[MODERATOR NOTE: This is turning into an argument over opinions. Unless someone has FACTS to contribute please do not respond to this thread. -Mike Substelny, DML moderator team] David, I enjoyed meeting you through the DeLorean MidAtlantic club and really learned a lot from you, doing door adjustments all day and hearing your explanations on detailing and routing maintenance. Having said that, I can't believe how far out in left field you are with this one. I think you completely missed the point of what I was trying to say and how Rich backed me up. Our cars are rare. We identify ourselves in our own culture by VINs. For a while now I've heard of someone selling the last '81 and the first '82 as a pair. That holds some significance to us as those cars were reportedly produced sequentially on the assembly line yet have their subtle and not so subtle differences-depends on how you look at it. VINs are how we identify ourselves in the D culture-it's who we are. To those folks who recently purchase their car the VIN is not unlike a badge of honor. (Just read Shannon's recent post on his new baby-the most recent reference that comes to mind.) Some of us can appreciate that. As I stated I think it would be great to have 16816 and 16817 sitting together in my garage or out at a show. With what I have done to my car versus the concours condition of the other I think it would border on amusing; even absurd to some, but it would be unique. I don't know anyone other than the gentleman described above and Rob Grady who can even claim this. So Rich and I can enjoy this situation. Many others can as well, as I can show you from the letters I've received. I like to make a big deal out of consecutive VINs, especially since there are times where it appears there is no logic the the numbering process. It makes it that much more rare and I appreciate that. Kind of like how I appreciate the correct spelling of the word "vendor"....:P Cheers from rainy, wet AZ (no kidding) Matthew VINs 10365 and 16816 (16817 was sold to a high bidder off ebay-if the new owner is on this list please drop me an email. Thanks!) --- In dmcnews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "David Teitelbaum <jtrealty@xxxx>" <jtrealty@xxxx> wrote: > Don't make a big deal out of the coincidence of consecutive vin #'s. > The cars as built were not always built serially although the numbers > were assigned serially. The creation of a vin # occured in an office > but the building of a car occurs in the factory, not always in the > same order. The factory probably never cared since the individual cars > were not built to order and the choice of options was limited. It does > seem weird sometimes though. A close examination of vin #'s and build > dates shows some low vin cars with later build dates, the build date > is when the car was actually built not always in the correct range of > vin #'s and build dates. Also some cars were damaged in shipping so > earlier cars with early dates may have been sold later due to the time > to repair. It seems vins were scattered, being shipped in no > particular order to the East coast and the West coast. This is where > Knut's chronology analysis is very important, trying to make sense out > of the production chaos when there are no producution records > available. His analysis can only be as good as the data we can provide > him so I recommend ALL owners register on the DoD with your vin # and > build date and options. Who knows, you may find a consecutive vin # to > your car! > David Teitelbaum > vin 10757 > No known siblings, only distant relatives!