MTFCA Forum

I'm assuming this is the Don Hess car (of disputed provenance) that I saw in Scotland a few years ago.

Thanks for posting this Stephan. Bonham's does a fantastic job with their photographs. There is a wealth of information there.
What an opportunity to see them.
Rich

Beautiful car. No doubt pull in 6 figures. Too rich for me, ha ha! Oddly if not ironically, the horn bulb bracket sure looks like one of those chintzy $25 re-pop brackets that snap off the minute an over exuberant kid grabs that bulb and starts squeezing it like crazy!

Jem wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 05, 2022 9:36 am

I'm assuming this is the Don Hess car (of disputed provenance) that I saw in Scotland a few years ago.

Well oh well - disputed or not - it sure looks like an early car to me when I check the Encyclopedia.

I bid $500. I would like to make it into a brass speedster. That should be at least what it is worth as is!
Norm

I’d really like more pictures of the motor as after a long conversation with Charlie Shaffer (RIP) I know what he did to convert a 1914 motor into an early (lower than 1000) look a like. He did most of the changes in lead and with a small pocket knife, you can determine the real provenience in a matter of minutes.

Apparently the auction folks are unaware that there are no 1908 Model T's, and never have been. The ones first sold in October 1908 were designated as 1909 models. It's gorgeous, but apparently inauthentic. From what I've read, #2 has been pretty thoroughly debunked. But I confess I've not read the details of the debunking.

I think if you approach the car with a pocket knife, Bonhams may have a fit!

you can determine the real provenience in a matter of minutes.

Or quick look at the front crossmember bracket, Prof. Trent Boggess did the research on the first T's parts that were still experimental at product launch, and the unique 'straight' bracket from frame to crossmember is a feature of the first 10 or so Model Ts. That part was quickly changed to the common angled bracket found on Ts, the straight bracket would prove provenience of the frame, a real deal on a true #2.


Frame bracket on the for sale #2, angled like common frame parts.
Real documented #1, the unique straight bracket.

Trent’s database shows almost 300 model Ts made in calendar year 1908 . And, the database is admittedly not complete. What would they be if not 1908 model Ts ? I believe I used to own an original T sales booklet marked on the cover 1908 Sounds like some alternate history posted above.

This is right where the serial number would be for one made in 1908.

#220 I believe it's still at Piquette:

What would they be if not 1908 model Ts ? I believe I used to own an original T sales booklet marked on the cover 1908 Sounds like some alternate history posted above.

Tim


Old story, all the auto mfg. then and now call a new car by its "model year", not the same as build year. Ford did it too, even prior to the into of the T.

So, correctly in Ford speak, the first year of the Model T is '1909'. They were not introduced in late 1908 as the Model T of 1908.


News paper release notice, see date of issue and date applied to the Model T by the publisher..

And this is the famous first print adv. by Ford for the 'new' Model T. Saturday Evening Post, Oct 1, 1908 issue. The wordy body copy even claims, " car that guarantees at least equal value to any "1909" car announcement.

Yes, I understand that Dan. But, there are also a lot of inconsistencies there. The income to the company was in 1908 for the first several hundred Ts. What it was called officially is just verbiage. If you bought a model K in 1911 that they were still trying to dump, did you buy a 1908 K or a 1911 K? I dunno. Same goes for all the other letter cars. Tony B. Went through that nice 1910, that was made in 1909. He sold it as a 1909 and likely they new owner is enjoying his 1909. We have one of the first model A wagons , made in dec of 1928. It was a traveling show car for the auto shows, so nobody knows when it was ever sold initially. We enjoy it as our 1928 model A . It’s not all black and white, and that’s my point.
Who among us could assemble a car anywhere close to the one being offered. Stan liked to say, the loudest boos come from the cheapest seats.
I got old watching Don Hess buy and sell very early model T parts. His hemming ads were in there since I was a pup. If you gathered parts all those years, wouldn’t you use the best stuff? I know I would.

Bruce begins the Encyclopedia with 1909, not 1908, for a reason.

Ford designated cars not by calendar year, but by model year, which usually (but not always) began August 1, coinciding with the "fiscal year". The practice continues today. If you buy a Ford manufactured next October, it will be a 2023 model, not 2022. According to Ford, the approximately 300 Model T cars made in 1908 are 1909 Fords.

And what was that reason? You are making my argument for me, thanks!

I’m making lowering brackets today. They are actually my 2004 model but I’m making them in 2022. I think I’ll call them my 2024 model. See where I’m going with this?

Has anyone noticed..FWIW, the "serial number" 2 on the auction car is embossed, whereas #220 is STAMPED? Me thinks they woulda been stamped from the get-go but then who am I to say? As far as the engine goes, open it up and then you will know if its the real deal or not. As I understand there was a few internal changes in the blocks for strengthening purposes early on. Like I said earlier, yes it's a gorgeous car as it sits. Just how authentic it REALLY is, well, is any man's guess. It'll still pull in a hefty bid I think. I could be wrong.

Steve and Dan, I agree. Most automakers I'm aware of advertised, and sold their "new models" as next calendar year models. There are no "1904" Model B or C Fords, however there were a few of each produced and sold prior to 1905. They were still 1905 model year cars. It would seem if the inverse is true, that cars sold after the calendar year aren't the next year model the same should apply to pré calendar year cars advertised as sold as upcoming year cars.

For example, the 42 (Ford audit) Model K "dumped" (not my word....) in 1909 or 4 in 1910 were 1906, 07 or 08 cars. Same applies to the 113 N, R and S dumped in 1909.

There was a thread on this car a few years ago. I believe it was started by Don Hess's son. It pretty much tell all one needs to know about this particular car. I think Rob is trying to find it. According to Ford, it's a1909 model year car.

I agree and understand the model year thing. BUT, that was something that served the manufacturer, not the consumer. Always has, always will. As objects of art, perhaps it would be better to describe it as a 1909 model T Ford made in 1908 . I’ve no dog in the fight. I’m a huge fan of untouched original cars, and there are fewer and fewer every year. Let’s not lose sight of how these autos were found, though. This is serial #1 model B ford, as found in a farmyard. And an after restoration shot. There are very, very few of these old timers that weren’t “discovered” in the 50s and 60s very similar to this.the model T may have come to the collector and restorer Hess in who knows what condition. His obvious goal was to restore it according to the standards at the time. I say well done!
I would need to see some proof that 1908 autos were sold in later years and titled as 1908. I still don’t agree with that at all.
Again, to me and many others, when it was made is when it was made. That cannot be changed by what some else wants to call it, or pick it apart. The manufacturer can call it something else , but it doesn’t change the fact that it was made in 1908.

Kim

you're looking for this: http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/82 ... 1545253902

I agree with the qualifier, "a 1909 Model T made in 1908". That clarifies things for those who are wondering.

This is one of those times when the model year and the fiscal year don't coincide completely, though they begin at the same time.

This discussion of terms reminds me of a famous exchange.

Mr.Lincoln: "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"
Response: "Five, of course."
Mr. Lincoln: "No, it still has four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

I like that quote, Steve. Lincoln also said ” common looking T’s are the best….that is why the Lord made so many of them”

Tony B, to replicate a block in the pre 2500 from a 14 block in lead would be no more than a piece of art, functional I doubt very much

.

I remember there being advertised in the magazines, most likely in the seventies, and you could go look, newly cast water pump blocks being offered for sale. I believe they were offered machined or un-machined, I'm not sure. I think about ten years ago there was one at Chickasha for sale in the raw. Who knows what the story of this car is? I know you can read the article about it in one of the back issues of either the Vintage Ford or the Model T Times. There was some distinguishing feature to do with the bolts that mounted the radiator. I think they had some brazing on them.

So does that mean that 10660 1909s were built?

Bottom line, it appears this car is a clone. It’s beautiful, and will be a great addition to anyone’s collection, but it appears to be a clone. For me, an original “T” begins with the motor. Everything else can be found, but if it’s not the original motor, it’s a clone.

Many of us have different standards, but that is mine.

As I see it, cars built in calendar year 1908 are numerically as close to 1909
as they are 1907. Thusly, these cars can just as easily be called 1907 models.
Which brings up the point, why are we limiting ourselves in thinking to single
year jumps ? Since we so often celebrate centennials, and are stretching logic
to absurd ends, who is to say these cars are not 1808 models ?

I would submit that if Henry played the model year game, and deemed them
"1909 models", there is no higher authority we can go to. Playing latter-day
semantics games are just that.

Burger

Yep, agree, best to just roll with the car company determination of the model year of their car, regardless of the calendar year of mfg.

Here is adv by a dealer of the Improved Car, 1926, it's called out on the sign as a 1926, yet the date of the winning drawing at the base of the sign (partially cut off) reads Nov. 1925, of course that 1926 touring was built in '25!


Plus Ford's series of small adv. placed in periodicals during the early years, always referenced the model year, like today, the buyer would rather drive the newest!

This was a very interesting read. I'll keep my tongue firmly planted in my cheek though. Too many no nos. I'm back to 220 as the oldest.

Time to wind it up, boys. Rob has spoken

Early auto literature often mentioned "The Season". Example: "Pope Hartford announces an improved model for the 1910 season." Did they mean "driving season", presumabley Spring, Summer, and Fall, or did they use "season" and "year" interchangeabley? Most early makers were located in the Northeast, and most early cars did not deal well with hard winter conditions, so a "driving season" would make sense.

After reading through this extensive dialog it appears that it is necessary to be able to identify a Model by both its "Build Year" and "Model Year" to prove provenance and authenticity. "Build Year" being defined as the year of its assembly and "Model Year" as the Manufacturer's Advertised Year.
Having said that, it would require identifying all those characteristics, that have been historically documented, that align with "Build Year" and those that substantiate it by Day, Month and Year of its assembly in order to avoid further controversy. After 100 years some things will always be in doubt.
As an example: while the position of these numbers on the blocks was mentioned as part of a verification, the shape of the number was not. It doesn't seem logical to have just the one criteria without the other. There is no end to scrutiny.

It appears that #2 and #220 both have had the manifold surfaces machined. The threaded plugs they used in the water jackets were never ground smooth at the factory. They used these plugs well into 1913. What I'm driving at is if the surface was ground, how could the 2 and the 220 be so clear?

What did No 2 sell for?

I’m not sure the numbers are the same shape plus I don’t understand the super imposed raised number 2. Even if you look closely at the 2 stamped under the raised 2 it appears different especially the upper arch of the stamped 2 compared to the other 09 stamping. I don’t see the little round part at the start of the 2, the latter set of 2’s are different. All that said I’ve seen later cars with different stamped numbers so I doubt if that’s a consequence enough to say it’s not genuine, still a really nice looking Early T that I wish I had the means to buy.

JTT3 wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 06, 2022 4:04 pm

I’m not sure the numbers are the same shape plus I don’t understand the super imposed raised number 2. Even if you look closely at the 2 stamped under the raised 2 it appears different especially the upper arch of the stamped 2 compared to the other 09 stamping. I don’t see the little round part at the start of the 2, the latter set of 2’s are different. All that said still a really nice looking Early T.

The number "2" is not raised. The superimposed stamping is caused by a double strike. The weaker of the 2 strikes is where the hammer bounced off the stamp and re-struck while the stamp moved slightly off location. Not an uncommon thing to happen.

I saw the water pump repro block. It was a raw casting.

Steve Jelf wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 06, 2022 4:07 pm

I couldn't even find out when the auction was supposed to be. The car doesn't show up in either Auctions or Results. Bonhams website is user unfriendly and uninformative.

The auction hasn't happened yet. The Bonham's website seems very straight forward and simple to me. This is at the top of the page in very big letters:

The Amelia Island Auction
March 3, 2022
Fernandina Beach Golf Club

You got plenty of time to register and bid!!!!!!!!!

Steve

You are right that the site is not user friendly.

One I found the Ford I clicked on it. Then the second picture showed up. To the right of this photo are arrows that you can click on to see the rest of the pictures. There are a lot of them.

It is possible both #2 and #220 have had the manifold surfaces machined. The core plugs appear to be machined even with the manifold surface, which Ford may have done in 1909. However, by 1913 the core plugs were put in later, and are not flush with the manifold surface.

I believe that Sandy McTavish of Milverton Ontario had several reproduction water pump T engine blocks.

This block 614?? hard to read but has the core plugs machined flush.

I looked at the photos. One thing that I did notice is in this photo: That line above the nuts on the bolts joining the block to the oil pan. Wasn't there a discussion about that line in the not-too-distant past? (Last couple of years.) I think Kim Dobbins stated that that was a characteristic of the early blocks. Would a fake actually have that much detail?

picture of my block in the same place.

The reason for my post was if the manifold surfaces were machined after the core plugs were installed, chances are the engine numbers would have been machined off too. My photo above clearly shows the core plugs were put in afterwards, however, my block is a '13, so perhaps the sequence of operations changed during that period?

Original Smith , the numbers were likely stamped after the engines were assembled !

Please remember these many first thousands of cars were not machined like all the other millions. I would not be surprised if each block laid out by hand on a plate, or stamped with metal templates and drilled one at a time. These cars were assembled on sawhorses, one at a time. To compare these early ones to later machining , doesn’t fly, IMHO

Found this in an antique shop in NC , Pete.

pete eastwood wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 08, 2022 1:39 pm

Original Smith , the numbers were likely stamped after the engines were assembled !

Pete,

I believe he's trying to say that the blocks may have been milled by rebuilders at some point in the car's past, as evidenced by the flush milled plugs that we see. Meaning that any stamping seen today would be re-stamps, in order to get the numbers back. Thereby possibly explaining why we may be seeing inconsistancies in stamped serial numbers today. However, as Original admits, this is only a valid theory if blocks & plugs were not milled flush when first manufactured.

My block pictured above was never rebuilt, it still had its original standard pistons rods and crank etc. In my opinion it was surfaced at Ford in the original machining process. The serial number would have been one of the last steps.

In all fairness, it may be time to give this car a true evaluation in person by qualified judgement.

I've read many posts about this car, first and foremost, is the frame the correct thickness? Has anyone actually used calipers and checked?

Yes I forget how but yes the frame was checked a found be be a later frame. Until someone comes up with restoration pictures and paper work the car is a very nice bitsa car . Any one how pays big bucks for it should do there home work. Buyer beware If anyone questioned my 1912 T like this I would provide the paper and pictures before ,during , and after, and the case would be closed. Just the fact that there are no pic other than restored makes it suspect. Just a view point from Canada

Steve Jelf wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 06, 2022 9:38 pm

OK, I did find the page that gives the date. I'm told there are more pictures of #2 than the two side shots. If there really are, I'm not smart enough to find them. I have no trouble finding all the photos of table saws and glassware on the local auction companies' sites, but this one has me stumped.

Click on the photo of the car on the auction website and it will open the other photos for you

I think I just clicked on the photo of the car, and it went to the other photos with arrows for forwards or backwards on the sides.

ARROWS ! ! ! I didn't even see any indians.

I assume if the car is really #2, it would have been too early for the fish plates? Also, if Don would have known, he could have reconfigured the front frame brackets to look like the first design.

Good point, Larry. I wonder how many cars were made before they started to add the fishplates to the too-weak frames. Trent?

Keith,
I think 2500 is the accepted number. I believe Bruce McCalley (RIP) wrote that portion of the MTFCA encyclopedia (chassis) and indicated 2500. Included in chassis description is the following:
“ I have checked through all of my pictures showing the front cross members of 2500 era cars and ALL of them show the later T-319-B front end spacer EXCEPT one. That is the picture of a Model T at the Piquette plant after its return from a trip with Henry Ford in late September and early October 1908. ”

He also wrote that the first frames were also 1/8” thickness.
Cheers,
Rob

Here is some information on the early Model T frames that I have gathered during my research at the Benson Ford Research Center.

The parts for the Model T frame were first drawn on December 10, 1907. Frames were specified to be made of 1/8” steel. This was the same gauge of steel used on NRS frames, which are notoriously weak, especially at the front and rear cross members.

The manufacturer of Model T frames is not known with certainty, but the account payable records of the Ford Motor Company indicate that they were doing a great deal of business with Parish & Bingham of Cleveland, OH during the NRS time period and later. It is known that Parish & Bingham produced Model T frames throughout the production run.

The frames for the first 2500 Model Ts were produced and delivered to the Ford Motor Company’s Piquette Avenue plant by July 1908. In a July 1908 issue of the Ford Times several photographs from around the factor were published. One of the photos shows 2500 frames stacked in the yard at Piquette.

As I mentioned before, the frames of the first 2500 cars were made from 1/8” steel, which was not really suitable for the heavier Model T. The Ford engineers seem to have figured this out only around the middle of September 1908. In order to salvage the first 2500 frames, the Ford engineers designed T-350 Frame Side Member Reinforcement Plate, generally referred to as the “fish plate” today. Two T-350 plates were required for each car, and they were riveted to the inside of the frame rails. The T-350 drawing is dated September 21, 1908, a mere 10 days before the official start of Model T production.

The Frame Side Member Reinforcement Plate was intended only for use on the first 2500 cars. This is indicated by a note in the releases for T-350 calling for only 5000 to be produced (two per frame). Additionally, the drawing for the Side Member Reinforcement is marked “Obsolete on December 4, 1908.

Frames used on cars produced after #2500 used thicker 3/16” steel.

The modifications to the first 2500 frames did not end with the addition of the Frame Side Member Reinforcement. When the frame front end caps T-318 & T319 were redesigned in December 1908, the front end caps of the remaining frames were changed as well. Finally, when the early two-lever control system was abandoned and replaced with the familiar three-pedal control system sometime after car #750, the Controller Quadrant (hand brake ratchet) was also replaced by the more familiar Controller Quadrant used until 1925.

Respectfully submitted,

Trent Boggess

It would be interesting to list what items on the T (repro or original) that would not have been on Model T #2. Are the repro items authentic? Are any of the items actually off number 2, or was the T the Hess bought in Michican a latter T.? Of all the two lever Ts (engines, other parts, original or mostly complete) Most of the restored or running examples have reproduction parts replacing of what should have been a part of that T.Of all the free 2500 Ts, there are some mostly original to that T and there are several that are mostly put-to-gethers. As I have said before, any item "speaks for itself". What we call something does not become what we call it, It is what it is.

Thank you so very much Trent B for the clarifications! I was really hoping that you would chime in here with that.
I had read it all before (previously posted by you), but lost my bookmarks a few years ago. I considered posting from memory, but sometimes memory is not enough.
Again, thank you.

Thank you, Trent. I could not remember all the details from your "Oh, sh*t!" seminar at the Centennial, back in 2008 about the fishplate needed on the 2500 too-thin frames. I could not remember if some cars were made it out the door before the fishplates were installed or not.

It got me thinking about the term: fishplate. I was thinking "fs plate" as in "frame strengthening plate" so I had to ask my friend, Mr. Google:

fishplate: a flat piece of metal used to connect adjacent rails in a railroad track.

Fishplate for joining railroad tracks have been around since 1842.

: ^ )

Keith

FWIW, my Aug 17 1909 car #9267 has had a hard life but when it came into my hands in1979 the engine was relatively unmolested. When I stripped it down in the early 80s the crank was still STD and pistons 0.0025" (yes 2 and half thou, not 25) which means I believe that the bores had just been honed , not bored. The attached photo from then shows the core plugs to be milled.

KWTownsend wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 11, 2022 9:55 pm

Thank you, Trent. I could not remember all the details from your "Oh, sh*t!" seminar at the Centennial, back in 2008 about the fishplate needed on the 2500 too-thin frames. I could not remember if some cars were made it out the door before the fishplates were installed or not.

It got me thinking about the term: fishplate. I was thinking "fs plate" as in "frame strengthening plate" so I had to ask my friend, Mr. Google:

fishplate: a flat piece of metal used to connect adjacent rails in a railroad track.

Fishplate for joining railroad tracks have been around since 1842.

: ^ )

Keith

I always assumed "fishplate" was the Friday night special at our local diner...

Good one, Jerry VO!

Has the auction been held? when was it? what $$$ did the T bring? Who bought it?

Steve-You must have a different computer! The auction has not happened and it is on their website as clear as day:

https://www.bonhams.com/live_auctions/27329/

Here is the page with #2 which is lot 281:

https://www.bonhams.com/auction/27329/l ... e-catalog/

I think Bonham's gave an honest and accurate description of what the car is or isn't. They make no claims that is it truly #2 if you read through the hyperbole.

THE MOTORCAR OFFERED

The car we offer here – stamped with serial number '2' - may well be one of the oldest Model T's in existence. It is a so-called 'two-lever' car, meaning it has two levers on the left floorboard, two pedals on the floor and another two levers (for ignition and throttle) mounted on the steering column. This arrangement was soon superseded by the Model T's famous three-pedal/one-lever layout, with some records noting the change being introduced after the first 500 cars and others the first 800.

In 1908, it is understood chassis numbers '2' to '9' were shipped to the UK for the London Motor Show where many orders were taken. An article in Model T Times describes how a car with serial number 2 was discovered in the 1950s in upper Michigan, USA by the late Richard Teague, which is how the late Donald B Hess got to hear of it.

Donald Hess had a passion for antique automobiles and it is understood restored six in his lifetime. A member of the Antique Automobile Club of America and the Model T Club of America, he purchased this Model T, sight unseen, for $400 in the fall of 1958. The Model T was shipped by rail to Donald Hess's home in Pennsylvania where it was completely dismantled and stored for the next 40 years. Restoration commenced in 1995, much of the car had not survived the years but fortunately Donald Hess had spent many years accumulating a treasure trove of parts and spares for the very earliest Model T Fords. This meant that throughout the exacting restoration, correct and original parts could be used and after six years the finished car was displayed at Hershey in 2001, winning a 1st Prize in the Junior Award category. A scanned copy of Mr Hess's illustrated article on this Model T, published in Model T Times' March/April 2002 edition and showing its numerous interesting early features, is on file. The next owner, a UK based collector, bought the car directly from Donald Hess and brought the car to the United Kingdom where it remained on static display in his collection, the car is now offered directly from his estate.

As with many Motor Cars of this era, time has blurred the story of the car, and many of those who can recount complete histories are no longer with us. This is an incredibly correct early Model T, restored with huge attention to detail, and although it cannot documentarily be proved to have a continuous history as number '2' it is undoubtedly one of the most significant early Fords to come to market. The car is sold on a bill of sale, as it was never registered in the UK. Presented in incredibly correct condition, this Hershey Prize winning Model T would grace any significant collection or museum.
READ LESS
Additional information

Auction information















Related Departments

Auction Viewings



Conditions of Sale

My Manner Is Direct …

Is there any Living Educated Authority
on The Early Model T who will confirm
that this is - without a doubt - # 2 ?

Absent That - Based Upon The Catalog
Summary & Estimated Valuation ….

This car is being knowingly misrepresented
in my slightly educated opinion …


FJ

FreighTer Jim wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 17, 2022 7:05 pm

My Manner Is Direct …

Is there any Living Educated Authority
on The Early Model T who will confirm
that this is - without a doubt - # 2 ?

Absent That - Based Upon The Catalog
Summary & Estimated Valuation ….

This car is being knowingly misrepresented
in my slightly educated opinion …


FJ


3A5A3B9E-0158-4349-8FE0-C5E86DC66B44.jpeg




FA106194-9B0B-4EF0-A4D0-259115BD813B.jpeg

Did you read the Bonham's excerpt above your posting? Looks honest to me...

The Catalog Summary
Not The Fine Print Disclaimer
Is What Bidders Reference


FJ

Ron, not using a different computer I clicked on the link originally posted on February 5 (top of this page) and got this:


I used the Browse auctions button and found nothing about the Amelia Island event or #2. It seems Bonhams did something to their website that made the original link no longer functional.

Here is the most recent link to the auction listing. Guiding price range of 180K-260K.
https://www.bonhams.com/auction/27329/l ... e-catalog/

Try this link, it is the page for the T at the 3 March 2022 Ameila Island auction.


https://www.bonhams.com/auction/27329/l ... e-catalog/

From the auction blurb, it seems the 1909 car #"2" will remain in the UK and prospective buyers won't have I chance to inspect it. Id have a real hard time shelling out that kind of money for a car only represented in pictures. When I saw the car at Hershey in 2001, if was in very nice condition and very well restored. I didn't hear or see the car run. As with any auction purchase, buyer beware, there is ample information out there to make an informed decision.

Twenty five years ago an older friend of mine Whitey Best was a early T brass light restorer, he had talked about no.2 and no.220 of not being original cars back then , I see the debate is still going on.

#220 is pretty original. It has a known history supported by original pictures. There is a couple supporting articles in old Vintage Ford magazines.

Interesting thread.

However the existence of No. 2 has a red flag for me. The car was extensively restored. I have a problem with anything that is extensively restored. What guarantee does one have that it was No 2. in the beginning.

I guess one has to have faith --- "Ran when parked 50 years ago.", means that after fifty years it still runs.

Post sale priceE

Post sale priceE

There are numerous old discussions about #2 & #220 in MTFCA just search for them. What confuses me is why is the #2 colorized somehow and what is the vertical dark smudge to its right. Look at the attached photo and what do you see Why is there some brass looking splatter too?

One other thing that I remember that Ed Hausgen told me was that the car was found by his uncle somewhere in Illinois, perhaps at a dealership. I could be wrong about the dealership part. He and his brother bought the car. Ben Snider found out that they had the car and wanted to buy it. Perhaps it was by seeing the article in the magazine I found? Ed's brother wanted to sell the car; Ed did not want to sell it. What Ed told me was that it was a substantial amount at that time, and he relented and let the car go to Mr. Snider. And now we are talking about it 66 years later.

TRDxB2 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 03, 2022 2:10 pm

There are numerous old discussions about #2 & #220 in MTFCA just search for them. What confuses me is why is the #2 colorized somehow and what is the vertical dark smudge to its right. Look at the attached photo and what do you see Why is there some brass looking splatter too?

That's rust.

Herb Iffrig wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 03, 2022 3:42 pm

One other thing that I remember that Ed Hausgen told me was that the car was found by his uncle somewhere in Illinois, perhaps at a dealership. I could be wrong about the dealership part. He and his brother bought the car. Ben Snider found out that they had the car and wanted to buy it. Perhaps it was by seeing the article in the magazine I found? Ed's brother wanted to sell the car; Ed did not want to sell it. What Ed told me was that it was a substantial amount at that time, and he relented and let the car go to Mr. Snider. And now we are talking about it 66 years later.

This discussion heading is about Model T #2 .
Donald Hess' Father was the owner of Model T #2 to which there has been much speculation . However, documentation details exist about its restoration http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/82 ... 1545253902.
--
--
Edward Haugen was the owner of Model T #220 being discussed in another discussion. It is the one that Ben Snyder purchased.
https://mtfca.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27401

Will somebody please explain to me how the hell that cast #2 is supposed to be taken as the engine # ?

Sold $220,000.

$ 246,400 with premiums

If you’re going to create something like this, why not go for the gold and stamp it #1? It would be just as believable.

My car identifies as # 3. I am not currently taking bids....

Erik Barrett wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 03, 2022 8:39 pm

If you’re going to create something like this, why not go for the gold and stamp it #1? It would be just as believable.

My T is No. 1

To me anyway....

I bet the owners of 3-10 are getting people knocking on their doors with bags of money now.

We ordered our Dodge Magnum RT in August of 2004 and took delivery in November of the same year. It was and is designated by Chrysler, the Massachusetts and the Florida (where we live now) departments of motor vehicles as a 2005 Dodge Magnum RT. There were no 2004 Magnums.