerry VanOoteghem]

Based on the above definition - the only original cars may be at the Ford museum if they were transported from the respective Factory to the Museum. Its then unlikely that almost no one else has or can prove they have an original and its easy to prove they don't if it was repainted. Also the ad just says "All Original" but does not say what it is referring to. Its states "correct wood" which sound like reproduction but they didn't explain that either.
caveat emptor
All I am getting at - "the vehicle was maintained aesthetically and mechanically" has a rather broad meaning and is not bounded by a time frame. "maintained aesthetically " is ambiguous while the meaning of "maintained mechanically" is reasonably qualified.
-
Does everyone agree that the infamous 220 then is not "original". The body was documented as missing to begin with and its been documented that the car was restored by Al Vivian a former short term employee of Bill Harrah. But do enthusiasts care that its not "original" ? If you owned it would you say that it was restored to its original condition even though the body was not from the original car.
-
https://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/5 ... 1439509779
220-0.png
220 -1.png
220-3.png
-
-
BUT on the other hand this was just described as a 1917 Model T Runabout- should they have described it differently. Could this be an "original looking 1917 Model T Runabout", "a rendition of a 1917 Model T Runabout", a "full size Shriner's 1917 Model T Runabout"

Frank,

Your quotes from Kim state that the rear seat was missing, not "the body". Most people are aware of and accept this, including the current owner. Where has anyone stated that 220 is "original"? You have repeatedly bashed this car. Not sure what you've got against it. Kim has also stated elsewhere, that 220 is one of the most complete 2 lever cars still in existence**.

**Kim. If you happen to read this and I am in error of your past comments, please correct me.

[Jerry VanOoteghem]

Surprised that the HCCA would allow this car to be posted in the classifieds as "original" (correct me if I'm wrong) when it's quite obvious that it has been restored. Perhaps the seller is hoping someone won't know the difference?


original.PNG
original2.PNG

Congratulations Tim, you found something inaccurate on the internet.

[TXGOAT2]

All original 1907 T Bucket antique custom! Camaro front clip, built 383, auto/OD, killer sound, deep metalflake hot pink candy apple with red wheels and wide whites. Dark green naugahyde buckets, guacamole shag carpet, door panels, and inside hood and trunk!!!!! 67,998.00 FIRM!

[ModelT46]

There is a original 1910 T touring. Owned by a well known collector. Came out of Wisconsin.A may, 1910 build. It is as original as possible.

[TRDxB2]

Does everyone agree that the infamous 220 then is not "original". The body was documented as missing to begin with and its been documented that the car was restored by Al Vivian a former short term employee of Bill Harrah. But do enthusiasts care that its not "original" ? If you owned it would you say that it was restored to its original condition even though the body was not from the original car.
-
https://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/5 ... 1439509779

Frank,

Your quotes from Kim state that the rear seat was missing, not "the body". Most people are aware of and accept this, including the current owner. Where has anyone stated that 220 is "original"? You have repeatedly bashed this car. Not sure what you've got against it. Kim has also stated elsewhere, that 220 is one of the most complete 2 lever cars still in existence**.

**Kim. If you happen to read this and I am in error of your past comments, please correct me.

I truly apologize for giving the impression that I am bashing the 220. What I am attempting to show is the importance of "provenance", documented evidence of its transformation of a car and ownership over time.
There are few Model T's that have this much attention paid to them.
"Provenance" is what adds value to a collectable.
Both the text in the second picture & picture were taken verbatim from the link I included where Kim said "the body is missing the back set and splash aprons are also gone". Glen also says he had the steering column. Facts like Al Vivian did a restoration.And the history of owners, pictures etc.. who has that?
Then there is more discussion on this link https://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/8 ... 1516844316 where it said to be the most complete original (not a restored original).
-
-
And as I said who cares about the details - the end product is a work of art

[Herb Iffrig]

What about this truck?:

https://www.govdeals.com/index.cfm?fa=M ... ctid=21062

I wouldn't say it is original, but restored.