54 Jet Convetible prototype

[Fred Connors]

Ken Page sent me an email of this 54 Hudson Jet Convetible prototype. It would be a major project but its for sale. One method of restoration ,due to the extent of rust and damage of this car , would be to obtain a good 2 dr jet chassis and transfer the fire wall, windshield, top stack and mechanism to the donor car. You can contact ken at cell: 616-723-5151 . I've taken a Hornet Hollywood chassis and a rusty convertible and have done the above. Gook luck! Fred

[PAULARGETYPE]

The Man Who Owns The Car '' I Will Not Give Out His Name ''had Great Hopes Of Restoring It) He Has A Good Jet Parts Car As A Donner Car I spoke with harry mills to day he is the man who owns the car he has put it in the care of his broker KEN PAGE and it will be on ebay shortly most likey
I Would Love To Do This Car And Do It Right Make A Aaca Winner Out Of It

[hudsonkid]

I think that someone with the enthusiasm as Paul has for this project deserves to have this car.

I think it looks quite gone, but for some of the other convertibles out there that the boys around Pittsburg fixed, I bet they collectively could make this one real nice!

[PAULARGETYPE]

There Are 5 Photo's (there Being Sent) I'll Post Them When I Get Them Jack Miller Has A Tape Of The This Jet Driving In A Feild In 1966 It Don't Look Good Then I Was Told It Sat Out From Around Then Till Around 1990 When It Was Put In A Storage Container I'm Afraid That After Talking With Ken Page The Reserve Price On The Car Will Not Be Cheap And The High Bid Is Going To Have To Be Big Also He And The Owner Know The Car Is Ruff But They Also Know How Rair The Car Is Being A One Off Factory Orignal Proto Type I'm Going To Be Out Of The Picture It's Going To Take Alot Of Owner Hands On Resto Work To Get This One Done And Then It's Going To Cost $25,000 To $35,000,just For Materails The Top Will Have To Be Strictly Custom As Will Any Bow Work AND ANY ONE PAYING A RESTO SHOP TO DO THIS CAR WILL BE IN TO BIG BIG BUCKS

[Jon B]

Another perspective:

While I agree completely that the most logical method to restore this car would be to transfer the ''convertible'' portions to a solid Jet coupe, I get the feeling that something would be lost, here. When you only salvage only a small portion of the car, the resulting restoration is not, technically speaking, the original thing; it's a replica.

And that's fine for most of us. Because the Hudson you're reconstructing -- by combining two or even three cars -- was ''anonymous'' to begin with. It may have had a desirable body style like a convertible or station wagon, for example. But it was an exact copy of other convertibles or station wagons that were produced that year.

However, is this vehicle not the sole Hudson-built Jet convertible? I had heard that, anyway. If so, it is not ''anonymous'' and it's not ''any old'' Hudson! It's a unique factory prototype.

If one removes the convertible-only components from this car and splices them to a solid Jet coupe, then one will have a unique and wonderful vehicle. But it won't be the same one that Hudson stylists and engineers worked on.

To try to bring this rusted car back from the dead, as it sits, would be ruinously expensive. So, I agree with Fred that it makes perfect economic sense to transfer the unique parts from the original, onto a better ''foundation''. I'd probably end up doing the same thing myself. But then, when it comes restoring to old Hudsons, what do "logic" and "perfect economic sense" have to do with it? LOL!

[nhp1127]

There Are 5 Photo's (there Being Sent) I'll Post Them When I Get Them Jack Miller Has A Tape Of The This Jet Driving In A Feild In 1966 It Don't Look Good Then I Was Told It Sat Out From Around Then Till Around 1990 When It Was Put In A Storage Container I'm Afraid That After Talking With Ken Page The Reserve Price On The Car Will Not Be Cheap And The High Bid Is Going To Have To Be Big Also He And The Owner Know The Car Is Ruff But They Also Know How Rair The Car Is Being A One Off Factory Orignal Proto Type I'm Going To Be Out Of The Picture It's Going To Take Alot Of Owner Hands On Resto Work To Get This One Done And Then It's Going To Cost $25,000 To $35,000,just For Materails The Top Will Have To Be Strictly Custom As Will Any Bow Work AND ANY ONE PAYING A RESTO SHOP TO DO THIS CAR WILL BE IN TO BIG BIG BUCKS

I doubt he is going to get a "million" bucks for it because most Hudson people don't seem to spend money like the Brand X restorers. The condition of the car is pathetic. No offense to Jet owners but a Jet is a less popular and less attractive car than other more desirable Hudson models, especially to a Brand-X enthusiast or a guy on the street who would want to invest in a car.

[Heart Of Texas]

Since we are on the tangent of One offs... I would be very pleased to find and restore one of the Hudson sedans that had 2 doors on one side and one on the other... aka styling model. Or even a Hudson Woody Stepdown Station wagon... how intriguing...

While the Jet does not have the styling of the Stepdown, it is nevertheless and core part of the last years of the Hudson Motor Company much like the Edsel was a Core part of difficult albeit survived times at another automaker.

[66patrick66]

It comes down to one thing: Just because you have a rare item, or even a "one-of-one" of something, does NOT make it valuable solely because of it's rarity. Yes, it's a Jet prototype. Yes, it's one-of-one built. Are Jets desirable? Only to a few select fans of a make that few select fans are enthusiasts of.

A Hemicuda convertible was available in 1970 and 1971 only. This car's (in auto and 4-speed) total production is fewer than 30, period. Real Hemicuda convertibles sell for seven figures. Reproductions/tributes/clones sell well into the six figures. Why?? This is a very rare, extremely desireable car that few see outside of photographs. You'll never see one on the street. This car qualifies are rare AND desirable by nearly everybody that breathes air.

The Jet? Few people outside the Hudson community even know what a Jet IS, much less want one. You Jet fans may get mad at me, but face it, there's a REASON Hudson built these only for two years!

Which brings us back to our original point: rarity versus desireability. The total potential buyer market for this Jet ragtop as-is can probably be measured with one's fingers. If it weren't so dilapidated, it might bring some money, maybe. Is the seller looking to retire to Tahiti from the sales proceeds? He has a rude awakening if he thinks that. The car appears so far gone, that to "save it" would require cutting a coupe, putting the convertible components on it, and passing it off as the prototype. There is no way there is enough of the original car there to be considered AS the original car to restore to new. It would require a coupe (converted) to be the end result. It could in no way, shape or form be considered the original platform Hudson built the car on. To pass off the end result as the "prototype" would be considered "fraud" in most states. If it were presented as a "tribute" or "clone" as a representation of what the original prototype LOOKED LIKE ORIGINALLY, then that's another story. With that, the convertible VIN number could not be used on the coupe, because that, too, is fraud, because you're renumbering a car to be something it is not.

It's rare - one-of-one is as rare as it gets. Is it worth $250K to restore? No. And $250K is probably a conservative estimate. Do YOU have the talent and the tools necessary to do this car yourself, any of you? Probably not, A local friend who recently sold his '71 Hemicuda coupe in Houston for one million dollars (yes, $1M!!!) spent $225K on the professional rotisserie restoration on a nearly rust-free car. And this was on a complete, numbers-matching hemi 4-speed Sassy Grass Green exterior/white interior (one-of-one like that built - his!).

This Jet will likely end up being a rebodied coupe that will be displayed to the world as the prototype. And way too much money will be asked at auction for what's basically a top frame, rear windows and regulators, cowl, w/s glass and frame, VIN tag, title, and rear seat springs on wheels. The rear body sits six inches over the spring mounts! The car will likely pull apart getting it on or off the trailer. That's the blunt reality of this car.

[rambos_ride]

While I agree that the condition of the car is absysmal, and it will cost a fortune to do the car right with any build option a) fix-the-original or b) patch-to-donor-car

I would also agree that this jet doesn't have the "wow" styling of later brandx prototypes built in the 50-60's that are bringing the big $$ at auction.

That all being said I still think it deserves a #1 restoration effort at any cost and if done correctly would probably become a 250-500k+ car - IF - and only IF documented history is available that goes along to prove chain of ownership, authentication of 1-of-1 factory prototype status and the rebuild of the car

otherwise with little to spotty documentation...I think you would still end up with a neat 1-of-1 car but probably not be worth much more than a dollar-for-dollar swap...meaning that it would be worth only as much as what it would cost to restore...which I would hazard a guess at around 150-200k worth of time and parts...

Of course what really "GRINDS MY GEARS" looking at that picture of the JetVert (what about that 331 Hemi?) andmakes my blood boil is seeing cars that will never get touched - just rotting away when there are willing people with cash, time and desire to put them back to glory and yet the cars rot while the greedy-selfish-graboid-schizoid-parnoid owner thinks they will eventually get to it or finish it after 20 years...then they croak and the siblings send the cars to the crusher not realzing what they have - or better yet they sell them to some other greedy-selfish-graboid-schizoid-parnoid owner who will continue the demise of the car by neglect and ignorance!

OK - sorry for the rant...now I'm stepping off my soapbox and sorry for stealing the thread!

[jsrail]

Of course what really "GRINDS MY GEARS" looking at that picture of the JetVert (what about that 331 Hemi?) andmakes my blood boil is seeing cars that will never get touched - just rotting away when there are willing people with cash, time and desire to put them back to glory and yet the cars rot while the greedy-selfish-graboid-schizoid-parnoid owner thinks they will eventually get to it or finish it after 20 years...then they croak and the siblings send the cars to the crusher not realzing what they have - or better yet they sell them to some other greedy-selfish-graboid-schizoid-parnoid owner who will continue the demise of the car by neglect and ignorance!
I hear ya Dan.........I remember when I was a kid and my father worked as an auto mechanic in town, he had an elderly woman customer that had a beautiful 56 Olds 2 door parked in her garage with the keys still in it. In ten years (until she died) my father was never able to convince her to sell it. Seems her husband parked it in the barn one night after coming home from a dinner, shut it off and had a massive heartattack and died in the car. I was already moved away when she died and therefore, never learned what happened to the car, but it is nonetheless a sad tale. This woman also had various cars parked in her pastures (i.e. 40's chevys, fords, etc.) as well as a '23 Chevy Cabriolet (which the aluminum headlight buckets were rotting off) in a horse stall.

What an utter shame................

Jay

[Jon B]

Dan, that "G-S-G-S-P" owner is what Geoff Clark calls a ''gunner''. As in: ''No, that old Hudson in the field ain't for sale...I'm gunner fix it up some day!''

[Mike (WA)]

But even though you've been turned down by every other one you've looked at, you should always ask. Remember once at church when I was a senior in high school- the prettiest '50 Ford coupe- shiny black, just gorgeous. I lurked around til I saw the sweet little old lady who owned it- lost my nerve and didn't ask if it was for sale (she's obviously been driving it since new, and will til she dies, I told myself)- later that week, she sold it to another kid for $125, and within another week he had wrapped it around a tree and totalled it.

[russmaas]

The Jet? Few people outside the Hudson community even know what a Jet IS, much less want one. You Jet fans may get mad at me, but face it, there's a REASON Hudson built these only for two years!

Which brings us back to our original point: rarity versus desireability. The total potential buyer market for this Jet ragtop as-is can probably be measured with one's fingers. If it weren't so dilapidated, it might bring some money, maybe. Is the seller looking to retire to Tahiti from the sales proceeds? He has a rude awakening if he thinks that. The car appears so far gone, that to "save it" would require cutting a coupe, putting the convertible components on it, and passing it off as the prototype. There is no way there is enough of the original car there to be considered AS the original car to restore to new. It would require a coupe (converted) to be the end result. It could in no way, shape or form be considered the original platform Hudson built the car on. To pass off the end result as the "prototype" would be considered "fraud" in most states. If it were presented as a "tribute" or "clone" as a representation of what the original prototype LOOKED LIKE ORIGINALLY, then that's another story. With that, the convertible VIN number could not be used on the coupe, because that, too, is fraud, because you're renumbering a car to be something it is not.

I would not consider this fraud by using another chassis. Just ridiculous. Ever had the front end of a car get wreck and they put in new fenders, hood, trim etc... I would not consider this fraud. This front end is the same as any old jet, the fenders and trunk back are just the same off any old jet. Basically the factory took a jet that was already a coupe and turn it into a convert. Same would have to be done here. And I would consider it one of one, because it could not have been done without the "one" Almost 85% of this car is the same as the coupe

[66patrick66]

In either case, you no longer have the original car. The resulting converted coupe would be a reproduction/tribute/clone, NOT the original. If that's correct, what you're saying is I could take a 340+6 AAR Cuda that has only the fender tag, cowl numbers and other stampings, transfer these to the new 318 donor car, put the AAR-unique parts on it and have a real AAR Cuda. This is fraud, because you're taking something that was not and making it into something it IS not. Either way, this is fraud, plain and simple. I sure as hell wouldn't buy the Jet ragtop if the numbers and rag parts were transferred to a coupe and represented as the real thing...it is most certainly NOT the real thing!!! People go to jail every day for misrepresenting things that aren't as they seem...

Buyer Beware either way.

[russmaas]

So you are saying if you ever change the windshield or sideglass or taillite it is fraud and not the original car That is...your definition. How far do you take it? So a if a windshield is okay why not a fender or top mechanism? How do you set the limits and and if there are some limits who set them?

[nhp1127]

Seems to me the the issue is directly in the replacement / "repaired" chassis and the legal ability to keep it matching number to the original. Some states are more liberal on this than others.
Strange, it is easier to get into this country than it is to register a car...

[TwinH]

My $.02. With just a picture to judge from I would think transfering parts to a cleaner
coupe would be the only reasonable way to save this car. How much different is that
than what Hudson did when they built it? :confused:

I personally helped butcher a 1 of 50 Hurst SS AMX,yet it lives on today
although the only original pieces are the tags,scoop,and dash. Same deal
with a 69 427 Camaro (COPO), somebody paid big $$ for a bare shell because
I still had the original bill of sale with the VIN# on it. That piece of paper is
the only thing that made it rare,all the original driveline was gone...
Can't believe I sent that rear axle to the junkyard under a junk Chevy II. :(


I'm not to picky about how the Jet gets saved just as long as it gets saved.

[russmaas]

I know a lot of people cut out the rear frame section because it is rusted then replaced it from a donor car. Basically using 1/3 of another frame. Is this legal? We may have a lot of hudnuts going to jail... I personally think orange looks good on Hudnuts

But actually if you wanted to get technical there a 4 items that would make this car a prototype agian . A title, vin on engine, vin number on side post, and vin number on the chassis. You could cut the front frame out (has vin) and weld it to donor frame. Transfer the front cowl/pillar onto the frame. If you have the good title that car is original. Now this could be done or the whole thing can be taken to the crusher and disposed of. Now if you still think this is fraud about 25% of the hudson out there are illegal.

[smcmanus]

I think it would be best to carefully cut the sheetmetal that holds the vin plate and then weld it into a carefully cut hole in the donor coupe. Just joking, but fraud?

What if I have a beyond repair rustbucket Porsche and transfer the engine and transmission, all the interior and suspension and brakes and the data plate to a rust free body shell? Is that fraud? I'm not misrepresenting it because everyone knows what I did and I sold it as a Porsche with a rust free body transplant.

Is there in fact a standard? I know the AACA has some guidance as to what is a restored car versus a recreation. I'm just thinking that to use a donor car for body parts is by no means fraud if you represent it honestly.

Have a nice day
Steve

[royer]

I think Paul has it right that this car needs to be restored by someone who can do the work himself. To sink over $50,000 into restoring this would be flushing a lot of money down the pipes - I don't think this would ever sell for a higher price than a comparable condition stepdown convertible. A lot of Hudson folks look down on the Jet as a subpar auto, or as the car that "ruined" Hudson. It may be this attitude that caused the current owner to let the car sit outside and rot away, he probably got tired of hearing "That's an odd little car, too bad it's not worth anything....take $500 for it?"

I wish I had the time and the money to take on that project. I'd love to see the car when it's completed.

BTW - AMC discontinued the Jet because the Rambler was cheaper to build and therefore more profitable.

[66patrick66]

Russ, apply some common sense. A windshield change or even a front clip does not alter a car. When you restore a car around a VIN tag and some glass, or worse yet, take those parts and put them on another and represent that car as original, that's fraud. Period. Rationalize it any way you want, but unless the original car platform itself is being restored, you are not restoring the original car! Very easy to understand, I don't see the grey area here! Tranferring the few good parts off an unrestorable car TO ANOTHER CAR is building a clone. Passing it off as the original is fraud.

TwinH, if all you did was transfer numbers and options over to a donor car, you did not restore the car, you created a clone with the original car's numbers, therefore, it's NOT one of the 50 in anything but the VIN. That's my point with the AAR example. If you guys have no problem with doing these things, I know who not to buy a car from then.

Royer, Jets are ugly. People didn't buy them, and Ramblers are what saved AMC in the day.

[russmaas]

Thats is warp thinking!! A front clip does change the platform. You cant have it both ways Pat (thats 1/3 a car). I would not sell you a car I know the your type...I see you didn't use the original valve stem... What does everyone else think? Im sure Paul had more than 50% new metal into his frame. According to Pat this car can not be restore ethically as a original car

[royer]

Royer, Jets are ugly. People didn't buy them, and Ramblers are what saved AMC in the day.
Hell yeah! Jets are ugly, but they are fast!

[smcmanus]

OK, now I get it. If I park the rusty Jet convertible in the right stall of my shop and the solid donor coupe on the left side of my shop, it is fraud (in most states) if I move parts from the right to the left. If I move parts from left to right, it is OK, totally legal, and I have an original rarity.

Makes total sense to me!

Honesty does matter and it is a fraud to represent a "restored" car as "totally original."

Have a nice day
Steve

[66patrick66]

You guys aren't getting it!!! The original platform is the basis of the car. You still have the original car IF you restore the rusted hulk. Transferring the hulk parts TO a donor car makes a repro/clone/tribute. Tranferring the numbers/VIN makes to the repro it a fraud. How simple can I make this???

[PAULARGETYPE]

Russ
Thats Right I Was Not Thinking About What Was Ethicall I Was Just Trying To Save Another Hudson Convertible
2 New Front Fenders, 1 New Hood, 2 New Inner Fenders, 1 New Deck Lid, 2 Doors From A 51 Hollywood, New Leather,2 Used Vent Windows, All New Glass, Rebuilt Hornet Engine And All The Stuff That Goes With It Twin H Dual Exhstrebuilt Carbs, Rebuilt Water Pump,rebuilt Fuel Pump Gen, And Starter,, 3 Speed Trans Out Of A 49 Com 8 Sedan, A 1951 Rear End Carrier With A 307 Diff, 5 New Wire Wheels, 5 New Bf Goodrichtires, Another Front And Rear Bumper That I Had Recromed,a New Cv Top, A Gas Tank Out Of Another Car, New Front Springs , New Tie Rod Ends, New Center Steering Pin And Bushing Kit, New Floor Pans From Ken Amman, Rear Floors I Made Up Myself,not Sure How Much New 12,14,16,18 Gauge Steel For Other Rframe Repairs, A Dash Out Of A 50 Com That I Had Woodgrained,new Rugs, It Has A Elect Fuel Pump To Keep The Vapor Lock Away. But It's And All Orignal Hudson Car That Has And Aaca 1st Jr And Sr. Awards And Will Be Going To Dover Dl In 2 Weeks Trying For A Grand National Award Good Thing I Don't Want To Sell The Car I'm Not Sure ''now'' What To Call It ???? Lol

[51hornetA]

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.

[rambos_ride]

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.
Well said... I second your opinion~:D

[66patrick66]

It's not the reconstruction aspect of this that I have a problem with, if it's represented as a tribute, clone, or repro when swapping parts from the real ragtop to the coupe donor. It is TAKING NUMBERS OFF OF ONE CAR AND PUTTING THEM ON ANOTHER, then saying this is the prototype. This is fraud, period. Even if you say you swapped the numbers, by that act, you are committing a crime in every state in the Union. Show me a place where VIN swapping is allowed.

[tristansdaz]

Ok, everybody's right to some degree. To take the numbers, and just the numbers off of a rare car and putting them on a plain jane donor car is not appropriate. That's why I haven't sold a set of VIN plates, fender tags, title and radiator core support to a 1969 Plymouth Road Runner with a Hemi (J code) that I have in my desk. If I was to sell them, I would require a statement from the buyer that they would not be used for recreating the car.

That being said, replacement of the majority of the tin (excluding cowl) does not necessarily constitute fraud. Each state has it's own licensing and titling laws so anybody doing this should be extremely careful. The cowl (with the VIN tag) should be the determining factor in whether the vehicle is a restoration or re-creation. In a lot of states, there is specific language in the statutes as to what can be done and what cannot. The reason for this is the car theft rings that legally buy total loss vehicles at a salvage auction and then transfer the numbers to a stolen vehicle to pass off as the original car.

The last point is, even if the person who did the work tells his purchaser down the road what was done (let's face it, we're all just caretakers anyway), what is keeping that person from misrepresenting the car later on? As this is a really rare prototype vehicle it should be saved. I would use the cowl and inner rear quarter panels (with the factory modifications) at least and ultimately as much of the original car as possible. Well, I guess that's my soapbox, enough for now.

[51hornetA]

I have to say you are seriously pushing the limits of credulity now. Its a 50 year old prototype. You would have zero problems with this car unless you were thinking of it as a daily driver and even then probably none. A crime? you are kidding me. You would have absolutely no problems registering this car as a restored classic. When you finish you will have one car not two. So the other car does not exist anymore and you certainly would not be driving the donor since you have spliced it into this restoration.

This is not vin swapping its a complete restoration of an original car which has its own vin. Get me a document that says you can't do a complete restoration of a car using a donor and be able to register it. My friend restored a 32 Packard from the ground up using a donor car and he has it registered as an antique. Zero problems its over 70 years old.

[Geoff C., N.Z.]

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.

[51hornetA]

Geoff, I always thought you were a criminal anyway LOL

[66patrick66]

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.

[royer]

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!

[51hornetA]

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.

[frankmn]

just wondering- what do people who build fiberglass cars use for vin numbers? i guess i never thought of it before.

[Heart Of Texas]

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.... GEE

[51hornetA]

Grrr Ken......grr me waving my arms around.....LOL

[Geoff C., N.Z.]

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.

[Geoff C., N.Z.]

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.

[tristansdaz]

Grrr Ken......grr me waving my arms around.....LOL

Me too, me too!!! LOL

My only statement was to check with your local DMV and follow the statutes in your state. All are different...

BTW How many rebodied Duesenbergs are there out there? I'd say quite a few... :eek: ROFL

[Walt-LA]

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-LA

[7XPacemaker]

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!

[maasfh]

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.

[51hornetA]

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.... LOL

[66patrick66]

Ain't this fun???!!!

[Walt-LA]

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-LA

[hudsonkid]

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!)

[dwardo99]

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...

[jsrail]

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

Jay

[Martin200]

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" :D

[66patrick66]

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.

[frankmn]

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.

[smcmanus]

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
Steve

[66patrick66]

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)

[hudsonkid]

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.....

[66patrick66]

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.

[hudsonkid]

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...

[46HudsonPU]

If the seller was/is really serious selling this car & was more concerned that it would be restored than what they would get from it, it would be put on auction (Ebay or whatever) - without reserve (Starting at $1.00).

During the auction, it would find its own price 'level' - If there are one or more buyers that would accept the challenge of restoring the car...

Don't think it will happen - It appears that there is too much greed here (without any productive effort to sustain or restore the vehicle), to the point of allowing the condition of the vehicle to deteriorate to its present state.

If they're not going to fix it or sell it, dump it out behind a barn (where it won't be seen), and let it 'go back to earth'... i.e., don't prolong the inevitable!

[BJ__TN]

I don't particularly care for the JET either way. If it were mine I would scrap it.
Bob