Norm, et Listers,
Thanks, Norm for your authoritative corrections to my post. As I said, its
important that we operate on the basis of fact not fiction. I hate it when
I'm wrong, but it is important that we have the facts straight, and
particularly so in this case.
I was probably trying to cover too much in too short a space. I could have
perhaps illustrated my point better by way of another story, but this
approach seems to rub certain Listers the wrong way too. It struck me, from
what I've heard, that perhaps the "Extreme Case" was an example of what
Doug was asking about; namely a car that has been so extensively "restored"
that a determination of authenticity is difficult or perhaps even
impossible even in principle. In any case, I don't think the question is
too far fetched and is, therefore, a valid one. On the other hand, and
correct me again if I'm wrong, I suspect that in almost every case the
verdict of a TAC inspection is either three thumbs up or three thumbs down;
i.e., usually there is no question as to authenticity. However, as is
always the case, it is the exceptions that are the most interesting.
And speaking of the TAC voting rule, your correction about requiring
unanimous agreement to authenticate has made me think about the
implications of this rather stringent rule. Suppose a certain car does get
two out of three thumbs up. Can this car ever be re-submitted for
inspection, either by the same owner or a subsequent one? Statistically
speaking, if on a given occasion, a car gets two out of three votes, then
after three or four more tries we can expect it will get lucky and get a
bingo. And another thought. Suppose Ramon is having a bad day and/or is
p_ssed off at the owner. Does his one vote forever damn that car to
Authenticity purgatory?? (Sorry Ramon, I know you would never be anything
but objective, but I had to pick a name.)
Well, Norm, I know you don't speak for TAC on these questions, but maybe
others besides me are curious about these and other questions regarding
TAC. It appears that quite a few on this list and within the greater clubs
membership are ill or misinformed about TAC. Personally, I'd like to hear
even more facts and fewer opinions for a while.
Sheepish in San Diego,
Bob
At 11:09 AM 7/13/98 -0700, you wrote:
>At 08:59 AM 7/13/98 -0700, Bob Palmer wrote:
>
>>=85Now there is at least one case I know of where TAC failed to=
authenticate
>and that car went on a year later to win the Lord Rootes Trophy=85
>>
>
>Dr. P is, as most of you know, a fabulous storyteller, but in this case,
>he's gotten the details a little wide of the mark. Even though I'm no
>longer an active member of the official TAC program, I can speak to the
>events Bob has referred to in this post.
>
>First of all, it's important for everyone to know the car that Bob is
>talking about has NEVER been presented to the TAC committee for
>authentication. Its authenticity, however, was challenged (by yours truly)
>at Tiger United XX, in large part because the owner was masking the
>identity of the car. STOA's trophy policy (cars may be inspected for
>authenticity before being awarded trophies) was in force for that event and
>I called for its implementation. The result of the examination (performed
>by two TAC committee members) was a split decision. Pursuant to the trophy
>policy, which defers to the car in cases where inspectors do not agree, the
>vehicle was allowed to compete and was awarded honors. A year later at
>Tigers United XXI (Bakersfield, hosted by the CAT club), the subject car
>was campaigned very successfully and went on unchallenged to win the Lord
>Rootes Trophy.
>
>>=85It takes three TAC authorized people to inspect a car and two of the
>three have to give a thumbs up. This car only got one thumb up, so they
>declined to OK it. The owner was and is very hostile to TAC and even covers
>up his VIN and JAL in public=85
>>
>
>Bob is confused here, as well. The TAC program requires all three
>inspectors to agree before authentication is granted.
>
>>=85For no one will this question be more pertinent than for some future
>buyer of this car who may be shocked to find out after he has paid a
>premium price that he can't get his car TACed=85
>>
>
>I'm sure the TAC committee would be happy to give this car a complete and
>thorough inspection at the request of either its current owner, or at the
>insistence of some potential future buyer.
>
>
>Norm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bob Palmer
UCSD, AMES Dept.
rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu
|