On Thu, 26 Oct 1995, TeriAnn Wakeman wrote:
> > seemed to peg it somewhere not too far after my own TS71909L. It would be
> > a pretty expensive piece either way; if the older tools wore out, say,
> > mid-1960,
>
> I believe my car was made in may or June of 1960. So far the tooling change
> does look like its within the first five months of 1960.
This would make sense. Most of the TR body had been "retooled" for the
post-60000 run, largely because the original tooling had worn out.
However, since the wide-mouth apron came later, that tooling outlasted
the other body tooling. Of course, in 1959-60, they were stamping out
huge numbers of TR3As, and they probably wore out the front apron
tooling doing that.
Perhaps I could have mentioned that TS71909L was assembled on March 28,
1960. I also have a TR3A, TS73624L, built April 15, 1960, but that car
definitely has a replacement apron. I can't give you details of that
replacement, as the car currently lives at my mom's house.
> One thing that will scue this poll are repair parts. The dealer parts
>shelves
> were stocked with the earlier style front apron when the changeover occured.
> These parts got used up as cars came in with front end damage. So some
>smooth
> nose cars had to have had their front valance replaced with old stock aprons
>in
> factory primer. They got sprayed the original factory colour and from that
> point on who can tell if it were original or not.
Gee, on the left coast body shops must have been more thorough through
the years than were the ones here in upstate NY. It was and still is
common to view a Triumph (or any other make) with replaced panels that
were NOT "color"-painted on the underside, especially if that underside
didn't show at all. Granted, the inside of a bonnet shows and usually
gets painted, but not the underside of the apron.
> I think the shape of the nose should never come up in concourse judging.
Well, not until we get this resolved. OTOH, if we or someone else get
this figured out, it should be a judgable standard right up there with
raised hinge platforms, etc.
> > from Coventry, but I tend to suspect that a no-letter apron more likely
> > was the "standard" spares condition by the mid-1960s, perhaps to
> > accommodate either set of letters -- ribbed or smooth. The holes for each
> > set, of course, are quite different.
>
> This theory sounds plausable to me. It would be a way for dealers & body
>shops
> to deal with minimizing invetory of expensive bulky parts after the smooth
> letters came out....
Frankly, I doubt the dealers had a choice. It has been common practice
throughout the industry for years to ultimately supply replacement parts
to fit a "range" of vehicles. For example, by the late 1970s or early
1980s, factory rear quarter panels for round-tail Spitfires and GT6s
were supplied without holes drilled or punched for bumper brackets, side
reflectors or side marker lights. I don't know for sure, but I'd guess
that new small-mouth TR aprons were probably NOT supplied from S-T by
the mid-1960s, since the wide-mouth version would bolt up just as easily.
This practice still holds, of course. New Spitfire floor pan repair
panels do not have drain holes in them. And not too long ago, if you
wanted a replacement REAR apron for an earlier TR3, a repro later-style
apron was modified by cutting out the raised areas for the turn signal
lamps and the patch was nicely leaded in! (Is this still the case?)
> Thanks again for your data and insight!
You're welcome. Please DO keep us posted on your findings.
BTW, have you ever seen TRA's judging standards? I haven't; do they
address this upper lip issue?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Andrew Mace e-mail: amace@unix2.nysed.gov *
* NYS Library phone: (518) 474-8541 (voice) *
* 10D36 CEC, Albany, NY 12230 (518) 486-2152 (fax) *
* *
* *
* "I was wonderin' why we live so much longer'n our imaginations!" *
* -- Broom Hilda *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|