Re: Sequential VIN Delorean reunions

["M. P. Olans <mpolans@xxxx>" <mpolans@xxxx>]

[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!