Dating a Model T

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2014: Dating a Model T
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 12:38 pm:

This subject comes up a lot, so I've made a web page to address it. See what you think. I'm open to comments and suggestions.

http://dauntlessgeezer.com/DG90.html


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Howard Sigler on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 12:57 pm:

She was hotter than a two dollar pistol, she was the fastest thing around, long and lean every young mans dream, OH! you mean the car.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dennis Seth - Ohio on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 01:02 pm:

I had to read the title a couple of times. I thought you were posting about Dating a model with nice..oh never mind.

I like the idea but isn't detailed information about dating Model T's on the MTFCA home page? I think all you do is look up the year and it lists dates and facts.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 01:19 pm:

I neglected to mention the MTFCA website version of the encyclopedia. It's less detailed than the CD version, but I've added a link to it.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 01:42 pm:

I dated a Model T for a brief time

I thought she had a heart of gold

Alas - it was made of Brass

She had a nice set of headlights though ...

And a really sweet _ ss ......



Jim


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob from Nova Scotia on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 01:55 pm:

Model ts are still cheaper than my ex wife was


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Erich Bruckner, Vancouver, WA on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 02:13 pm:

I do find myself sneeking out into the garage a lot...........


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By G.R.Cheshire on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 02:21 pm:

I thought you meant taking her out for some ethyl and an oil change!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Cascisa - Poulsbo, Washington on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 02:44 pm:

My T and I exchange body fluids quite often.

Her oil and my blood.

Be_Zero_Be


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Willie K Cordes on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 02:49 pm:

The problem on dating a T is all the changes that were done to the car over the years. The block number is great start but is it the original block, probably not. Sometime you have to go by body style, fenders, frame, axles, wheels etc. It is not always easy. 26/27 have frame numbers stamped, but before this there were no other serial number other than the block.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steven Roy on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 03:28 pm:

Where would the number be on the block?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Erich Bruckner, Vancouver, WA on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 03:29 pm:

The registration may not help either. Many times these are wrong.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Gruber- Spanaway, Wash. on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 03:35 pm:

Except for the first few years the number is just above the water inlet.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary H. White - Sheridan, MI on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 03:51 pm:

Did all '26 and '27 frames have the VIN stamped on the rail? My '27 did not. Not sure the frame is a 27 or a 26. How can one tell?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Erik Johnson on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 04:14 pm:

Suggestion:

Your list does need some correcting and editing.

In my opinion, Bruce's encyclopedia creates unnecessary confusion when listing dates by using "to" when "through" would be a more appropriate term.

Your list creates additional confusion. One example:

1916: September 1915 to July 1916. *
1917: August 1916 to August 1917.

The 1916 model year started in August 1915. Also, your list makes it appear that production ceased for one entire month in July 1916 ("to" meaning "up to but not including").

How Bruce puts it:
1916: August 1, 1915 to July 31, 1916
1917: August 1916 to August 1917

In my opinion, in both cases above it would be better stated as follows:

1916: August 1915 through July 1916
1917: August 1916 through July 1917

I would avoid using "to" and instead use "through" and include disclaimers where necessary (like the model years where there may have been some spillover).

Make sense?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jack Daron - Brownsburg IN on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 05:15 pm:

This is yet another reinvention of the wheel.Redundancy in it's finest.YMMV


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Stephen D Heatherly on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 06:38 pm:

Jack, why so negative?

Stephen


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Walker, NW AR on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 06:51 pm:

Bruce was mistaken about when 1915 model year closed cars were built. Research by Trent Boggess indicates that 1915 closed cars were produced only in December of 1914 and Jan. and Feb. of 1915. There were 976 Sedans and 1,172 Coupelets produced during that 3-month period. No 1915 model closed cars were built after Feb. of '15.

There are pictures of 1915-style Sedans and Coupelets at the Benson archives which are dated Sept. and Oct. 1914. I assume that those pictures are what led Bruce (and others) to believe that '15 closed cars were produced earlier than they actually were. These are prototype cars, not production cars, built and photographed for publicity and catalog pics. Those cars have many typical 1914 parts and other features which did not appear in the production cars.

Here are some other excerpts from the message which Trent sent me back in '08:

"There is no cost book for March 1915, but the April book lists production for both March and April 1915. No sedans or coupelets were produced in either of those months. In fact, 1915 sedan and coupelet production ends in February 1915 and does not resume until October 1915 (1 coupelet). In November 225 coupelets were produced and 1 sedan. And in December 213 coupelets and 130 sedans were made."

"Other information I found indicates that all of the 1915 style sedan and coupelet bodies were manufactured by Fisher Body Company. The bodies arrived fully painted and upholstered. All Ford had to do to them was to add the side and tail lights and brackets and bolt them onto a chassis."

"One last note of interest: there were very few open cars built in January 1915, only 110 torpedos (roadsters) and a mere 36 touring cars. Apparently the body manufacturers had difficulty forming the curved cowl that was characteristic of 1915 and later open cars. Touring production recovered in February with 5674 touring cars produced."

Many thanks to Trent for finding and sharing this information.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jack Daron - Brownsburg IN on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 07:25 pm:

Stephan,Mike's nice post above is precisely why we don't need any more "sources". All of what has been learned from the many folks who spend their own time and considerable money researching the Benson library has yet to be compiled in a central location. It would be a life's work. For some one to think he can grab info from all over the internet and throw in on a web page,and assure it is all accurate and verifiable is ludicrous. Again,JMHO,And he did ask for comments.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 09:15 pm:

Yes, I did. My thought was that this question recurs regularly, and I thought it might be helpful to have a page giving the basic information and pointing to sources for further research on the subject. But I posted the link here asking for comments/corrections because I want that basic information to be as accurate as I can manage. My intention for this page isn't to be a "source", but to help people find the sources.

Erik and Mike can go to the head of the class, because they read the assignment before writing their reports. Thanks to both of them, and to Trent, for providing helpful information and comments.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 09:40 pm:

By the way, "my" list of model years is actually Bruce's list, quoted verbatim from the encyclopedia. The only exceptions to that are the two asterisked lines for 1916 and 1920 which, as noted, I added because I didn't find those model years listed as such in the encyclopedia. I'll go back and look again.

I agree that through would be better than to, for the reason Erik stated. But I wonder what to do in the cases of overlap. Example:
1921: August 1920 to August 1921.
1922: August 1921 to September 1922.

Should I change "to August 1921" and make it "through July 1921", and apply the same change throughout the list?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 11:46 pm:

OK, here it is with changes. Any suggested corrections?

http://dauntlessgeezer.com/DG90.html


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Erik Johnson on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 11:48 pm:

My opinion is that it is a matter of semantics and stating things in a manner that minimizes confusion.

People tend to use "to" and "through" interchangeably when discussing dates. In business, when discussing finance and fiscal year-ends, I believe that "to" should be avoided. In my opinion, "to" should mean "up to but not including" and therefore is not interchangeable with "through."

Example:
In Bruce's encyclopedia,
if the 1921 model year is stated as August 1920 to August 1921
AND
the 1922 model year is stated as August 1921 to September 1922
was there an overlap of one day, August 1, 1921, for the 1921 and 1922 model years? The way I read it, the answer is no. It would be better stated as August 1920 through July 1921 (1921 being a 12 month model year) and August 1921 through August 1922 (1922 being a 13 month model year).

Regarding fiscal years, Bruce says the 1916 fiscal year was "August 1, 1915 to July 31, 1916." Does he mean the fiscal year was August 1, 1915 through July 30, 1916 or August 1, 1915 through July 31, 1916? He may have really meant to say through July 31.

If you really want to get technical, if you look at the serial number list there were periods where the Ford plant was closed from the end of one model year to the beginning of the next model year. For example, according to the encyclopedia the plant was closed July 29 to August 2, 1917. There's that word "to" again. Does that mean the plant was closed July 29 through August 1 or July 20 through August 2. "To" creates confusion. Is the last date listed included or excluded?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By George_Cherry Hill NJ on Friday, April 04, 2014 - 12:01 am:

Thanks Steve...

Mike just busted da balloon tho'...(sigh)

With that little startling revelation, guess that means that all of those 15's with serial numbers from 550,000 to maybe 630,000 will have to be struck from the roles and reassembled as'14 leftover's?

I always felt that there had to be a reason that folks joke that there are more 15's running today than Henry ever built :-):-):-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Friday, April 04, 2014 - 12:23 am:

Erik, in your example to means through, but it's August 12 actually. They reopened and produced 2134 engines on August 13 after closing down at the end of July 28.

At least my 1915 still has a serial number that puts it in the 1915 model year.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By George_Cherry Hill NJ on Friday, April 04, 2014 - 01:31 am:

Yeah Steve...me too.

Mine was actually built in '15 too...haha...but then again, it is a roadster, er-runabout, er- tar-pee-da, you know---a two-seater one door thingy...and ALL of them were built in calendar year '15.

I think the price of '14 fenders, rears, and lamps just probably doubled...but then again, the price of the same gear for a '15 ought to drop through the floor with such a new supply! Some day you bite...some days you get bitten! :-(

Next thing you know...there will be no such things as '15's at all because Ford just decided to skip that model year all-together! What we will have left by default will be re-labeled '16's, introduced really early, with all of them built at the branches because Highland was too busy trying to figure out what to do because Couzen's left. To get around the early and the late of this redefined year, the new accountant will take credit for the items that got cost reduced sometime between October and December of 1915 but no one is sure of the actual dates.

(Sorry for the diversion...back to your regular channel)


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.
Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration