HLS30-OOO13 Has Been Found!

[hls30.com]

You guys know what? It is very cool that a very courteous gentleman found #13, and that we have a thread on it, and except for the part where so many of you have posted so much here that is either more rude and pointless than specifically relevant to #13 and its story.

Personally I am much more excited to hear that and how one of the first examples in the USA has been found and put back into the public eye, than I am to hear all of posturing that ignored the intent of the thread-I had to check to see If I had logged into the right board. This is an early Z. It was found by a very kindly gentleman who obviously enjoys Z, and it looks to me like several people have been far more interested in a few things other than #13 and her story.

Obviously we have a bunch of guys who want to prove they know a lot about Zs, and in the exchange, prove that don't know much at all about being polite to-or even getting along with-fellow Z owners.

One reminder.

If you can't make your point without being rude, you won't make it-the person you are aiming at quit listening and followed your example by getting his pride up and getting angry.

Will

[26th-Z]

Alan,

The documentation of the initial VIN HLS30-00013 from October 1969 appears on page 11 of my 1973 edition of the "USA and Canada Parts Catalog - Model S30", publication number C-0010U, Nissan Motor Co., LTD. I have seen this same from other editions.

On the Connecticut club site, there was this long soliloquy about the definition of the word 'sale', however the dictionary term is most common as; "the exchange or transfer of property for money". In that respect, there is no physical possibility that HLS30U-00016 was sold (past tense of 'sale') in October of 1969. There is also no presented documentation which describes the distribution of the first cars. Any discussion of what was sold 'first' or 'lowest' is nothing but conjecture. Perhaps I'm wrong! I can show you the papers of 26th. I can tell you where she was imported, when, where she was sold, to whom, when, and for how much including the ordering down payment and balance at delivery. I have never seen anything of the sort from either #13 or #16. Because I have all the documentation, I would expect the same from any claim I would hear. Call me a prick - that's ok. I'm sure you still love me.

Chris

[HS30-H]

Like I said in the other thread, I get the feeling that Rick spews this stuff out just to get a reaction. No one could be wrong so often about so many things to include repeating things that have already been questioned and, in some cases, convincingly corrected. I read it more for the entertainment than to gain any kind of knowlege.

Stephen,

You've demonstrated many times on this forum that you have been able to 'read' people very well, often long before others - including me - have realised that you were 'spot on' with your initial judgement. In this particular case, I'm still hoping that you might be a little off in your reading - but hope is fading.

It'll be a pity if we are being 'sent up', but not that much of a surprise I guess. I must say that the repetition of the "RLS-511" mistake looked rather deliberate, unless it's a particularly curious tick ( or a dodgy keyboard? ).

You guys know what? It is very cool that a very courteous gentleman found #13, and that we have a thread on it, and except for the part where so many of you have posted so much here that is either more rude and pointless than specifically relevant to #13 and its story.

Will,

Your reading of 'courtesy' is not necessarily the same as mine, I'm afraid. 'Kathy & Rick' nailed his ( their? ) colours to the mast with his very first post on this forum, and I'm afraid my personal experiences with the CTZCC forum lead me to believe that he's maybe not quite as innocent as you might like to think he is. Reviving long-sleeping threads ( over four years old for heaven's sake! ) with posts chock-full of bad data and mis-remembered anecdotes - in some cases 'conversing' with the long-dead ( our old friend Bambikiller / Carl S. is no doubt laughing like a drain at our antics here ) - is guaranteed to ruffle feathers and provoke attempts at correction. Either he's not as clued-up as he thinks he is, or he's 'playing' some of us. I hope it's the former, as that at least would be honest, but I'm sure if you look a little more closely you'll see that there might well be a little twinkle of mischief in his eye......

Obviously we have a bunch of guys who want to prove they know a lot about Zs, and in the exchange, prove that don't know much at all about being polite to-or even getting along with-fellow Z owners.

Speak for yourself, not for me. I'm more interested in known FACTS being got RIGHT, and for any points of conjecture to be weighed up with as much evidence presented as is possible, in order for people to make up their own minds. Some people seem to be happy to swallow tall stories whole ( especially if they are from their favourite guru ) but I think it's healthier for us all if questions are asked. I see 'robust' comments from both sides of the trenches.

Regarding "politeness" - I read things on this forum, and others, that I regard as impolite all the time. I guess it depends on your viewpoint and your local concepts of good manners, but we all know what we are really here for, don't we? We are the audience in a show where the cars are the stars. Sometimes things get a little bit too impassioned, emotional and personal, but surely that's the whole point?

Alan,

The documentation of the initial VIN HLS30-00013 from October 1969 appears on page 11 of my 1973 edition of the "USA and Canada Parts Catalog - Model S30", publication number C-0010U, Nissan Motor Co., LTD. I have seen this same from other editions.

Chris,

I can see that in my 'C-0010U' too, but is that the only documentation that exists? Of course, publication 'C-0010R' gives 'HS30-00003' as the first 'HS30' sold to the public ( "from Oct-69" ). Funny that one of our pet gurus denied this for so long ( you want me to roll out the well-worn "no RHD 240Z in '69" quotes again? ) and only relatively recently conceded that it "might" have existed ( ).

The punchline is that 'C00010U' gives the engine number of 'HLS30-00013' as 'L24-002027', whilst 'C-0010R' gives the engine number of 'HS30-00003' as 'L24-002025'. I hope that gives you the same wry smile as it gives me.

On the Connecticut club site, there was this long soliloquy about the definition of the word 'sale', however the dictionary term is most common as; "the exchange or transfer of property for money". In that respect, there is no physical possibility that HLS30U-00016 was sold (past tense of 'sale') in October of 1969. There is also no presented documentation which describes the distribution of the first cars. Any discussion of what was sold 'first' or 'lowest' is nothing but conjecture. Perhaps I'm wrong! I can show you the papers of 26th. I can tell you where she was imported, when, where she was sold, to whom, when, and for how much including the ordering down payment and balance at delivery. I have never seen anything of the sort from either #13 or #16. Because I have all the documentation, I would expect the same from any claim I would hear. Call me a prick - that's ok. I'm sure you still love me.

Ha ha. Yes, I still love you! You never make me feel that you are talking-up the value of certain early cars as some kind of retirement-funding strategy, which is very reassuring. I know that you are my kind of 'car guy' and you're into this whole thing for the same reasons as me. Unfortunately, the 'rediscovery' of HLS30-00013 including all the overexcited hyperbole - and nonsensical claims about 'HLS30-00016' - has often made me feel that some of the protagonists have a vested financial interest that is clouding their perspective. It sometimes seems that 'provenance' is being manufactured, and that the obvious holes in the stories ( not to mention holes in any cars ) are being glossed over with an eye on a better auction result some time in the future. Cynical, aren't I!?

The cars themselves - as ever - are the innocent parties in all of this.

Cheers,

Alan T.

[sblake01]

One reminder.

If you can't make your point without being rude, you won't make it-the person you are aiming at quit listening and followed your example by getting his pride up and getting angry.

Will

You know, I'm sorry to have to say this because I don't like where it could likely end up, but he needs to just put his 'big man' pants on and deal with it. That's what the rest of us do. Many things are said on this (and other) sites. I don't have a clue what the intention/frame of mind/demeanor or whatever of the person that says it is. I've been caught up in this sort of thing on both sides from time to time on this site. Either you can speak you mind or you can't. I'm tired of having to be so guarded with my responses. Doesn't work well for me. Some things are acted upon and others are let go. Edited October 8, 2009 by sblake01
to remove unnecessary content.....

[26th-Z]

Alan,

The applied dates page B13 of the microfisch print has 00013 as the begining serial number. However, the microfiche publication is the same, C-0010U. In my print, 1979.

Service Bulletin volume 125 from May 1970 states thus:

"The new "Datsun 240Z Sports" series begine from the following chassis number (identification number).

HLS30U, HLS30UN, HLS30......HLS30-00006

HS30V.................................HS30-00003

I don't know how to interpret that.

[HS30-H]

I don't know how to interpret that.

Sorry Chris, do you mean the contradiction of both HLS30-00013 and HLS30-00006 being given as the 'starting from' in two different publications?

[TomoHawk]

It's (HLS30-OOO13 ) in the newest issue of Nissan Sport magazine.

Edited January 1, 2010 by TomoHawk

[26th-Z]

Yes, Alan. I must have missed your question last October- sorry. Yes, two differing serial numbers from two different publications.

Anyhow, I want to congratulate Rick for his fifteen minutes of fame and say that the article in Nissan Sport is very nice. In fact, the serial number thing is discussed to some extent. I found the article an interesting read with complimentary blooper and the pictures were very nice. Wasn't Steve Rossini the photographer for the Syracuse convention?

Alan, I'll send you a scan.

[Montezuma]

I too thought it was a well written article and enjoyed reading it very much. I missed this thread back in August so it was all news to me.

[HS30-H]

Alan, I'll send you a scan.

Thanks Chris.

No hurry, as I'm playing in the snow up in Sapporo at the moment.....

[sleepyzzz]

not trying to slight the write up in Sport Z, but when i read the cover, and then go to the story, i was dissapointed thinking someone had PURCHASED a rare Z barn find. only to read that the owner has no intention of selling. he is very sharp though, give him that, in recognizing the importance, and value, or a very low vin. and remember everyone, this gentleman is getting on in years, and his recollections may not all be accuarate, but he deserves our respect, and love, as a fellow Z owner.

[five&dime]

Very cool article!!! Congrats!!!

My dad and I are in a small photo at the end of the mag from the Richmond VA Z show Small photo of my 510, my dad, myself and my gf standing behind our friend Russels RB powered S30.