54 Jet Convetible prototype
Comments
-
Gentlemen, gentlemen, let's not get too hot under the collar with each other. Pray give me some guidance. I rebuilt my '29 Hudson super Six 7 passenger sedan out of four different vehicles. The chassis and running gear came from a car that had been converted to a fire engine. The main part of the body came from a derelict service car, the front seats from a hearse, the doors from another sedan, the hood form a different car again. I made the jump seats out of frames from an English Sunbeam tourer. The woodwork was all completely replaced. None of the cars afroementioned had the identification plate. However, I had two plates in my desk of '29 l.w.b. series cars. I selected one, rivetted it to the bulkhead, and registered it with that number. have I committed fraud? I have put a genuine 7 passenger sedan back on the road, rebuilt to the eexact specifications as original. Now I am plagued by guilt that the P.C. police will one day pounce on me and convict me of committing a cardinal sin. Perhaps I should dismantle it again and distribute the parts around a suitable swamp where they can rust and rot away in peace.
Geoff.0 -
Geoff, I always thought you were a criminal anyway LOL0
-
51hornetA, swapping VIN's is illegal. Period. Regardless of the intentions, it's still illegal. Try that on a Hemicuda, or a LS6 Chevelle. See where you get. Taking the HEMI and the numbers out of a rusted non-restorable shell and putting them on a non-Hemi car, then selling it as a legit restored Hemi car is OK to you, then, I guess. If doing it on the Jet is OK and ethical, the Hemicuda must be OK to do, too, right??? I don't think so.
Only a couple of you seem to understand what I'm saying, that's your loss.0 -
Hudson's were always a favorite of gangsters and moonshiners, 50 years later they still attract the criminal element.
I think the Jet should be crushed to protect us from ourselves. Maybe we should crush Geoff's fake '29 while we're at it!0 -
I am going through my posts and no where can I see me saying taking vins off hemi cars and when did hemi cars come into this? sorry I must have replied to the wrong thread is this the restoring late sixties early 70's mopar thread if so forgive me for my error. I stated you can restore a car using parts from a donor car. I believe when you do the work and document it and where does the old car and the new donor parts separate. No where did I say this:
"Taking the HEMI and the numbers out of a rusted non-restorable shell and putting them on a non-Hemi car, then selling it as a legit restored Hemi car is OK to you, then, I guess."
This is a tenuous inference that you made when reading my posts. In all cases I stated there is no crime or no fraud in documenting a restoration using a donor car. And as Geoff stated if this is the case there are a hell of a lot of criminal restorations out.
Me, I don't think so.0 -
just wondering- what do people who build fiberglass cars use for vin numbers? i guess i never thought of it before.0
-
Gosh... we were talking about a one off Hudson Jet convertible and now we are all up in arms... give it a rest fellas and share some of your Hudson lore.... GEE0
-
Grrr Ken......grr me waving my arms around.....LOL0
-
Can anyone direct me to the nearest crushing plant? I'll take the '29 in and then trun myself in to the Sheriff. Oh, by the way, I don't think my Jet is ugly, but then it does have a continental kit on it that came off a Nash. Oops, I better take that to the crushers yard too.
Geoff.0 -
Hey, please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put anyone down, just suggesting that there should be able to be a bit of leeway in this, without us tearing each other to bits. Both sides have valid points, but I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Personally, if I found such a car as the Jet in question, I would have no problem with transplanting whatever was needed into it to bring it back from the dead.
But then again, in this country all cars have to be certified. My own '29 has on it's I.D. sticker "assembled out of components of several identical vehicles". End of story. Please lighten up guys.
Geoff.0 -
This is beginning to remind me of wht we've seen in decoy collecting. There was a time when a fellow came in with a decoy missing a bill, and wanted to know if it could be repaired. Then it was a missing head, can it be fixed? Now they come in with a bill- and ask if you can restore the decoy. The rarer it is, the more its wanted.
At some point it's no longer a repair or a restoration.
Walt-LA0 -
I am all for using another car and transferring the parts to it. Let's face it, this car is one of one. If you were to buy a Jet and cut the top off and fabricate a top for it and call it a rare convertible, that's fraud. This car has many one of a kind pieces that don't have to be fabricated, they are pre existing. Personally, I don't see the difference between welding 85% of new metal to a body or putting 15% of the parts on another car. The bottom line is this- save the car by ANY means necessary!0
-
Guess I have been putting bogus parts into hudson engines, TRW, Clevite, Egge, Dale Cooper parts, etc.--not using original hudson internal parts. Probably will have several warrants for my arrest. After all the taxes I've paid through the years, the state can feed me for a while.0
-
I don't think any of us here are disbuting the fact that if you take vin off of a car and put it on another car with the intent to deceive someone that this is fraud. In this case no one here said to transfer over the vin and call it the same car and lie about it. My point is that when doing a complete and documented restoration it is a valid practice to use a donor car. Say you can save the cowl the firewall the forward door frame where the vin is attached and you fabricate and splice donor parts in. In my mind you have restored the car. Also I think this car being a one off and us all being Hud crazy the person who restored this and tried to sell this without the real story of its history getting out would have to ship to somewhere a Hudnut could not find out about the sale and put the buyer right.
I also don't think that patrick and I have been doing anything other than having a spirited debate. I don't see anything wrong with that no one is throwing oil cans.... LOL0 -
Ain't this fun???!!!0
-
7XPacemaker wrote:Personally, I don't see the difference between welding 85% of new metal to a body or putting 15% of the parts on another car. The bottom line is this- save the car by ANY means necessary!
Ummmm. Let' me see if I understand. You get my lungs and heart and a few more parts.... now I'm you?
Hope my chilluns' don't think so.
Walt-LA0 -
Actually, this is a pretty good debate. While I cannot see what the big deal is about restoring this jet, via a cowl swap, or whatever, it would however, be a bit "fraudulent" to just swap the prototype parts, and vin numbers, and pass it off. I think the happiest agreement here would be to salvage as much of the original structure to still consider it a product of it's original creation.
This might not be as easily accomplished, when all things considered, this car might very well be so far gone, that the options left are limited. I think there is some confusion about what happens with hudson owners and what happens with owners of super high dollar cars such as hemi cuda's and LS6 chevelles, and even 57 chevy convertibles. Wasn't there a problem with the documentation on the hemi cuda convertible at Barrett Jackson last year or whenever? hmmm....
The biggest problem with fraud facing the hobby is not whether someone saves a convertible by transplanting a convertible cowl and rear section on a 4 door structure. What really is troubling, is the fact is you can make anything correct and numbers matching without much problem. If you find a correct date coded block, you can have it re-stamped with the proper number, even if the original block long past had a rod thru it, and was scrapped.
You can also buy all of the parts to convert your 4 door sedan 57 chevy into a convertible, complete with vin and correct body plate. Want a red one? no problem.
Still comparing this jet to a hemicuda is like comparing apples to oranges. The jet is appealing to a limited market, whereas the hemicuda has appeal to a ton of car collectors. Regardless of how you feel, the jet needs restored. I can only hope that whoever does it, does a nice job, preserves it for the future, and tries to maintain some of the original structure.
But, let's face it. I bet a lot of the hudson convertibles out there are not all they seem, but is it really a bad thing, if one more is saved? Personally, if I had an average hollywood, you bet I would be looking for a rough convertible for a cowl, top assembly, and a rear section. Best thing you can do to a hollywood. (just kidding guys!)0 -
For a bunch of guys who profess not to care about Jets, you sure are raising a lot of ruckus. And, we don't need no stinking statutes...0
-
Now if you had some club members with time, skills, and ability to get some other folks (or businesses) to "donate" some donor car pieces (and maybe some new items) or services.......maybe they could put together a restoration (probably not Barrett Jackson, but still good), sell raffle tickets to raise money for the club or give the cash to a good national non-religious charity (like a Children's charity).
Just a thought............or spray paint it, load it with explosives, then film it blowing up and sell the film to Hollywood to use in some action flick (you know, like The Beverly Hillbillies meet the Terminator)! (I know...kind of sick, huh?) lol
Jay0 -
51hornetA wrote:Patrick,
I cannot see where you are coming from on this. It cannot be fraud if you completely document what you are doing. I have seen cars win concours that have had every single body part and interior piece remanufactured by hand. I know that the AACA is ok with this practice if the restoration is documented and you can prove the paperwork and provenance of the car is legit. This type of reconstruction is done all the time. I have seen wooden framed cars where every frame piece was replaced every body panel was hand built to replace the rotten ones and nothing happens to the value.
When you are finished you do not have the original car that rolled off the factory floor you may not have the exact metal but you have a Hudson Jet convertible with the correct vin plate and the correct look of the original.
It is only fraud when you do this work and lie about it. Arguing its not the same car because its not the exact car with no repairs does not hold up unless it is a pure symantical argument saying its not the same because donor parts were used. And yes alot need to be used but I have seen worst brought back with full documentation of the restorations and no one has questioned those.
51hornetA, you could not possibly be more correct. Patrick, and others who think this may be fraudulent, you'd better take another look at that photo. You have no platform upon which to restore it! Are you going to actually cut pieces of the frame and body out only where the rust is and weld in new pieces from another Jet? It looks like the frame itself is bowed right in the middle! Do you know how badly the structural integrity of the metal will be compromised? You will wind up with a car that is extremely unsafe to drive and will serve no other purpose except to gather dust and cobwebs in a museum. As 51hornetA said, it's not fraud if you document everything and tell the truth. At some car shows, some guys display their restoration photo albums documenting every little thing they did to turn their basket case into a show winner. It's a matter of pride that they had to replace everything and rebuild an entire car from parts from other cars.
There used to be a guy up at the Iola Car Show right near the tower that would have a different rare basket case for sale every year that that looked like it came from the bottom of a lake or the bottom car out of a junkyard pile. They looked very much like this car in the photo. This fella became known by the catch phrase disclaimer that was always at the end of the description on his "For Sale" sign:
"WIMPS NEED NOT APPLY"
0 -
It's not murder if you confess and admit to the crime, I guess, using that reasoning. The original platform is too far gone to be done, therefore the parts would have to be transferred to a donor coupe. This in no way can be considered the prototype. It is prototype parts used on another car, period. To transfer numberss to this car is fraud. To build another convertible usiing these parts as Hudson would have built it, using the coupe numbers, is OK, so long as the result is not passed off as the prototype. The goal is to "save" what can be saved. But, if the original is too far gone, it is just that, gone. It only exists once. Hudson isn't around to build another. Use the parts, build another from a coupe, but present it as a duplicate of the prototype using those one=-off parts. The result is NOT the prototype, any way you slice it.
Like the NZ example, he built a car from four others, and used the numbers off of one of them. The car is none of them, in actuality. This convertible replica would be the original and a new coupe platform combined, but it is the coupe, not the ragtop. Again, what is so difficult to grasp about this? My Hemi car example remains valid. Would I take a rusted Hemi car shell, take those Hemi parts and numbers and tranfer them to a 318 donor car and have a legitimate Hemi car??? Of course not. The same thing applies to the Jet. Transferring the parts and numbers to a coupe donor car does NOT make the original prototype. To pass it off as the prototype (complete with numbers) is fraud, no matter how "honest" you are or how benign your intentions. A future owner may not be as altruistic. On the other hand, to say the "restored" car is a converted coupe, built to the same specs as the prototype, based off parts salvaged from the unrestorable original convertible, and NOT transferring numbers, is not fraud. It really IS that simple.0 -
so where does the word clone come in? i know of a car that was sold as a gto when it was born as a tempest. the new owner proudly drives his gto not knowing it isn't. a lot of people now will say gto clone or jet conv. clone. i know a guy who paid $33000 for a 23,000 orginal mile 1957 nomad took it to a points show found out the original motor wasn't in it boy was he pissed.0
-
66pat66, you are correct and no one here can question your reasoning. Those who agree, or disagree, with you have valid points and won't change their mind or your, or mine.
It has been an interesting debate.
Anyone here familiar with the Trojan 10.8 meter convertible? Also interested in the 12 M convertible.
Have a nice day
Steve0 -
The word "clone" (and its new iterations "tribute" and "dedication") come from taking that LeMans and building a GTO in appearance and options, with NO numbers-swapping. A real Hemicuda is six and seven figures. A "clone", preperly done in appearance, will bring six figures, for the right car (look at B-J and see what the clones sold for vs. the originals). An original LS6 Chevelle or a 440+6 Challenger are cars I'd probably not take on the streets these days, especially with the high numbers of uninsured/under-insured drivers, plus they are not replaceable. A clone can be built from a 307 Chevelle or a 318 Challenger and enjoyed, since there were far more of those built than the performance versions.
Original engines may or may not make a difference; depends on the car and the potential buyer pool. In cars without the original engine and the disposition of the original engine is known (warranty replacement, blown up, etc), the value may be relatively unaffected. Especially if the replacement engine's casting date is before the build date of the car itself ("numbers-matching", but w/o the original engine)0 -
66patrick66,
Unless you know every detail of every car that ever hits the auction block, guess what? Anything can be "fudged". Need the correct numbered block for your LS6 chevelle? No problem. All you need to do is find the correct date code block, and the number can be re-stamped. Same goes for any other high dollar car out there. If you are putting a price tag on numbers, and originality, chance are, you're going to get duped by someone. There are too many people out there that can re-create anything you want, without regard to the long term effects. Just because a car goes thru B-J is not indicative of it's originality. There are cars out there fooling even the best of the best, on a daily basis.
I bet half of the high dollar cars you continually reference here, that are in fact thought of as bona fide, are not numbers matching original cars that you would hope they are.
Plain and simple, this arguement that has been going on for several days is easily solved. Think about this....
You are trying to apply a model of thought and process from another faction of car collecting that does not apply to this group. Hudson people plain and simple don't care if they have a hornet motor in a 48 super six, or put twin h on a 51. Also, for the concensus of opinion expressed so far, it seems to be of little concern as to whether someone rebodies the jet convertible onto a coupe jet platform and passes it off as original. Seems that you are bothered by this fact, and no one else really seems to care. What does this tell you about your argument? What it tells me is that you can post until your fingers are bloody pulps, and no one really will change their opinion.
I'll admit, you raise a lot of valid points, but what it all boils down to is that the arguement you submit for hemicudas and LS-6 chevelles, is fine for cars in that classification, but really doesn't apply to hudsons, and likely never will. The owners here are more concerned with preservation at whatever it might ultimately take, not saying well, that convertible is too rusty to save, guess we'll call in the scrap dealer and have it hauled away for recycling, sinc eit would be wrong to cut up a 4 door to save a far more rare and valuable car.
Just seems to me you are trying to apples and oranges, were no one really cares if they get an apple or orange.
Good luck with your postings. Seems to be going well for you.....0 -
Almost 60 responses, I'd say "yes". But, you can't have one mode of thought concerning clones, etc. with one type of car versus another, and both be right. A clone is a clone, a fake is a fake. Is any car really "original??? Once you've added air to the tires or gas from a pump outside the plant, it's not 100% "original" if you really want to get absurd.
Build the car, whomever gets it. Build it so it's the best Jet convertible on the planet. Just don't call it the prototype. It's not. It's a recreation/representation of what the prototype WAS when Hudson built it. There is nothing left of the original to restore.
End of story.0 -
66patrick66 wrote:Build the car, whomever gets it. Build it so it's the best Jet convertible on the planet.
and I would say this is where I can agree with you, in terms of finished product...0 -
I don't particularly care for the JET either way. If it were mine I would scrap it.
Bob0
![[Deleted User]](https://openforum.hetclub.org/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- 37K All Categories
- 106 Hudson 1916 - 1929
- 19 Upcoming Events
- 91 Essex Super 6
- 28.6K HUDSON
- 561 "How To" - Skills, mechanical and other wise
- 993 Street Rods
- 150 American Motors
- 174 The Flathead Forum
- 49 Manuals, etc,.
- 78 Hudson 8
- 44 FORUM - Instructions and Tips on using the forum
- 2.8K CLASSIFIEDS
- 600 Vehicles
- 2.1K Parts & Pieces
- 77 Literature & Memorabilia
- Hudson 1916 - 1929 Yahoo Groups Archived Photos