Doug, et Listers,
First off, I want to make it clear that this TAC issue is NOT a hot button
with me. However, ignorance is and I'm somewhat amazed that after all the
discussion of this subject we have been through over the past two years or
so that there are still people who apparently don't really even understand
the issue. I don't think authenticity has anything to do with original
rivets (another issue completely) or even how much sheet metal has been
replaced. Apparently Doug at least seems to think a Tiger is simply an
Alpine with a JAL tag. While I'm not convinced he actually really believes
this, his posting on the subject would certainly lead someone who didn't
know better to this conclusion. I just want to be one of the first, and
hopefully the only one on the list to warn any of you out there who may
possibly be a little confused by Doug's posting that he is muddying the
waters by his misrepresentation of this issue.
In my own case, I had my car TAC'd on April 22, 1995 right after an
extensive restoration that included replacing the front clip with one from
a Series V Alpine. Also, through my own ignorance, I had removed the JAL
and VIN tags prior to repainting. Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of
Tigers would recognize the Series V instead of Series IV front clip. I'm
sure this point didn't escape the TAC committee either. On my Certificate
of Authenticity there is an entry titled "ID TAGS ARE FIXED WITH ORIGINAL
RIVETS Y N ". Mine has the N circled. This is a point of information and
does not, as far as I known, in any way impugn the heritage of my car.
There is obviously a lot of understandable confusion about just exactly
what constitutes an "Authentic Tiger". While I would not divulge just what
the specific physical attributes of an authentic Tiger are, they are indeed
physical and not just mental abstractions that can somehow be undone by
simply removing rivets or replacing a little or even a lot of sheet metal.
I can understand a valid basis for discussion about whether this
information should be closely held by STOA and the TAC Committee or not.
But that's another issue entirely. For the time being Doug, why not just
admit your ignorance of the particulars instead of pretending there are not
differences or whatever it is you are trying to tell us with statements
like "Of course, my car has Alpine doors & trunk lid, so I guess it's a
bastard anyway."
I will resist the temptation to waste more bandwidth by launching into my
own personal opinions about the Authentication question. Like everyone
here, I too have an opinion that best serves my own personal circumstances.
I can, in fact, respect quite a range of opinions on this subject. What I
am objecting to is a total misrepresentation of the facts.
Bob
B9472134 LRXFE, JAL 561703, TAC # 139
At 04:41 AM 7/4/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Vic; There are a lot of guys on the tiger list that think it is
>sacrilege to make a Tiger out of an Alpine, regardless what your
>intentions are, and regardless of the fact that Tigers were really a
>modification of the Alpine design. I understand that some have a large
>investment hat they wish to protect, and having Alpine conversions that
>are claimed to be authentic Tigers will hurt the value of Tigers in
>general. There is not a lot of agreement on exactly what is an authentic
>Tiger because most Tigers away from the southwest have now had extensive
>body repair, usually using Alpine sheet metal, but the general cry from
>the list seems to be that if the car has the original vin tag with the
>original rivets, it is an authentic Tiger and worthy of being called,
>titled & sold as a Tiger even if every other part of the damn car has
>been replaced. Just for my own opinion, if you want to build a custom
>suspended, V-8 Alpine & call it a Tiger my feelings and the value of my
>Tiger will not be hurt a bit. Of course, my car has Alpine doors & trunk
>lid, so I guess it's a bastard anyway. Good luck with your project.
>
>Doug Leithauser
>
> Now why would a want to
>buy a perfectly good Tiger to hack into it? To me it'd make more sense
>to
>cut up a less valuable car.
>
>
>
> -Vic
>
|