Tucker convertible a no sale

- January 30th, 2010

Tucker convertible-2
1948 Tucker convertible, as completed by Benchmark Classics.

I guess that was Tucker … not sucker.
One of the most controversial collector cars of all time failed to sell at Russo and Steele’s classic car auction in Scottsdale, Ariz. on Jan. 24. Bidding got up to $1.4 million but failed to match the reserve price.
The owner had hoped to realize $3.5 million for the car, billed as the only 1948 Tucker convertible.
Adding to the drama, the sale occurred a day later than planned because of a vicious thunderstorm which ripped across Scottsdale on Jan 22, blowing down Russo and Steele’s 800-foot tents, damaging some 300 of the collector cars awaiting auction, and sending one tent flying across a major highway, where it snarled traffic for hours.
Slightly damaged, the Tucker was left in the sale, although hundreds of others were withdrawn. It now has a large dent in the left front fender, according to Russo and Steele owner Drew Alcazar, “as if someone leaned on it.”
The car was being auctioned by owner Justin Cole, whose restoration shop in Madison Wis. – Benchmark Classics – completed work on the convertible in the past year. It bears serial No. 57 and has less than two test miles on the odometer.
At question is the car’s provenance. Cole says it was a prototype convertible left unfinished when the Tucker Corporation’s assembly plant closed on March 3, 1949.
Cole says the car’s code name at the Tucker works was “Vera” – after Tucker’s wife, and was to be a special gift for her. But family friends are on record as saying Vera hated convertibles.
The Tucker Automobile Club of America, Inc. (TACA), which houses the company’s records in a museum in Michigan, has this to say in a statement on its website:
“While TACA is certainly not ready to completely dismiss the possibility that a Tucker convertible could have been built by the Tucker Corporation, we have never discovered nor been presented with sufficient evidence to prove such a car was planned for or started at the factory.
“TACA recognizes that this vehicle appears to have been built using many authentic Tucker parts, such as an engine, some body panels, etc. It may well represent, as a tribute car, what a Tucker convertible would have looked like had one been produced by the Tucker Corporation.
“This vehicle has never been presented to TACA for a comprehensive review per our certification / authentication process, nor has the seller responded to our request seeking the engine serial number and data plate information. TACA has insufficient evidence to otherwise authenticate this vehicle as being a genuine attempt by the Tucker Corporation to produce a convertible model or concept.”
“There never was a convertible,” Tucker’s daughter-in-law, Shirley Tucker, 82, of Scottsdale told the Arizona Republic. “All the cars were the same, just different colors.”
Her husband had worked with his father before trouble with the Securities Exchange Commission resulted in fraud charges against Preston Tucker (he was found not guilty) and the seizure of all assets. Thirty-six cars were completed in the Chicago factory before that happened and another 14 were finished afterwards using Tucker parts.
Counting the prototype Tucker – nicknamed “Tin Goose” – 51 sedans were completed and 47 of them survive – many in museums around the world.
Much interest in the car, with its flat six helicopter engine mounted in the rear and its trademark Cyclops eye, was stirred after Francis Ford Coppola’s 1988 film “Tucker: The Man and his Dream.” The movie romanticized the man and the car, suggesting the big American automakers conspired to kill it because it posed a threat to their business.
Many critics scoff at that, too.
But the movie revived interest in upstart independent marque and the last Tucker sedan sold at auction – at RM Auctions’ Monterey event in 2009 – brought $1,000,017, including buyer’s premium.
At almost $400,000 above that, perhaps Mr. Cole should have taken the money and run.

Write to Glen at glenwoodcock@canoemail.com

14 comments

  1. Berkly says:

    I don’t always let my wife know what’s going on, especially when it concerns what went on at work. That’s a man thing. Maybe Preston didn’t want her to know everything because it was a secrtet that only a few would be privy to. Women love to gossip and even though I love my wife I wouldn’t be foolish enough to let her blab it about. That would be especially true, if I was trying to get something up on my competition, the Big Three and spending that kind of money to get a new model or convertible out.

  2. JON K. says:

    Did you read recently on the internet where the Tucker Club is involved in a broil with their own members over some suspicios dealings of chiefs of the Tucker Club. Looks like some real storm clouds for those chiefys who seem to be hiding some needed answers for their members.. You can go online and seach under heading, “TUCKER TOPICS”. Drop down to the sub-heading, “I learned everthing I needed to know in kindergarden” for Sept., 25, 2011. If this is true, can we believe what they say about anything, even the convertible

  3. Milton says:

    Maybe have to wait and see what the Tucker Club has to say response to the Club member’s serious claims. It will interesting to see what they say!

  4. Nelson Wren says:

    I love the the Tucker convertible. The Tucker club focuses on the bad side of elements of most any subject. They like to throw the baby out with the bath water. It would be best if they focused on the positive side; that being this:that this is the only Tucker that had the only rear wrap around window of all the Tuckers and the only 49 prototype as evidenced by designer Tremulis who said #1057 was pulled out of the assembly line to do so. Not to do so , only reflects on them and puts them in a bad light.

  5. Barry Forsyth says:

    Oh, yes given in the last days of the Tucker Corporation that there was ultimate chaos. The first one I’m going to run out and tell about the Tucker convertible project, is my daughter in law. especially, just since the project had gone from Tucker sedan to Tucker convertible in the matter of a few days. Since the roof could be cut off and moved into a project into a matter of days, family is always first to know , you know (tongue in cheek). They said Preston was trying to show at he S.E.C. trial that he had cars already made and produced (that’s why he had many Tuckers parked around the courthouse) and it appears he was already starting the 1949 model prototype #1057 (pulled out of the assembly line by designer Temulis for this purpose) with the rear wrap around window as evidenced by the 1950 Life Magazine photo. Preston hadn’t damn well finished the first planned 100 Tuckers for the year 1948. They only got 58 bodies produced, before closed down by the Feds. But if they were planning for 100 cars for the 1948 run and then they started the 1949 project midstream, someone was in a hurry to get things rolling. He probably took the 1949 prototype, realizing time was short, went the extra step and cut the roof off to show the world (the S.E.C. and the bad press) that he meant business “with an all out show” that he was even putting a convertible into the mix as a bold statement! Why take a small step with just a rear wrap around window 1949 model and maybe take an even bolder step and cut the whole damn roof off to show the S.E.C. that he was in for the long haul, with even new models on the way, as to none other than a convertible. Remember, the S.E.C. was trying to say that Tucker didn’t really have the intent to manufacture cars, but was just out to defraud investors. His delerships were threatening to sue also. Preston was on the hook to show and prove that he was “really intending” to produce cars (again, the show of Tuckers parked around the courthouse). What better way to show you that you meant business that to showcase a “convertible model” that would take the courts breath away and take the heat off the idea, that he didn’t intend to really produce cars. He already had sketches of a convertible on the drawing board by designers earlier in the game. Preston was desparate! Desparate situations require desparate measures and when you’re in that frame of mind, you don’t always look at the logistics, you just need to meet the need! It’s not always rational, just relative! Relative to solving his desparate problem!

  6. Kenneth says:

    The TACA said that Preston Tucker’s daughter in law, Shirley Tucker, said, ‘there never was a convertible” I’ll bet she also said there never was a 1949 Tucker protoptype #1057 that had a rear wrap around window, even though there was in fact one. I’ll bet you10 to 1, that she isn’t even aware of that fact either. I might even think she might not be aware of alot of insider Tucker info. It would be interesting to know her response. If she doesn’t know about the rear wrap around rear window car #1057, then I’m sure Shirley didn’t know about convertible either. I think she could lhave been led into answering a loaded question.

  7. Melvin S. says:

    I agree! Since no one knew what the 1049 Tucker Prototype #1057 looked like until 2008 when Life Magazine released their 1950 photos out of their archives, did anyone know what it looked like with the “rear wrap around window opening” The Tucker Club certainly didn’t know what it looked like with all the thousands and thousands of documents they claim to have. Even Alex Tremulis didn’t say what it looked like, although he said #1057 had been pulled out of the assembly line to become the 49 Prototype.That is really odd! Maybe, someone took over the project from him and that’s why he didn’t know or at least explain it in more detail. He could have lost touch with the project in the waining days of the confused atmosphere of the going down of the Tucker Corporation, which is understandable. So I said all that to say this, I don’t think Shirley Tucker probably knew that there was even a 1949 Tucker prototype with the “wrap around window opening” especially prior to the 2008 Lfe Magazine photo. If that is true, I think it would be safe to say, she didn’t know about the convertible project either! That mentioned given the passed time element of the event and that of the responent, I would question the validity of her statement.

  8. Rudolf The Red says:

    All I want for Christmas is the Blue Tucker Convertible under my tree, gift wrapped with tag attached from Santa saying, “To Rudolf: I always knew you wanted a new sleigh so bright, so here is your Tucker convertible to your delight!” Then all the other reindeer loved him and shouted out with glee! Let’s all go for a ride, so we can all say weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!! Alright!!! And so off they went, into the frosty, well lit, full moon night!!!

    Merry Chistmas To All And All A Good Night!
    Remember the real “LIGHT” that made the world! so bright!
    Rudie

  9. Rudolf The Red says:

    Oh yes, with the “Cyclops Eye” leading the sight!!!! Without it, it would be frightful!!

  10. Terence P. says:

    Does anyone know where the convertible is now? I heard it had been sold, but does anyone know who? It would nice to get an update on what’s going on, since it is an such an interesting topic car for inthused fans all over the country and even the world!

  11. Irene Matlin says:

    I don’t care where it is, for it’s rise caused the downfall of the Tucker club. Granted the club became over extended with their inflamatory statements on the car, which got out of hand, but if the Tucker convertible hadn’t never existed, then they (the club) would have been fine. I think the convertible was just to much for them to handle.

  12. Royal L. says:

    The Tucker club brought their ownselves down, for they were losing ground long before the convertible came along. Their take on the convertible only hastened it! The interplay just showed who they really were, sadly!

  13. Abel Rasmusen says:

    The Tucker Club tried to make the convertible out to be a fraud and then the club’s own members started to realize their own club had turned into a fraud. How imbicile can you be! The dog gone made chases around in every direction trying to bite someone and in the end, it bites it’s own tail. You sow what you reap!

  14. Rollo Tomasi says:

    As far as the convertible goes, the new owner has given up on the bogus story and is sticking with the ’49 prototype story. The history for body #57 from the factory to today is now well-documented and it doesn’t include anything about it ever being even considered a convertible until the 1990′s.

    The latest can be found on a few sites, but the best would be on the H.A.M.B.

Leave a comment

 characters available