Tigers List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Kent Baker <(email redacted)>

I am in the process of buying a restorable 1966 (manufacturing date)
Tiger MKIa via the original owner. The original Ohio title
says the car was sold 11/67 and it is titled as a "1967
Rootes-Tiger." I am concerned about the discrepency
between the title versus the manufacturing date.

The car doesn't appear to be re-badged, and the
VIN, JAL, tranny, rear end numbers check out.

Suggestions? The young lady at DMV in Ohio, birth date
1970, isn't sure what happened, but believes the car is
titled as a 1967 because it was manufactured in late 1966
and sold in 1967. Do I believe this story or not?

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Chris Thompson <(email redacted)>

My '66 1a is registered as a '65 Rootes Roadster. In my case the date was changed to sneak it under CA smog regulations when the PO showed the CA DMV folks Book of Norman that shoed it was manufactured in November of '65. Since it doesn't matter in VA, I tried in vain to get it retitled properly when I bought it.

As has been well documented, back in the 60's and before, cars were generally titled in the year they were purchased, not by model year, so that probably explains your '67 1a. I wouldn't worry about it. It certainly won't effect the value or TAC-ability of the car. And obviously, regardless of the title, it's still a 1a...

Chris Thompson
Executive Vice President
Recognition Research, Inc.
1750 Kraft Dr. Suite 2000
Blacksburg, VA 24060
540.961.6500
540.961.3568/fax
(email redacted)
www.rrinc.com
B382000331

-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Baker [SMTPemail redacted)]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 11:33 AM
To: (email redacted)
Subject: Title Question

I am in the process of buying a restorable 1966 (manufacturing date)
Tiger MKIa via the original owner. The original Ohio title
says the car was sold 11/67 and it is titled as a "1967
Rootes-Tiger." I am concerned about the discrepency
between the title versus the manufacturing date.

The car doesn't appear to be re-badged, and the
VIN, JAL, tranny, rear end numbers check out.

Suggestions? The young lady at DMV in Ohio, birth date
1970, isn't sure what happened, but believes the car is
titled as a 1967 because it was manufactured in late 1966
and sold in 1967. Do I believe this story or not?

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Allan Connell, Jr." <(email redacted)>

Kent,

I may be wrong, but in my experience with a number of state DMV's is that
the majority title a car in reference to the Day First Sold. For instance,
though my car was manufactured in the late spring early summer of 1965, it
was originally sold in early 1966. Accordingly, the car was registered in
California as a 1966. The PO had an "expert" write a letter and an
appraisal that stated through his research the car should actually be a
"1965 model year" and the California DMV, in their infinite wisdom, agreed
to the change.

Allan
1965 Tiger (at least it is now)

-----Original Message-----
From: (email redacted) [mailtoemail redacted)]On
Behalf Of Kent Baker
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 8:33 AM
To: (email redacted)
Subject: Title Question

I am in the process of buying a restorable 1966 (manufacturing date)
Tiger MKIa via the original owner. The original Ohio title
says the car was sold 11/67 and it is titled as a "1967
Rootes-Tiger." I am concerned about the discrepency
between the title versus the manufacturing date.

The car doesn't appear to be re-badged, and the
VIN, JAL, tranny, rear end numbers check out.

Suggestions? The young lady at DMV in Ohio, birth date
1970, isn't sure what happened, but believes the car is
titled as a 1967 because it was manufactured in late 1966
and sold in 1967. Do I believe this story or not?

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

Yup, believe her, it's probably very true. I had the exact same problem with
a 1A. I didn't argue with them. I let them register it as a 1967 when we
all know it isn't.

In addition, the original motor vehicle dept. listed it as a "Rootes."
Actually didn't have room on the blank and so listed it as a "Root." Ever
try and explain to the uninformed that it's really a Sunbeam when they've
never heard of it?

Needless to say, I'm driving a 1967 Root

Mark L.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Steve Laifman <(email redacted)>

Kent Baker wrote:

> The young lady at DMV in Ohio, birth date
> 1970, isn't sure what happened, but believes the car is
> titled as a 1967 because it was manufactured in late 1966
> and sold in 1967. Do I believe this story or not?

Kent,

Can't answer for Ohio, but here, in California (Inventor of the Damned Motor
Vehicle Department) the car is registered based upon the model year of the car,
not the manufacture date. In the past, all American automobile companies used to
"introduce" their new arrangement of chrome strips in the same month, if not
week, They would make a big deal of 'suspense' advertising, with cars covered
with a sheet. They were delivered to the dealer a week before introduction, all
wrapped like a mummy. The dealer would even soap up his windows.

Announcement Day was a BFD, with a Grand Showing of the 'New Model'. This
happened in late fall, and became the official date of the new model year.

Foreign cars had it tougher. First, they didn't actually have an annual 'new car
release' date. They just introduced them as they saw fit. Sometimes they would
accumulate some changes for year end, but mostly just changed as the new parts
arrived. The problem was that there was up to three months of cross Atlantic
shipping involved between manufacture for export and arrival. So, accommodating
American marketing practices was a little difficult. They did manage to start
reserving changes for a fall release, but the cars got here in the following year.

Didn't bother the DMV. The foreign car dealers had to compete, so everything that
was sold in the 'new model year' fall introduction was considered a car of the
next year, no matter when it was made. When the 'real' changed vehicles arrived,
they too were a 'late' model year change. The Earl's Court and other foreign car
shows would spill the beans on major changes, but it was mostly introductions of
really new cars that people watched for, not chrome trim changes. The MG-TF, The
MGA, the Austin-Healy 100-4, the XK-E, The Mk II Jag, nobody held their breath for
what Morgan might do (nothing).

My car was built in Feb. '65, but was kept around the warehouse, or dealers floor,
until October, and came out registered as a '66. AT that time it meant the
difference between bi-annual smog testing, or no tests. I registered the car on
purchase, and made a case for the DMV officer with Norman's book, and xerox copies
of friends cars with later serial numbers and '65 registration. I convinced her,
and I got my registration changed.

Then the law was changed allowing cars 20 years or older to not require
inspection. Oh well, at least it is correct now.

So, unless you can show some proof of mis-registration (and take care they don't
decide to give you a State Number, your stuck with the date-of-sale tradition.

Steve



--
Steve Laifman < Find out what is most >
B9472289 < important in your life >
< and don't let it get away!>

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/_/_/_/__/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/
_/_/_/

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Steve Laifman <(email redacted)>

Chris Thompson wrote:

> As has been well documented, back in the 60's and before, cars were generally titled in the year they were purchased, not by model year, so that probably explains your '67 1a. I wouldn't worry about it. It certainly won't effect the value or TAC-ability of the car. And obviously, regardless of the title, it's still a 1a...
>
> Chris Thompson

Very good reply, Chris, a great deal shorter than my 'history chapter'. On the other hand, I believe that a 'Mk 1A' is an American invention, not a British one. There have been rolling changes to the Tiger, per Norman's 'transition Tigers' story, that illustrate the continuing changes, regardless of date. Only the Mk II, with
it's change in engine, was officially recognized as a model change.

Anyway, that's the way I understand it.

Steve

--
Steve Laifman < Find out what is most >
B9472289 < important in your life >
< and don't let it get away!>

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/_/_/_/__/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/
_/_/_/

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

In Washington State, many Sunbeams are listed as Sunta, short for Sunbeam
Talbot LTD, or Sunb. I had a license agent try to tell me my Tiger was a
Pontiac Sunbird.
Jim Leach, Seattle

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Chris Thompson <(email redacted)>

You are, of course, correct about there not really being a Mark 1a. I think this is a tradition that started post 1967, even....

Regardless, it's now known as a 1a...

However, I recall a further complication on this issue, that may be at odds with your history. The feller who used to sell Rootes in my neck of the woods says that he would get papers with the cars that would list the model year. If they still had inventory at the beginning of the next year, he would send back to England, and they would happily oblige him with new papers for his inventory, updating the model year to the current year. This was, of course, because nobody wants to buy a new car that is a year old. I think he said that all the British manufacturers (he sold MG, Triumph, and Austin-Heally at least) would be happy to oblige....

Chris Thompson
Executive Vice President
Recognition Research, Inc.
1750 Kraft Dr. Suite 2000
Blacksburg, VA 24060
540.961.6500
540.961.3568/fax
(email redacted)
www.rrinc.com
B382000331

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Laifman [SMTPemail redacted)]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 2:24 PM
To: Chris Thompson
Cc: 'Kent Baker'; (email redacted)
Subject: Re: Title Question

Chris Thompson wrote:

> As has been well documented, back in the 60's and before, cars were generally titled in the year they were purchased, not by model year, so that probably explains your '67 1a. I wouldn't worry about it. It certainly won't effect the value or TAC-ability of the car. And obviously, regardless of the title, it's still a 1a...
>
> Chris Thompson

Very good reply, Chris, a great deal shorter than my 'history chapter'. On the other hand, I believe that a 'Mk 1A' is an American invention, not a British one. There have been rolling changes to the Tiger, per Norman's 'transition Tigers' story, that illustrate the continuing changes, regardless of date. Only the Mk II, with
it's change in engine, was officially recognized as a model change.

Anyway, that's the way I understand it.

Steve

--
Steve Laifman < Find out what is most >
B9472289 < important in your life >
< and don't let it get away!>

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/_/_/_/__/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/
_/_/_/

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Colin Mills <(email redacted)>

Allan, Kent

Same in the UK. Mine was built in May 65 but first registered in early 66.
Hence it is listed on the Swiss import docs as a 1966 Mk I.

"Allan Connell, Jr." wrote:

> Kent,
>
> I may be wrong, but in my experience with a number of state DMV's is that
> the majority title a car in reference to the Day First Sold. For instance,
> though my car was manufactured in the late spring early summer of 1965, it
> was originally sold in early 1966. Accordingly, the car was registered in
> California as a 1966. The PO had an "expert" write a letter and an
> appraisal that stated through his research the car should actually be a
> "1965 model year" and the California DMV, in their infinite wisdom, agreed
> to the change.
>
> Allan
> 1965 Tiger (at least it is now)
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Pete Stanisavljevich" <(email redacted)>

Same deal here in FLA. My '65 Tiger is, according to FLA DMV title a 1966 "Roots"
"Rdstr", which I assume means a "Rootes Roadster". Funny thing is another Tiger
that I have seen is a 1966 Mk1 but reads 1966 "SunB" "Cnvt" on the title.

Guess it depends what the person processing the papers felt like doing.

(email redacted) wrote:

> Yup, believe her, it's probably very true. I had the exact same problem with
> a 1A. I didn't argue with them. I let them register it as a 1967 when we
> all know it isn't.
>
> In addition, the original motor vehicle dept. listed it as a "Rootes."
> Actually didn't have room on the blank and so listed it as a "Root." Ever
> try and explain to the uninformed that it's really a Sunbeam when they've
> never heard of it?
>
> Needless to say, I'm driving a 1967 Root
>
> Mark L.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

I know that it happened to MG's. The factory would oblige in changing
paperwork to the current model year. As I've related here before, my wife
worked at a bank that financed cars for the local MG dealer. When the US
manufacturers came out with the new models, the bank had to re-write the
paperwork for the MG's that they had financed for the dealer and change all
current invertory financed to the new model year. Mark L.