Doc:
I understand completely. I bought mine off the showroom floor so I
definitely know what it is. However, if and when I ever decide to part with
this member of my family (assuming that my two sons would allow such a
travesty) -- if a potential buyer wants to have a TAC inspection -- by all
means, the invitation is to, " please do so at your own expense (fly 'em
out, put 'em up, pay the ten bucks -- whatever)". However, this is a
non-event.
All the above said, it ain't for sale and probably never will be. This
critter's a member of the family and will most likely stay that way through
at least the next generation.
.......... next year, on the road, in Connecticut -------- YESSSS!!! [but
only in nice weather]
----- Original Message -----
From: "DrMayf" <drmayf@teknett.com>
To: "Tom Witt" <wittsend@jps.net>; <tigers@autox.team.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: TAC vs Commonsense
Ok, one last post, then I hit the delete key on this subject (in fact
already have hit it several times...) My objection to having my car Tac'd is
this. I have owned it for 30 something years (since Jan 1967). It was a
Tiger when I bought it, it is a Tiger now. If the inspectors will take my
word for it and issue me a sticker without inspection I will do it. But you
see, I have to prove to their satisfaction that it is a Tiger. My integrity
is suspect because I have to prove that the car is what I say it is. As to
having a car verified at point of sale, that happens at just about every
sale of anykind. Why must it be done up front? Heck, I really don't care but
it is interesting to see the reactions of all the people in the "club".
ANyhoo, this has, actually, been fun.
mayf
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Witt" <wittsend@jps.net>
To: <tigers@autox.team.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: TAC vs Commonsense
> Mayf,
> I asked this in the first post I sent this morning, but will ask it
again.
> What is your objection to having your car TAC-ed? What I am asking is if
three
> TAC inspectors were to show up to your door and I were to pay the ten
dollar
> fee would you turn them away?
> What would be lost? It seems that you have everything to gain. Yes, your
> Tiger is a real Tiger, you know that. BUT, not everyone does. Not the
casual
> viewer on the street, not every Tiger enthusiast, not every potential
buyer
> (someday). Thus, the matter of authenticity is covered to ANY who may
question
> at any time with your TAC certificate. What is objectionable to that? With
the
> potential for fraud by others is it not in the best interest of Tigers
> everywhere to be counted as authenticated?
> Just because the general public has taken to accepting the TAC-ed car
as a
> standard doesn't mean that TAC-ing is the villain. Really your complaint
> should be with the public at large (which of course would include Tiger
> owners) for electing to use the TAC standard. In life we all have to give
up
> some freedoms for the general good. When comparing TAC to no standard for
> authenticating a Tiger TAC-ing seems like the far lesser evil.
> In summary a group of ernst volunteers has set to prevent fraud (via
TAC-ing)
> of a significant collectible. The people at large (small a group as that
my
> be, but, in some way connected with the Sunbeam Tiger) have adopted the
> standard of TAC. You dislike the adaptation of TAC by the people
> because............ ?
> Mayf I have appreciated the input you have given this list and me
personally.
> However, on this point I can not seem to see the cause of the position you
> have taken.
>
> Tom Witt
> B9470101 (nearly TAC-ed, but the inspectors had a flight to catch)
|