TR6 1969 TR6 [question of originality]

[Guest]

Lee,
It seems that your intentions are noble and you feel for the guy overpaying for something that he apparently never really got. But think about it this way. The fella sure sounds like he can afford an expensive playtoy, he never really asked your opinion and anything you say to him to point out that he made a big mistake will only be taken by him as a negative on your part. I say stay out of it. You will only make an enemy and not a friend. No one likes to be shown to be a fool and he will turn on you. If I were you, I would stay as noncommittal as you can, admire his new toy and share in his pride. Trust me, you will come out on the short end of this stick and you really don't have a dog in this fight. IMHO.


Bill

 

[LeeMcKee]

I agree Bill, I don't want him to feel like a fool. That being said I will be working on his car quite a bit and more than the not being a '69 the car was not a frame off restoration and no attention was given to the mechanics on this car at all. The worst part of it is he is buying another one next week.
Thanks For everyones opinion, Sorry if I've been on a soap box.
Lee

 

[Andrew Mace]

Well, actually it might have been a "frame off" restoration after all. For one thing, the commission number plate indicates the original color as Jasmine Yellow (34), but the color sure looks like Signal Red (32) to me now!? As others note, it does have a number of features of a '69 such as the wheel, seats with folding headrests, and the ignition switch in the center of the dash (all 1970 and later cars had a lock on the steering column).

The engine number seems well into the 1970 model year.

The rivets on the driver side "B" post do look as if they might once have held a commission number plate; possibly this is a "clip car" with a rear body section from a later TR6?

Overall, it doesn't look all that bad in the pictures...but it still doesn't look like a $24k TR6 to me. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[ichthos]

Many of the things you have brought up have been dicussed on the forum in the past year. One interesting thing discussed was the fact that there were changes even within a year. I currently own a 69 TR6. I had to sell my first TR6 about 28 years ago. Ironically I just bought a 69 TR6 a year ago that has been stored for the past 25 years, but it is actully in better shape than the one I sold 28 years ago. From my research, my current TR6 appears to be pretty much unmolested. I am waiting for a book that covers originality in Triumphs (Original Triumphs from Motorbooks), but in the meantime one reference I have been using is the original glove box manual printed in 1969. The valve cover on mine is painted silver. It appears to be silver in the glove box manual on one page, but chrome on another - maybe this was an option or change within the year?. The dimmer switch on mine is on the floor. It was also in the same place on my first TR6. The color of the rear was discussed on an earlier post. Basically the earlier 69's were all painted the same color, but later during the year they switched to black. My former 69 was painted black, and the glove box manual shows it as being painted black. I agree the wheels and hubcaps are wrong. They number of holes is wrong and the hubcaps should be black. The commission number on mine is located on the wheel well. I looked over my door frames carefully to see if there were any ID tags - there were none evident. The fact that there was obviously some kind of ID tag on the door frame would make be suspicous too. Did they switch the position of the commision plate in later years? The seats are the same as mine. From your pics, the dash pretty much looks identical to mine too.

I guess I would agree that most of the things you have mentioned may be minor, but stating that it was a frame off restoration and having possibley switching plates with another body is definately fradualent, and I would think be illegal. You are a good man to say something to them. If nothing else, at least it may stop this person from pulling this on someone else.
Kevin

 

[vettedog72]

Sounds like your friend is bring you lots of good biz. Bill is right, don't insult hte guy. He chose you because he feels you know what you are doing but he will find another if you insult him. Perhaps you can help him even more if he will allow you to do a pre-purchase inspection.

 

[Andrew Mace]

[ QUOTE ]
Did they switch the position of the commision plate in later years?

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, from 1970 on, at least on "Federal" models.

 

[Simon TR4a]

I think the early TR6 had the windshield frame painted black, not body colour, though even if I am correct, this distinguishing feature may not have survived the respray.

Most of our cars have been updated at some time with parts from later cars, and while this type of thing does not make them bad cars, it does make them less valuable.

In my opinion an original car is one which has NOT been restored or repainted, a "correct" car is one repainted the original colour, and an "authentic" car may have been repainted in an original Triumph colour, and had some details changed, but all with proper Triumph parts. It sounds to me that at best, this car fall into the last category. At worst, it may have been in an accident at some time and rebuilt with body sections from more than one car; let's hope not.
Simon.

 

[swift6]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the early TR6 had the windshield frame painted black, not body colour, though even if I am correct, this distinguishing feature may not have survived the respray.

[/ QUOTE ]

A distinguishing feature that I have seen on '69's is the body colour windscreen surround. Changed to black for '70 on. And as stated earlier... the very early 69's had body coloured Kamm backs but switched to black Kamm backs mid year or earlier.

I think its been pretty well covered that this is not an 'original' 1969 TR6. If the chap that paid that much for it was looking for a concourse car than he will have to live with his poor purchase. Sounds like it was more an emotional buy than a well thought out and researched one. Lets face it, LBC purchase are often directed by our emotions and not logic. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazyeyes.gif

Hopefully he has already learned and will have you 'check out' the next car before he buys it. If he is buying these cars to drive then keep 'em running and let him drive them, the originality will not matter so much. If he's buying these as investments then he needs to either fire his financial advisor or he knows something that we don't. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif

 

[LeeMcKee]

Thanks EVERYONE for you input.
It is unfourtunate that he has paid so much for this girl. She is pretty but she has some issues. In the future he wants me to look at the car before he buys it, as a matter of fact he has delayed the purchase of the second TR6 and wants me to drive to SC to look at a Healey for him.
It must be nice to have options like that.
Anyway, case closed, problem solved, move on to the next one right?
Thanks again everyone!
Lee McKee
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grouphug.gif

 

[Guest]

Lee, I have a friend who sounds just like your buddy there. After a huge turnover in his life (his wife died too young) he decided he wanted to buy a Triumph, after seeing mine. Well, I am down here in Louisiana and he actually lives in Connecticut (his wife's family was from Louisiana). Now this is a nice guy and no dummy but he has more money than brains. He not only bought a TR6, but he bought a TR3 and another TR6, all "restored". He never asked my opinion and he got screwed royally, three times. I kinda, sorta pointed this out to him and we no longer talk. Shoulda kept my big mouth shut. And I really liked the guy. Errr, kinda liked the guy. The only thing that he could comment on concerning my restored TR6 was my turn signal wouldn't stay on. Guess I was petty but it snowballed into "ya mother wears army boots!" Now, all I say is nice things....except on the forum.



Bill