I am new to this list and admittedly know little about the MG T series other
than what I have gleaned over the past few months but, is it unreasonable to
consider a '53 MG as a TD, a '54 as a 1250 TF and a '55 as a 1500 TF? I
have a '97 Ford F150 (the first of the new body style) that I bought in
January of 1996. Ford had completed the factory conversion so they could
make the new style and so started producing it early. I have never presumed
it to be anything other than a '97 even though it was built in early 1996.
John Winskill
----- Original Message -----
From: <Herald1200@aol.com>
To: <chull@pacbell.net>; <mg-t@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Year of Car (longish reply)
> In a message dated 11/30/2000 11:46:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> chull@pacbell.net writes:
>
> > The title to my wife's TF says 1955. After doing a little research, it
> > looks like the car was manufactured in October of 1954. When I have
gone
> > and registered old motorcycles here in California, I have been able to
> show
> > documentation on when the bike was manufactured, and have the new title
> > show that year. Would this be a plus or minus for this car? Any
> > thoughts for or against?
>
> Chuck, just a couple of thoughts. Certainly almost any American car built
as
> late as October 1954 would have been considered to be a 1955 model year
car.
> And along those lines, it's likely that your October 1954-manufactured TF
> didn't even reach the US until very late in that year or possibly January
or
> so of 1955. As cars back then were routinely titled (sometimes "leftovers"
> were even retitled) in the year it was sold, I be content to leave things
as
> they are if it were my car.
>
> To me, it's all part of the history of that particular car. One of my cars
is
> (forgive the blasphemy on an MG-T list) a 1960 Triumph Herald, built in
April
> of that year. But the build certificate shows that it was picked up as a
> "Personal Export Delivery" in England and given a British registration.
> Although otherwise built to US specification, it apparently was equipped
with
> all the "home market" specification lighting, including left dip,
> bulb-and-reflector headlamps. Presumably the car was used in England for
some
> time and then brought home to the States.
>
> What's interesting (at least to me) is that the car has always been
> considered a "1962 Triumph" by New York State's Department of Motor
Vehicles.
> I have to assume that was the date it was first registered in New York.
Over
> the years I've thought about "correcting" that, but more and more I've
come
> to view this discrepancy as part of the history of the car. And now it's
more
> than old enough that the age doesn't matter to qualify for collector
> registration or insurance.
>
> --Andy
>
> Andrew Mace, President, The Vintage Triumph Register, but a BIG fan of
> MG-TD's in particular!
|