Is this a doctored comm plate?

[Ozbrowns]

is it me or is this a U.S. plate that has been amended from Mimosa to Jasmine?

 

We have been offered this car as a solid restoration as an original Lhd jasmine car.

 

Your thoughts please.

[Ozbrowns]

Perhaps we could start a new sticky post along the lines of a "rogues gallery" for people that find tr's that are a total shame and help others by warning people off of really bad vehicles nowhere near as described.

[Ozbrowns]

Here we are

[grumpy2]

Is there supposed to be a picture on post 1?

 

Ready your thread about travelling to see a car 1000km away. That must have cost a fair bit in wasted fuel time and hotel bill.

 

I guess you either have to accept time and money wasters until you find the car you want or lower your standards to some degree and Improve what you find.

 

Either way good luck with your search

[Steve R]

It's a different font so I would say yes, but when was it done, and for what purpose? stuff happens to cars over the years and if the car itself is a good project and a decent price would it be a deal breaker?

Steve

[Don H.]

Perhaps we could start a new sticky post along the lines of a "rogues gallery" for people that find tr's that are a total shame and help others by warning people off of really bad vehicles nowhere near as described.

The image is squeezed and hard to see in detail on my iPad.

 

I'd have a tough time putting this into a rogue's gallery or using words like "total shame" and "nowhere near as described" for a color change. There's SO much more that makes a good car than the color. Misrepresenting a car's history should be a turnoff against that seller, but not necessarily against that car.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Don H.

[Denis]

Font looks ok to me...Mimosa was code 64, I cant see upward tail of the '6' thru the 3 but the photo isn't as clear as you studying it with a magnifying glass.

 

Doesn't the Heritage Centre keep colour codes with the chassis numbers?

[Alec Pringle]

" Perhaps we could start a new sticky post along the lines of a "rogues gallery" for people that find tr's that are a total shame and help others by warning people off of really bad vehicles nowhere near as described. "

 

Interesting idea, but a non-starter for ten, I'd reckon . . . . . .

 

Anyone offering and publishing a view of a particular car, be that view favourable or adverse, has to be confident both of his or her opinions and of any factual observations he might choose to make.

 

He or she might, after all, find a court appearance for libel ensuing and the necessity to defend whatever has been published.

 

The vast majority of TR owners are quite simply not sufficiently competent to make a balanced judgement of a car for sale.

 

The minority who are competent would, I suggest, probably be a good deal more reserved in their comments, and not given to terms like 'rogue's gallery', 'total shame' or 'really bad' . . . . . at least not in public, although of course they might make such comment privately.

 

Caveat emptor rules OK, and it really is down to the buyer to ask all the right questions and seek all the necessary photographic evidence, and then do any necessary research, before undertaking long haul trips to view a car. I'd suggest most of us learned that lesson the hard way at some past stage ?

 

And let's not forget, we are talking of cars 40+ years old, many of which will have been rebuilt 2 or 3 or 4 times by now.

 

From the entire world wide sale of 95K or thereabouts TR6s, I'd be surprised to find as many as 95 genuinely original and unmolested cars scattered around the planet. The one in a thousand pukka survivors will command a premium price and rarely even change hands, let alone appear on the open market.

 

Cheers

 

Alec

[Ozbrowns]

 

" Perhaps we could start a new sticky post along the lines of a "rogues gallery" for people that find tr's that are a total shame and help others by warning people off of really bad vehicles nowhere near as described. "

 

Interesting idea, but a non-starter for ten, I'd reckon . . . . . .

 

Anyone offering and publishing a view of a particular car, be that view favourable or adverse, has to be confident both of his or her opinions and of any factual observations he might choose to make.

 

He or she might, after all, find a court appearance for libel ensuing and the necessity to defend whatever has been published.

 

The vast majority of TR owners are quite simply not sufficiently competent to make a balanced judgement of a car for sale.

 

The minority who are competent would, I suggest, probably be a good deal more reserved in their comments, and not given to terms like 'rogue's gallery', 'total shame' or 'really bad' . . . . . at least not in public, although of course they might make such comment privately.

 

Caveat emptor rules OK, and it really is down to the buyer to ask all the right questions and seek all the necessary photographic evidence, and then do any necessary research, before undertaking long haul trips to view a car. I'd suggest most of us learned that lesson the hard way at some past stage ?

 

And let's not forget, we are talking of cars 40+ years old, many of which will have been rebuilt 2 or 3 or 4 times by now.

 

From the entire world wide sale of 95K or thereabouts TR6s, I'd be surprised to find as many as 95 genuinely original and unmolested cars scattered around the planet. The one in a thousand pukka survivors will command a premium price and rarely even change hands, let alone appear on the open market.

 

Cheers

 

Alec

 

Hi Alec,

 

So why not have a “buyer aware” section.

 

A forum for really bad cars I feel would be a great idea and would save a lot of people’s time and money. Would this not also help values of cars that are genuine good vehicles?

 

I am not talking of cars that have been modified or re-sprayed a different colour etc. I am talking about vehicles that are very badly repaired or restored to a very low standard and are being advertised as a very different vehicle.

 

Is the saying Caveat emptor really the minimum warning we could give when buying a TR, bearing in mind the technology we have nowadays. It’s all well and good given a buyer’s guide and things to look for but when people see a real shocker of a car why not put it on this forum? With every phone having a camera, surely any unlikely claims could be proven.

 

As an example Alec,

 

If someone said you like wearing Ladies underwear when no one else is around or only when typing on this forum and they had a photograph to prove it, it would not be Libelous.

 

As long as a claims substance can be established then there are no legal issues.

 

 

In my mind a seller:

 

“Should ensure they do not deliberately mis-describe the car or mislead the buyer in any way”

 

However what about the duty of disclosure? If i ask direct questions to a seller and have not been given the answers what then?

 

I ask for photos and these are subsequently camera shopped or very old photos what do I do then?

 

The Car I went to see in Sydney was not as described, I was sent photos that where clearly from a long time ago. I had asked for more photos and close ups of certain areas prior to leaving Brisbane and was told by the seller that “unable to take more photos due to being unwell”

 

When I met the owner who looked perfectly sprightly to us, my Wife and i asked for clarification regarding the very badly repaired accident damage at the front of the vehicle.

He responded “this is boys talk” and ushered me away from my wife and told me this had happened years ago when he was “looking at ladies on the sidewalk on a summer’s day” and had not noticed the stationary traffic ahead.

 

The attitude of the sellers approach to selling a car frankly stunned me.

 

The overall condition of the car was truly shocking from inner front wings pulling away to dark brown coolant and the Marmite consistency oil that covered the springs under the rocker cover. Unbelievably it actually started, although I did not drive it. On the way down I had discussed with my Wife in a brief break from the longest game of I-Spy, that if the car was roadworthy I could perhaps look at driving it back. Hilarious!

 

We were already numb from such a long drive and to add insult to injury when I said to the seller that we would now have to find a hotel for the night after the wasted journey, he calmly offered us an option of renting a room in his house.

I asked my Wife if I could give him one, just one, but she ushered me back into our car.

Don’t worry I wouldn’t have followed through, I’m asthmatic !

 

Thanks for all the relative advice from members on this site; I only wish I had the chance to look for points that were mentioned. Hopefully I will be able to use this knowledge at a later date.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Ozbrowns

[saffrontr]

_{The plate looks absolutely genuine to me, there being no difference in font or style to the hundreds of others for the 1970 USA specification TR6 that I have on file. Shame that you had to travel so far to find out that the rest of the car was not as described. Incidentally Code 17 is Damson and that looks to be the colour in the background of the plate.}

 

_{For correctness Alec's number for TR6 built should be 91850 and not the 95K that gets banded around in articles in the press.}

 

_cheers

 

_Derek

Edited June 1, 2015 by saffrontr

[TR5tar]

 

Hi Alec,

 

So why not have a “buyer aware” section.

 

A forum for really bad cars I feel would be a great idea and would save a lot of people’s time and money. Would this not also help values of cars that are genuine good vehicles?

 

I am not talking of cars that have been modified or re-sprayed a different colour etc. I am talking about vehicles that are very badly repaired or restored to a very low standard and are being advertised as a very different vehicle.

 

Is the saying Caveat emptor really the minimum warning we could give when buying a TR, bearing in mind the technology we have nowadays. It’s all well and good given a buyer’s guide and things to look for but when people see a real shocker of a car why not put it on this forum? With every phone having a camera, surely any unlikely claims could be proven.

 

As an example:

 

If someone said you like wearing Ladies underwear when no one else is around or only when typing on this forum and they had a photograph to prove it, it would not be Libelous.

 

As long as a claims substance can be established then there are no legal issues.

 

 

In my mind a seller:

 

“Should ensure they do not deliberately mis-describe the car or mislead the buyer in any way”

 

However what about the duty of disclosure? If i ask direct questions to a seller and have not been given the answers what then?

 

I ask for photos and these are subsequently camera shopped or very old photos what do I do then?

 

The Car I went to see in Sydney was not as described, I was sent photos that where clearly from a long time ago. I had asked for more photos and close ups of certain areas prior to leaving Brisbane and was told by the seller that “unable to take more photos due to being unwell”

 

When I met the owner who looked perfectly sprightly to us, my Wife and i asked for clarification regarding the very badly repaired accident damage at the front of the vehicle.

He responded “this is boys talk” and ushered me away from my wife and told me this had happened years ago when he was “looking at ladies on the sidewalk on a summer’s day” and had not noticed the stationary traffic ahead.

 

The attitude of the sellers approach to selling a car frankly stunned me.

 

The overall condition of the car was truly shocking from inner front wings pulling away to dark brown coolant and the Marmite consistency oil that covered the springs under the rocker cover. Unbelievably it actually started, although I did not drive it. On the way down I had discussed with my Wife in a brief break from the longest game of I-Spy, that if the car was roadworthy I could perhaps look at driving it back. Hilarious!

 

We were already numb from such a long drive and to add insult to injury when I said to the seller that we would now have to find a hotel for the night after the wasted journey, he calmly offered us an option of renting a room in his house.

 

I asked my Wife if I could give him one, just one, but she ushered me back into our car.

 

Thanks for all the relative advice from members on this site; I only wish I had the chance to look for points that were mentioned. Hopefully I will be able to use this knowledge at a later date.

 

Hi,

 

I was sorry to hear that you had such a long and wasted trip. When I was searching for my TR I saw and drove several that were not what I was looking for, but living in the UK at least I didn't need to travel 1000s of miles to be disappointed.

 

I can see why you'd want a "Rogues Gallery" or "Buyer Beware" section, but I also think it would be problematic. After all, it's not really cars that are rogues, it is the people that mislead potential buyers. Thing is, one man's "really bad" car, is a another man's easy to fix project. In time, after looking at some duds (as far as I was concerned), I learnt to do a lot more initial research, before heading out to view and if there was anything that seemed a little off, I didn't bother (which was probably why it took me over a year to find mine). In particular, I'd say that if people cannot supply you with all the pictures you want, for whatever reason they give, then walk away. As you say, phones have cameras these days, so there's no genuine reason why people can't send pictures. Of course, if someone is really intent on misleading you, then they can do it and it would be very difficult to stop.

 

I suppose if you feel strongly that a car has been misrepresented, you could take it on your self to post details of the seller in say the TR6 section, but would you really be comfortable doing that? Also, I suspect the moderators would soon remove the post, as it would be too risky for the club.

 

Hope you have better luck with the next one you look at.

 

Darren

Edited June 1, 2015 by TR5tar

[mikeyb]

from what I can see of the plate, it would appear that the original colour stamping has been flattened - hence the circle round the current number which my then have been overstamped!

[Ozbrowns]

I also noticed a metal difference around the paint code 34/64 due to heating maybe. If you also look closely on the commission plate there is some remnants of a paint at the bottom and by the L. Looks like mimosa to me

 

Maybe this was the second repaint before the jasmin repaint, which I'm guessing is the case to enhance its restoration value and move away from a more common colour.

 

I have applied to the heritage museum for a key numbers enquiry and will post as soon as I have.

 

Attached below are more photos I have been sent.

 

 

 

image.jpg

image.jpg

I also noticed a metal difference around the paint code 34/64 due to heating maybe. If you also look closely on the commission plate there is some remnants of a paint at the bottom and by the L. Looks like mimosa to me

 

Maybe this was the second repaint before the jasmin repaint, which I'm guessing is the case to enhance its restoration value and move away from a more common colour.

 

I have applied to the heritage museum for a key numbers enquiry and will post as soon as I have.

 

Attached below are more photos I have been sent.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2015 by Ozbrowns

[CONCRETE24]

Hi,

 

My observation would be that it is a 1970 car (if I am reading the comm plate picture properly) - and Triumph did not offer Mimosa as standard until much later (1973)? Also, the remains of paint do look like Jasmin so it would have had to have previously had a bare metal respray. All in all it seems a lot of trouble to go to cover up a colour change (I don't think originality in TR6's has added much premium until recently - just my opinion) - maybe the chap in the factory made a mistake back in 1970, blanked it out and re-stamped it!? Be interesting to know what the Heritage record says anyway!

 

Good luck with your search!

Michael.

[Ozbrowns]

Heritage say paint code 14 which from what I have found is jonquil yellow.

 

I did not think this was a tr6 colour.

[peejay4A]

14 is not a TR6 paint code as far as my list goes.

[Tom Boyd]

Jonquil yellow was deleted in 1967, was not applied to a TR as far as i know..

 

Tom

[stuart]

TBH what does it matter what colour as its obviously stripped out now ready for resto and from the looks of it thats a pretty good shell which is what you really need. If the price is right paint it what colour you like.

Stuart.