[AT] think I' stick with red ones

[Louis]

This tractor was pretty much a rehash of the 320.  Mostly different sheet
metal.  Deere was buying time, with the 30 series, till the New Generation
tractors were ready to introduce.

Lou

-----Original Message-----
From: at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com
[mailto:at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com] On Behalf Of Rick Weaver
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:49 PM
To: Antique tractor email discussion group
Subject: Re: [AT] think I' stick with red ones


Actually #1 is sometimes technologically inferior.  During production things
will often change based on feedback from the field.

However, for a short production run like this tractor seems to have had,
then they probably didn't change.  Also the short run makes you think this
was a stepchild tractor anyway (i.e., not popular or particularly useful).

And boy you're right, beauty is in the eye of the collector.

Rick
 
-----Original Message-----
From: at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com
[mailto:at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Saunders
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:47 PM
To: Antique tractor email discussion group
Subject: Re: [AT] think I' stick with red ones

Mattias is right (and cleverly so, made me smile). At the same time having
the first machine off the line holds an identity that other ones seem to
lack. I don't know why the serial numbers become so important, maybe it's
that numerology stuff, but there is something about this is the first one
they made just sounds important. Of course then they go and start the
numbering with 501 or something. I know when I got a new checking account,
no one was that thrilled about getting check # 101.

I don't think collecting has ever been about making sense to anyone but the
collector. Chuck Saunders Kansas City MO

On 3/28/07, John Boehm <rustyacres at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The the second one off the assembly line is also one
> of a kind, since there is only one that is the second
> one. Similarly, with the third, the fourth, etc. etc.
> So as Mattias has pointed out, if we extend your
> logic, all tractors are one of a kind. What's the
> point with your argument? I can't see any sense to it.
> #1 is one of 844 similar tractors, not one of a kind,
> just the first.
>
> John Boehm
> Woodland, CA
> Visit my web site at http://vintagetractors.com
>

_______________________________________________
AT mailing list http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at

_______________________________________________
AT mailing list http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at