The original build records that were attached to a car windscreen as
it went down the track measured about 8 x 5 inches landscape. The
vehicle spec in terms of model type, colour, trim and line fitted
extras was computer typewritten. Commission number was stamped. All
other detail - engine, gearbox, axle numbers with door, ignition,
glovebox and boot key numbers were handwritten - often in red or blue
ink, consequently not very 'contrasty' and prone to fade. Frequently,
cards fell to the floor, got upholstery glue, grease, oil and tyre
marks on them - together with inspection stamps and badly written
notes or code symbols. Having handled many of them, they were anything
but a model of clarity.
Standard Triumph was required to keep all build records going back
seven years in their original form for UK tax purposes. After that,
they were microfilmed - together with all the crud that was one them
and then shredded. While technology today for microfilming can
reproduce a positive or negative that is highly legible PROVIDING the
original is clean, the same did not necessarily apply 20+ years ago.
Lens quality was good on the camera but the film was conventional 16mm
gauge monochrome which in itself can be 'grainy.' Equally, reprgraphic
equipment
to enlarge to print out wasn't too brilliant technnology-wise and this
makes many images difficult to read. It's important to mention here
that BMIHT does not only interrogate the build record before issuing
a certificate. The original sales invoice from company to
dealer/importer is also cross-referenced to establish a sort of
triangulation and to double check initial findings.
In fairness to my colleague at Gaydon who does all the trace
research work, his task is not to be envied in terms of info clarity -
but of one thing we can be sure. He will not under any
circumstances commit to print what he *thinks* is what he can see. If
a mark, number or detail is so illegible as to make it unreadable or
can't be cross-checked, he simply writes "NO RECORD."
What he does commit in writing for cert
prep is what he knows is factual and can prove it and he's always
willing to re-assess his findings if the cert holder holds a divergent
view.
I'm intrigued to note the TR Register is alleged to have production
info. While not doubting integrity of who made this claim, I find it a
little difficult to believe. The only way the TR Register could have
accessed this detail is via BMIHT because no other organisation has
ever held these records - apart from the vehicle manufacturer. A club
would have been refused access to such detail in days gone by, though
BMIHT does not put unnecessary obstructions in the way of researchers
who want to do their own work. Piggott and Thomason are frequent
visitors preparing material for new books.
Re Turk Otomotiv, this is something I'd completely forgotten. There
was indeed a range of cars made in Turkey specifically for the
Turkish market as import tariffs at one time were anything up to 300%
of FOB vehicle price. Mostly, the finished product had minimal import
content by volume or value and in the case of Turkey, I think it was
effectively a 95% locally made car - and some would claim, a pretty
appalling one at that <g>
Worth remembering that components *looking as though they came
from a Herald / Vitesse / 1300 / whatever* may have been made on
imported tooling. I'd doubt they were imported from the UK unless
there was absolutely no alternative. Turks are a very inventive
bunch and rarely get stonewalled in making convincing
looking replicas. It's still one of the best places in Europe/ Middle
East
to get replica parts made - though the quality is often
greatly lacking. If I wanted to live more dangerously than normal, I
wouldn't hesitate in buying Turkish brake friction or steering joints.
Jonmac
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe triumphs
///
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
|