Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TR\]\s+build\s+date\s+of\s+TR3A\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TR\]\s+build\s+date\s+of\s+TR3A\s*$/: 22 ]

Total 22 documents matching your query.

1. [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: "Fisher, Ed" <edwd@ti.com>; Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:10:27 -0500; "There were only about 3600 A's built in '57, starting in September with TS 22014, to TS 25632. Mine was commissioned in early-mid December (I think it was around the 12th, but I don't recall the exa; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00475.html (7,365 bytes)
2. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: DLylis@aol.com; Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:58:23 EDT; That is fantastic since I have always wanted a 1957 vehicle to match my build date of 07/19/1957. We are both 50 years old. I had lamented that it was a 1958 on the title Which raises and interesting; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00501.html (6,930 bytes)
3. [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: "Jim Wallace" <grandfatherjim@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:03:29 -0400; Wow, this means that my TR3A TS 22656L is actually a 1957 built car? That is fantastic since I have always wanted a 1957 vehicle to match my build date of 07/19/1957. We are both 50 years old. I had; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00502.html (8,895 bytes)
4. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: David Ljung Madison <team.net@daveola.com>; Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:16:59 -0700; My first Triumph was also oddly dated, titled as 61 and built in 60. As I understand it, this wasn't just because things were built at the end of the year to be prepared for unveiling in January. I b; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00506.html (8,338 bytes)
5. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: DLylis@aol.com; Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:29:37 EDT; Mine (and others) is the other way. The title says it is a year before the car was built. My number is TS74461 which puts it closer to the end of the run for 60s yet it was titled as a 59. Others ha; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00509.html (7,331 bytes)
6. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: TeriAnn Wakeman <twakeman@razzolink.com>; Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 06:34:46 -0700; That's strange, to be titled the year before it was built. Perhaps it was swept into a temporal anomaly and appeared on a dealer's lot the year before the factory built it? Or perhaps sometime in the; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00521.html (9,054 bytes)
7. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: "FRED E THOMAS" <frede.thomas2@verizon.net>; Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:13:18 -0400; Every car built comes with a "Certificate of Origin" from the factory, no matter how long it may sit in a storage yard or a dealers showroom, when said car is finally sold it must be titled according; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00526.html (7,791 bytes)
8. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: "Randall" <tr3driver@ca.rr.com>; Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:48:47 -0700; That is true today. But up until the early 60's, there were no laws requiring that. Triumph dealers routinely sold cars as 'new', meaning the current (or even next) year's model, by simply altering; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00529.html (8,158 bytes)
9. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: "Randall" <tr3driver@ca.rr.com>; Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:22:01 -0700; FWIW, many years after I bought TS39781LO, I realized that the paperwork had a different commission number on it. No one, including me, noticed the discrepancy until the State of CA started requirin; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00532.html (8,863 bytes)
10. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: Chris Kantarjiev <cak@dimebank.com>; Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:24:04 -0700; This wasn't a Triumph practice so much as a state DMV practice. The car is titled as of the first sale date. Some dealers/states went so far as to add small embossed plates to the VIN tag (such as t; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00533.html (9,334 bytes)
11. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: "Randall" <tr3driver@ca.rr.com>; Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:02:23 -0700; Little of both, IMO. Eventually you'll discover that you've worn mismatched clothes to the beach and none at all when you go to town ... Randall _______________________________________________ This; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00534.html (8,182 bytes)
12. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: "Geo & Kathleen Hahn" <ahwahnee@cybertrails.com>; Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:01:39 -0700; Indeed, when I purchased my TR4 6 years ago I had no problem getting the MVD to change it to a '64 (build year) even though it had been registered for 36 years as a 1965. Wanted it to be a '64 becaus; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00538.html (8,587 bytes)
13. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: "Steve Ball" <banjonut@verizon.net>; Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:16:46 -0700; The Triumph folks had a fix for that. They just changed the declared model year of the car to match the year in which it was first sold, so it was always a "new" car no matter how old it was. My TR3; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00555.html (9,873 bytes)
14. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: "Mo and Dave MacKay" <m.d.mackay@sympatico.ca>; Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:22:28 -0400; My story is similar to Steve's even though our cars are 475 units apart. My TR3A, 68639L, was built on February 18, 1960 and dispatched to "Cal Sales Inc." in Portland aboard the good ship "Jean LD".; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00597.html (9,661 bytes)
15. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: "Randall" <tr3driver@ca.rr.com>; Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:07:36 -0700; Evidence would seem to indicate that those were only put on cars that came through California and sold in the SW US. That's also very close to the time they started being put on, so perhaps yours sq; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00602.html (8,058 bytes)
16. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: "Jeff Fenwick" <jfenwick1@cogeco.ca>; Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:19:13 -0400; Speaking of car registration anomalies, a friend of mine has a *4 DR* The previous owner told him he had tried a couple of times to get it fixed without success. I guess they both breathed a sigh of; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00611.html (8,254 bytes)
17. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: "John Macartney" <standardtriumph@btinternet.com>; Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:30:42 +0100; I've been reading the few recent posts about vehicle dating and the queries arising from why a car was built in 1743 and not shipped until 1805. There's a very good reason for why and how this happen; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00616.html (8,518 bytes)
18. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: "Joe Curry" <spitlist@cox.net>; Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:51:08 -0700; Were cars being built in 1743? Joe --Original Message-- From: triumphs-bounces+spitlist=cox.net@autox.team.net [mailto:triumphs-bounces+spitlist=cox.net@autox.team.net] On Behalf Of John Macartney Se; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00618.html (8,922 bytes)
19. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: "Jeff Fenwick" <jfenwick1@cogeco.ca>; Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:06:38 -0400; Your recollections and insight into how things were done "in the day" and the way you tell the stories is always a good read. So, yes please! Jeff _______________________________________________ Thi; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00620.html (8,275 bytes)
20. Re: [TR] build date of TR3A (score: 1): Author: "Jim Muller" <jimmuller@rcn.com>; Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:29:15 -0400; Perhaps that little tussle with Boney required all vehicles be pressed into service, even those what had been sitting on the lot for a while. Otherwise it might still have been sitting there in 1843.; /html/triumphs/2007-10/msg00622.html (8,444 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]