Trying to decipher why my buck tag and Marti report don't match as far as the date bucked go... My buck tag shows 14B, but Marti says my car was bucked on 12 Feb 68. Does anyone else have a discrepancy like this? Any ideas on the difference?
Not that it really makes a whole lot of Hoo Doo, but the more I learn about these cars the more ravenous my thirst for info on these cars becomes. Have had this car now for about 22 years, but never noticed this discrepancy previously. Thank goodness we have folks like Peter, Tim, Royce and Bob G (and others in this group) around to quench that thirst!
I do not have an answer to the Buck tag date vs Marti report Bucked date. My car 02267 has a 4/30 Buck tag date and a May 1 Marti report Bucked date. In my car's case I could possibly see were the car was actually bucked and started on April 30th and finished on May 1st. As yours being reversed I can't explain that other than the Ford (Marti ) buck data is like the build date on the door data plate and build sheets, a projected scheduled date vs the actual bucked date. Or the other way around, buck tag scheduled date, Marti actual date?
Rodney
Do you happen to have a copy or original buildsheet to compare it
Marti reports do have errors / mine does /wrong selling dealer
I had a 70 boss 302 mustang that was comp yellow with a white interior and a shaker. It was pulled out of a field in Las Vegas and was completely unrestored, engine and trans were long gone and needed everything, it was off the road since 1981 - Marti report said it was comp yellow with a black interior and no shaker.
Marti's reports reflect the Ford information records. There are mistakes in Ford's records.
Maybe you could accurately state that the Ford records are how the car was listed to be built rather then how it actually was built?
It's just how the "accounting department" accounted for everything that was built. Some items were just too trivial for them to worry about and they even made mistakes in the serial numbers, i.e., what the records show is what it was supposed to be stamped rather then how it actually was stamped.
We see this a lot on '67 Shelbys where some K cars were stamped A on the car itself and sometimes K instead of a Q on the 500's.
I envision the commonness of this as Ford being a large employer of physically and mentally handicapped individuals and trying to find a job that they could do with reasonable accuracy and ease? Apparently once stamped, they couldn't go back and fix it?
We even see this on the Shelby VIN tags from AO Smith so it isn't just Ford that screwed up.
I haven't seen it so bad that a convertible was stamped as an 01 or 02 but that just means I haven't seen that one yet?
Remember that by today's standards the computer systems used were using reel to reel tapes like a recording studio and IBM punch cards. So changing correcting typo's was a project.
Quote from: shelbydoug on April 10, 2021, 07:32:44 AM
Marti's reports reflect the Ford information records. There are mistakes in Ford's records.
Maybe you could accurately state that the Ford records are how the car was listed to be built rather then how it actually was built?
I think what you wrote here is 100% correct.
Quote from: gt350shelb on April 09, 2021, 07:20:04 PM
Marti reports do have errors / mine does /wrong selling dealer
This is not the first or last time we will hear about this seller dealer code error in Marti Reports.
The dealer code changed around 1970-71 and has to be looked at specifically for each car in the model year produced.
I don't think he does that...yet.
Quote from: shelbydoug on April 10, 2021, 07:32:44 AM
Marti's reports reflect the Ford information records. There are mistakes in Ford's records.
Maybe you could accurately state that the Ford records are how the car was listed to be built rather then how it actually was built?
It's just how the "accounting department" accounted for everything that was built. Some items were just too trivial for them to worry about and they even made mistakes in the serial numbers, i.e., what the records show is what it was supposed to be stamped rather then how it actually was stamped.
We see this a lot on '67 Shelbys where some K cars were stamped A on the car itself and sometimes K instead of a Q on the 500's.
I envision the commonness of this as Ford being a large employer of physically and mentally handicapped individuals and trying to find a job that they could do with reasonable accuracy and ease? Apparently once stamped, they couldn't go back and fix it?
We even see this on the Shelby VIN tags from AO Smith so it isn't just Ford that screwed up.
I haven't seen it so bad that a convertible was stamped as an 01 or 02 but that just means I haven't seen that one yet?
Remember that by today's standards the computer systems used were using reel to reel tapes like a recording studio and IBM punch cards. So changing correcting typo's was a project.
Doug,
I would not state this as only Ford human errors. Yes, they certainly made them.
Marti reports continually show errors in the noted data.
Even the Marti book 'BY the Numbers' does this with mismatched paint quantities and such (typos not proof read?), as compared to his deluxe and more pricey elite reports.
Quote from: Richstang on April 10, 2021, 10:37:44 AM
Quote from: shelbydoug on April 10, 2021, 07:32:44 AM
Marti's reports reflect the Ford information records. There are mistakes in Ford's records.
Maybe you could accurately state that the Ford records are how the car was listed to be built rather then how it actually was built?
It's just how the "accounting department" accounted for everything that was built. Some items were just too trivial for them to worry about and they even made mistakes in the serial numbers, i.e., what the records show is what it was supposed to be stamped rather then how it actually was stamped.
We see this a lot on '67 Shelbys where some K cars were stamped A on the car itself and sometimes K instead of a Q on the 500's.
I envision the commonness of this as Ford being a large employer of physically and mentally handicapped individuals and trying to find a job that they could do with reasonable accuracy and ease? Apparently once stamped, they couldn't go back and fix it?
We even see this on the Shelby VIN tags from AO Smith so it isn't just Ford that screwed up.
I haven't seen it so bad that a convertible was stamped as an 01 or 02 but that just means I haven't seen that one yet?
Remember that by today's standards the computer systems used were using reel to reel tapes like a recording studio and IBM punch cards. So changing correcting typo's was a project.
Doug,
I would not state this as only Ford human errors. Yes, they certainly made them.
Marti reports continually show errors in the noted data.
Even the Marti book 'BY the Numbers' does this with mismatched paint quantities and such (typos not proof read?), as compared to his deluxe and more pricey elite reports.
Yes, the combination of the two doesn't help BUT Ford's errors are inexcusable in my view and in many cases the Ford number on the Ford documents do not represent what they built or stamped on what they built.
What does Ford tell the State Police when there is a theft recovery and Ford reported that it was a Q engine code and the car says K? Who's responsible for that? Do they blame the thief? Seems that there was a whole lotta' fudgin' goin' on on Ford's part to balance the ledgers? ;)
Quote from: J_Speegle on April 09, 2021, 02:32:43 PM
Do you happen to have a copy or original buildsheet to compare it
H=J, I do not.. build sheet was long gone by the time I got the car in 1999...
Looks like a human was involved since the date on the buck tag is a couple days off. Interesting but certainly not unheard of.
Here's another example that while much worse caused no problem at the DMV because the sequential VIN still matched.