Paul, et Listers,
First off, thanks for the "official" (I assume this IS official) word from
TAC on this subject. Your response confirms my belief that we will never
see TAC ever admit to having inspected any car that gets involved in a
controversy. We heard almost the same exact story from Norm with respect to
Tom McDaniels' Lord Rootes Trophy car. Just so there is no misunderstanding
with respect to my feelings here, I perfectly understand, respect, and
support this policy. However, as a point of logic, when you say
emphatically, "Even if it turned out to be an Alger upon inspection, we
still would NOT give out information as to
it's true identity to Mr. Miller or anyone else.", doesn't that "anyone
else" include us?? Of course you have to deny any knowledge. Why not just
say "NO COMMENT". And what does "to the best of my knowledge" mean?? and
"Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, no "experts" have examined this
vehicle." Just where, and how far in are sticking your head on this one??
Now let's see here; Norm Miller is NOT on the TAC committee so, by your
definition, he is therefore NOT AN EXPERT?? Come, come Paul. Surely you
jest!! Are there no other people who would qualify as experts? Wasn't Rick
McCloud once on the Committee?? Did you suck his brain out when he
resigned?? Is Dick Barker not an "expert". Need I go further? (BTW, none of
these gentlemen was, in fact, the "expert".) Let's face it; you TAC people
have a sticky situation here that is sure to be repeated. If you really
want to stay away from this kind of controversy, then I see only one way to
accomplish this; SECRET INSPECTIONS. When a bunch of people show up
together to get their cars TACed, then how are you going to keep it
confidential which ones passed and which ones didn't?? Soooo, to make
having a car TACed truly risk-free, you need to set up confidential
appointments at secluded sites with no one but the owner and the three TAC
Committee members present. Then, if the car fails, no one else is the
wiser. The way it's done now, in public view, it's pretty hard to keep a
secret!! Just take one look at the owner's face!! And, of course, the TAC
people also have to take a vow of secrecy; sort of up there with
attorney-client and priest-confessor confidentiality.
Look Paul, you may not like it that Norm has brought this latest incident
to our attention. And you may also want to keep yourself and TAC as far
away as possible from any consequences. These things I can understand. But
just tell us that TAC, either as an organization or as individuals, cannot
comment other than to say that a car has, or has not been TACed. In which
case you can expect the information vacuum to be filled, accurately or not,
by people like me passing word-of-mouth, hearsay, etc. information. Like it
or not, you're going to have to learn to live with it.
Bob
At 05:55 PM 8/23/98 -0400, PLRRESTO@aol.com wrote:
>Bob, et Listers,
>
>Just for the record, the MK2 in question has never been presented to the STOA
>TAC committee for authentication, and to the best of my knowledge, no TAC
>inspector has ever even seen this car. Therefore, as far as I am
concerned, no
>"experts" have examined this vehicle.
>
>Thus, TAC cannot make any statements regarding this car. Even if it turned
out
>to be an Alger upon inspection, we still would NOT give out information as to
>it's true identity to Mr. Miller or anyone else. Norman Miller is only given
>information about real Tigers we have authenticated. That's our policy.
>
>So, for any further info about MK2 #523, contact Mr. Miller himself and
maybe
>he will give up his sources.
>
>Paul Reisentz
>STOA TAC Chairman
>
>Henry, et Listers,
>
>
>In the interests of accuracy, I would like to make a correction to my
>previous posting. It appears I was mistaken about Norm having included the
>Pebble Beach car in the conversions he has publicized on his Web site; at
>least I couldn't find it. It is,however, listed in the Registry in the Book
>of Norman and marked with the dreaded "c" for conversion. I assumed when I
>read your posting, Henry, that this is what you thought was the sole basis
>for the allegation of fraud and that we are relying completely and
>exclusively on Norm's say-so in this case. The essential point here is that
>I have been told that the car has been inspected by certified "experts"
>(not Norm) and the physical evidence clearly shows that Norm is correct.
>So, Henry, I believe your "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy is a
>bit misplaced in this instance. In fact, it doesn't appear that anyone,
>even the owner(s), have ever contested the fact that the car is a
>conversion. I'm sure there is much more to this story than the little bit
>we've heard here and maybe more of it will be posted here in the future. I
>suppose we would all like to know things like who was originally
>responsible for the swap. One of the pros, or a do-it-yourselfer?? It is
>obviously a very nice car to sell for that price; on the other hand, it is
>from what I understand, not very well disguised. But I have a feeling the
>various people who know this information are going to be reluctant to stick
>their necks out.
>
>
>Bob
>
Robert L. Palmer
Dept. of AMES, Univ. of Calif., San Diego
rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu
rpalmer@cts.com
|