Hi Tom,
I've been following your restoration progress over the last couple of years
through the list, and I totally understand your position in trying to validate
the work you're doing. Like you, when I started seriously looking for Tigers I
contacted Norm Miller about a car I was looking at. He explained the history of
that car and steered me to Larry Atkisson, who gave me more information, and we
set up a meeting. I didn't buy that car, but came away very impressed by the
knowledge of both Larry and Norm, and appreciative of their efforts in helping
us Tiger newbies. When I did buy a Tiger it was one that Larry thought he know
of, but as it turned out it was a different car. Based on my own reading and on
comparing my car to an Alpine shell I had, I'd come to my own conclusions about
my Tiger, and I later had the car TAC'ed at SUNI III. My Tiger was built in late
1966, I bought it in 1998, and the previous owner had it for nine years. That
leaves from 1967 to 1989 of unaccounted-for history. Some of it I can see from
inspection of the underside of the car, but there's still lots of untold stuff,
and having the car TAC'ed filled in some interesting information, both for me
and for the TAC guys. Since the car was not previously entered in the Tiger
registry, I was able to confirm some stuff for Norm as well, and that amounts to
a tiny repayment of the information he has passed my way.
The TAC process is intended primarily to be a validation of the chassis origin
for the owner. Like you say, you (and I) are missing large parts of the history
of our cars, and for that reason the TAC is a great service, provided by people
that have made the preservation of Tiger history a part of their life. There are
some fortunate people who own a Tiger whose history they can unquestionably
confirm, and they do NOT need TAC to tell them that their car is indeed a Tiger,
because they either were there for the whole thing, or there are other
circumstances which prove the car's authenticity. So when some people come along
and tell them "We won't believe your car is a Tiger unless you get it TAC'ed", I
can totally understand why they'd be miffed and take their frustrations out on
TAC.
The TAC program was begun by some of the most knowledgeable Tiger owners in the
SF Bay area. If these people had just been "arrogant self-appointed individuals
of limited knowledge", or
"self appointed spoilers", the program would have never got off the ground. The
Tiger community at large (at least initially on the West Coast) has accepted the
expertise of these individuals and TAC is slowly gaining acceptance through the
rest of North America.
At SUNI III, it was announced by the TAC committee that TAC inspections would be
available if you were interested. The committee didn't say "If you don't we're
going to whisper things behind your back". On this mailing list, several TAC
sessions have been announced and well-received, by all reports. Again, no one
has come back from it saying "Didya hear that so-and-so didn't get their car
TAC'ed? Must be an Alger..." And that's primarily because TAC is supposed to be
a private inspection of your car by some marque experts, not a public trial of
your integrity. You submit your car if you want to know, what some experts think
of your bodyshell's origins.
In summary: TAC is good if you need to have your chassis' origins verified. TAC
peer pressure is stupid.
Theo
Tom Witt wrote:
> >>Tom, you're exactly proving why Mayf would have a big issue with TAC. <<
>
> Theo,
> Two and a half years ago I bought my Tiger and until now I have only heard
> encouragement to TAC my car, both to my advantage and the greater Tiger
> community as well. Now without an understandable explanation until last
> night it left me baffled about Mayf's position and others.
> I hope you will see after my explanation why I took the stance I did. When
> I bought my car I had very little to spend (and I still do). My car was
> stored at Smitty's and when I looked it over I asked him if it was a real
> Tiger to which he replied "yes." The day after I purchased it I contacted
> Norm Miller because the car was Calif. registered under the JAL #.
> Fortunately Norm was familar with my car and confirmed it was a real Tiger
> too.
> Regardless of their backround all I could ever support my Tiger's heritage
> with was "well Smitty said...........," and "Norm Miller said............."
> There is no known history of my car past 1978 with many previous owners that
> are three states away. There is no original paper work. Thus, for me, TAC is
> the verification beyond my abilities that the hundreds of hours I have spent
> (and hundreds more to go) that that time working on my Tiger is not wasted.
> For me TAC is as good as it gets. My Tiger can not stand on my word as I did
> not buy it new, I do not have a lifetime of documentation and though I have
> a fair indication of what makes a Tiger a "Tiger" I do not know as much as
> others and to any skeptic my "opinion" carries little value.
> Now I want to be straight and say no one ever said the word, but with some
> of the comments made about all that encompasses TAC it implies that I would
> be an ASSHOLE to be duped into entering such a foolish process. And where
> does that leave me? On one side I have those encouraging me to TAC my car to
> my and the Tiger communities advantage. On the other side I have those
> telling me it is a valueless process run by arrogant, self appointed
> individuals of limited knowledge. With a car of my backround and extensive
> labor involved what position is to my benefit??? Basically this discussion
> took the wind out of my sails. If TAC really is valueless then what is left
> to be said about my car? What do I have left to motivate me if I tie up
> years of my life and my limited funds on something it might not be?
> To many it seems TAC is an insult, but to me if it is what it claims to be
> then it is the motivating presence to move forward with my small part in
> keeping one less decrepite Tiger from not existing. My questions posed to
> Mayf were based on an understanding that TAC was universally accepted in the
> Tiger community. He was the first I knew to disagree differently. In the end
> it is an emotional issue for both of us. However, if TAC is of no value
> then neither is my car and the significant efforts I will invest because I
> don't have what he has to stand behind his car. On the other hand $10 and 20
> minutes to have his car looked over and support of such a cause would be
> extremely charitable to one (such as myself) of significantly lesser means
> and the support it gives me.
> For what it is worth many have pointed out holes in TAC that should be
> addressed. Also if you view my past posts I have supported the Alger builder
> as long as they are up front about their car. I make mention of this since
> these were points that were also bought up in this greater discussion.
>
> Tom Witt B9470101
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Theo Smit" <tsmit@shaw.ca>
> Cc: <tigers@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 11:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Closing thoughts: RE: TACvs Commonsense
>
> > I should have stayed out of this one...
> >
> > Tom, you're exactly proving why Mayf would have a big issue with TAC. He's
> got a
> > car that is the genuine article. 20 years after he bought the car, some
> > organization starts itself up, pronounces itself the "experts", and in the
> > process puts all the car owners in the position of having to possibly
> account
> > for the car's pedigree, or at least having to justify to every stranger on
> the
> > street why his car doesn't have a TAC sticker. As a result of TAC, a lot
> of
> > Tigers and their owners are now somehow relegated to second-class status
> by a
> > lot of people, and that is an unnecessary slight.
> >
> > If anyone says to me their car is the real thing, TAC sticker or no, I'll
> take
> > their word. If anyone else asked me about that car, I'd say "The owner
> says it's
> > real", and leave it up to them to sort out the details. I don't have the
> right
> > to go crawling under any car unless I'm invited to by the owner, and I
> certainly
> > don't have the right to say "Well, he says it's real but he doesn't have a
> TAC
> > sticker so...".
> >
> > My opinion is that authentication programs, as well as the Tiger registry,
> are a
> > valuable asset to the Tiger community, just like this mailing list is.
> However,
> > just as there are a lot of people that own Tigers that don't or won't
> > participate on this mailing list, there are people that will not have
> their car
> > authenticated. Give them the respect and freedom to make their choice and
> quit
> > questioning their motives already.
> >
> > Theo
|