[AJD] late B

Tue May 31 12:49:36 PDT 2005

Paul:

I don't understand, you and Guy have partially convinced me and I think a
few others. However, the word "partially" is an operative word for
especially for me. I agree that many changes (major & minor, subject to
definition) were made as the engineering was completed, parts were made
available and as the production line integrated the changes in. But, would
you not agree that there also where many major changes that were all bunched
together to occur at the same time which in some cases could be called a
model change or a major upgrade.  It is my humble opinion that most, but not
all, of these bundled major changes were timed around the last few months of
the calendar year.  I don't think that was coincidental. I think that was
deliberate and timed to allow JD and their dealers to promote next year's
model improvements to enhance sales. 

Now what I have learned via this discussion is that the year designation of
tractors wasn't used as much as I assumed, although Duane has submitted an
example of when it was. The 1949 advertisement as an example. 

I'm beginning to believe that even though, according to Guy, the other
tractor companies avoided defining tractors as particular year models, in
essence JD did just that but just didn't put the 4 digits of the year in
their promotion material. They just called it NEW. I'm not trying to parse
the word NEW. It doesn't have enough letters to parse. :-) But a duck is a
duck. 

My premise is that all the steps and actions were taken by JD's engineering,
production, marketing and sales departments that would occur in an
automotive model year change but that JD just didn't attach a year
identifier to it. It appears "New" was the operative word.

The reasons for the repeated occurrence of bunched major parts and model
changes during the last few months of each year probably was influenced by
several factors:

1.) The farming crop cycle 
2.) Production line vacation schedule
3.) Production line retooling and maintenance - Plant shutdown
4.) JD's Fiscal year.
5.) Engineering development and field testing cycle
5.) Etc

At this time I'm willing to reluctantly admit that numerical "Model Year"
identification was not prevalent in the industry during the pre 60's period,
based on what I have learned in this discussion. But... The actions JD took
looked like a duck, walked like a duck, quacked like a duck. Maybe they just
didn't inhale!  :-) They did everything we have come to expect in a model
year change except attach the year identifier to it. 

Now if that has been your primary point all along, I hereby now agree with
you. 

But I challenge you to offer a better way in which we as collectors can
identify these major milestones and changes in a simpler manner now that it
is 50 to 80 years later.

Dean A. Van Peursem
Snohomish, WA 98290

I'm a walking storeroom of facts..... I've just lost the key to the
storeroom door 

www.deerelegacy.com

http://members.cox.net/classicweb/email.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: antique-johndeere-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com
[mailto:antique-johndeere-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com] On Behalf Of
Paul O
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:57 AM
To: Antique John Deere mailing list
Subject: Re: [AJD] late B

Guy
I agree totally with what you wrote. However, I think you and I are the only

2 who believe it. That is in spite of the fact that no one has produced any 
advertising from Deere from 1960 back which indicates a particular model 
year. As far as changes are concerned, I could probably list at least 10 
design changes between GP202566 and GP216139. Some of these changes were 
very significant.
I have give up trying to convince anyone.
Paul O

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Guy Fay" <fayguyma at execpc.com>
To: "Antique John Deere mailing list" 
<antique-johndeere at lists.antique-tractor.com>
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: [AJD] late B

> The reason why the concept of "Model Years" is in dispute is that, in 
> general, the farm equipment industry ADVERTISED that they didn't do model 
> years.
>
> The ad being referred to is talking about new models, which the farm 
> equipment industry did do. But most of the companies (I've seen similar 
> claims for at least three tractor manufacturers, don't know if I've seen 
> them for Deere but from what I know of production processes, they did) 
> specifically state that they made running changes- i.e. that as 
> refinements were made, or problems identified and solved, the changes went

> immediately into production as a running change, instead of waiting for a 
> line changeover such as the auto industry did.
>
> I've seen the information that companies sent out at the time about price 
> increases. For the most part, they didn't hide them as "Model Year" 
> changes-they just flat out announced them.
>
> I also recently had a look in my hometown newspaper in the 1954-1957 for 
> some other stuff (history of the tractor club I belong to). Of course I 
> checked out the ads. The car dealerships in town were making the big model

> year pushes. From the Deere, IH, Allis, Massey, and Ford dealers, there 
> was no model year announcements whatsoever.
>
> Avoiding model year changes was something the Farm Equipment Industry 
> prided itself in, quite frankly.
>
> Guy
>
> Dean VP wrote:
>
>>Louis:
>>
>>One thing should be clear by now. There were 1953 model year ([production
>>year?) 50's and 60's made in 1952. If my memory serves me right there were
>>no 1953 70's made in 1952. As I recall the 70 didn't start shipping until
>>sometime in 1953. Need to look it up again.
>>But the ad just verifies that the JD Sales, Marketing departments and
>>Dealers were very aware of Model years and advertised "new features for 
>>1953
>>models that were shipped and built in 1952. The same way the auto industry
>>does it. A way to get farmers motivated to buy something with new 
>>features.
>>It also gave JD the opportunity to raise prices each year. New features
>>slightly higher prices. Older models got sold at the old prices or at a
>>discount. The way the sales game works in most industries except the
>>electronics industry. In that industry, new models with more features cost
>>less. Completely backwards of almost all other industries.
>>I'm having real trouble understanding why the concept or business method 
>>of
>>model years is in dispute.
>>Dean A. Van Peursem
>>Snohomish, WA 98290
>>
>>I'm a walking storeroom of facts..... I've just lost the key to the
>>storeroom door
>>
>>www.deerelegacy.com
>>
>>http://members.cox.net/classicweb/email.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: antique-johndeere-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com
>>[mailto:antique-johndeere-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com] On Behalf Of
>>Louis R Godena
>>Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 1:57 PM
>>To: Antique John Deere mailing list
>>Subject: Re: [AJD] late B
>>
>>Well, the Nov 1952 issue of *Farm Journal* has an ad for the "new" 50, 60,

>>and 70 JD models, so there must have been at least *one* made in '52.
>>
>>Interesting thing about *Farm Journal*; my grandfather subscribed back in 
>>the forties, I guess and maintained his subscription until my father took 
>>it
>>
>>over in the early sixties.  Around 1961, some genius in accounting decided

>>to "purge" the subscription list of all "non-farmers".  My 
>>vegetable-farming
>>
>>father, along with the biggest dairy farmer in Rhode Island, was purged 
>>and "unsubscribed".   Oh, yeah.   The editor of Farm Journal also was 
>>kicked off
>>
>>the subscriber list.
>>
>>Ah, the early days of automation:-)
>>
>>Louis G
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "Ronald L. Cook" <rlcook at pionet.net>
>>To: "Antique John Deere mailing list" 
>><antique-johndeere at lists.antique-tractor.com>
>>Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 4:34 PM
>>Subject: RE: [AJD] late B
>>
>>
>>
>>>Dean,
>>>Seeing as how I started this mess, I will mess it up some more.<g>
>>>
>>>A friend of mine still has his dad's 70.  First one sold by Noonan 
>>>Implement or maybe right after Wes Christensen bought that dealership in 
>>>Sioux City as I take it.  His dad, now deceased always claimed it was a 
>>>1952.  How about that?  I heard there were no l952 70's.  I do not know 
>>>the serial number, but someday I might be able to find it out but I have 
>>>no idea what its importance would be.  I think it is a 1953.  My dad has 
>>>a
>>>
>>
>>
>>>1955 60.  He insists it is a 1954.  Dunno.
>>>
>>>Ron Cook
>>>Salix, IA
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Antique-johndeere mailing list
>>>http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/antique-johndeere
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Antique-johndeere mailing list
>>http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/antique-johndeere
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Antique-johndeere mailing list
>>http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/antique-johndeere
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Antique-johndeere mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/antique-johndeere
> 

_______________________________________________
Antique-johndeere mailing list
http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/antique-johndeere