Farmall Cub

Dale Shaw wrote:OH NO, the Correct Police aren't always Correct?

Who is claiming to be the Correct Police? I never read anywhere here that they were present. I only saw two people who questioned the fender. I have never seen or heard anyone ever claim to be the Correct Police. They merely exist in the minds of those who want to believe they exist.

I won't dispute the fact this fender exists, we all know IH did a lot of things without telling the public about it. But why does it exist? If IH made this to ease the mounting and dismounting of Loboys, then why didn't they continue to use it until the end of production? It makes no sense for them to have two different fenders and put them on as they pleased.

Why does this fender not have its own part number? Surely they didn't assign the same number to an entirely different part. How do you keep your inventory straight?

Chris D wrote:Not only to back up these recent pictures, but I done a good search thru yahoo images of lowboy cubs and sure enough I came across a good handful in just a few minutes of looking. Some were round nose lowboys and some square nose. However there were lots on there with full fenders these fenders were put on them from a factory when built.

Chris, can you post some of these pix so others can see that this fender exists on other tractors. If you say you can back it up, then I'm sure others would like to see them.

There was a pic of one in my original post of the fender
I do not believe they ever offered it as a replacement fender. Or it could have been a typo on the part # I don't think the drawing is a typo
Boss

Barnyard wrote:Who is claiming to be the Correct Police?

No one is claiming to be the Correct police. They are a secret society and are only known to themselves by their secret handshake

There is speculation as to who they are, only because they won't come out of the closet. LOL

If no one knows who they are, then no one should be offended.

If anyone suspects they are one, perhaps they take ALL of this too seriously. Perhaps rehab with a couple "farmer fixes" are in order?

Bottom line is, this is a great site, we love cubs and we also love to have fun doing it. We should not always have to be so darn critical and enjoy the ride.

Boss Hog wrote:There was a pic of one in my original post of the fender
I do not believe they ever offered it as a replacement fender. Or it could have been a typo on the part # I don't think the drawing is a typo
Boss

Is it a pic of a different fender or the same fender that is for sale? If it is the same one then it is the only known one in existence. Since Chris has seen others it would be helpful to see those to validate there are others.

I worked at Chrysler parts for several years before I was married. If a part was not offered as a replacement it wasn't in the book.

Dale Shaw wrote:We should not always have to be so darn critical and enjoy the ride.

I don't see anybody criticizing anything. I only see some people asking questions. That is what it is about, ask questions to clear up confusion. I also don't know of anyone here who suspects themselves of being the Correct Police.

Barnyard wrote:

Boss Hog wrote:There was a pic of one in my original post of the fender
I do not believe they ever offered it as a replacement fender. Or it could have been a typo on the part # I don't think the drawing is a typo
Boss

Is it a pic of a different fender or the same fender that is for sale? If it is the same one then it is the only known one in existence. Since Chris has seen others it would be helpful to see those to validate there are others.

I worked at Chrysler parts for several years before I was married. If a part was not offered as a replacement it wasn't in the book.

It was a pic of a different cub with that cut off fender, I have pmed him asking for a better pic,

Boss

Barnyard wrote:I don't see anybody criticizing anything.

I see you, criticizing me for making a lighthearted Joke.

Dale Shaw wrote:OH NO, the Correct Police aren't always Correct?

I never mentioned names. There are a lot of "Correct Police" comments when referring to Farmer Fixes, new parts, etc.. and Cartoons posted joking about it.

This is the 2nd, (at least) thread that you have made similar comments, so it must be an issue with you.

Dale Shaw wrote:This is the 2nd, (at least) thread that you have made similar comments, so it must be an issue with you.

I don't worry about the Correct Police, I fix them the way I want to fix them.

Boss Hog wrote:It is factory , I would think that most of you would have more faith in me than to think I would pass something home made off as factory. I did a lot of research on it to make sure before.

I don't think Dale was accusing you of deliberately passing off a home made modification as being factory. He was just pointing out evidence that is counter to your honestly held and previously stated belief that all Lo-Boys after some time in '66 came with a cut off fender.

His observation that the next to last Lo-Boy, which he acquired, had a full length fender is a strong data point. So is the observation he made back in November that the drawing of the Farmall fender in the #38 manual looks much the same as the fender in the parts catalog.

As I pointed out at that time, the cut off looking parts drawing goes back at least to the first edition of TC-37E, which came out in January 1956. Why (or even how) would they change a drawing in the parts catalog in anticipation of a part change 10 years later?

It may have come from some factory, but in the absence of any more evidence, I doubt it came from IH that way. A lot of evidence suggests you are simply mistaken in your conclusion.

i have a question, did the trimmed dash have a unique parts number, or was it just another dash ? just curious. coppersmythe...........................................

coppersmythe wrote:i have a question, did the trimmed dash have a unique parts number, or was it just another dash ? just curious. coppersmythe...........................................

The trimmed dash was never shown in a parts book so a number would not have been required. A part is shown in a parts book if it is available through a dealer. Then it would need a number so it can be ordered, inventoried, etc.

that makes sense barnyard, i guess there wasnt very many of them made, so it only got to a certain point in the IH "inventory" system . could the fender have gotten just a little further in the system to get a photo op? coppersmythe.........................

because of it being in the parts book i would think it was offered at one time ,why else would it be in there?

coppersmythe wrote: could the fender have gotten just a little further in the system to get a photo op? coppersmythe.........................

Rob in NH wrote:because of it being in the parts book i would think it was offered at one time ,why else would it be in there?

Both are good points, but why was there no unique part number for it? If a dealer ordered a fender from the warehouse how would he know what he was getting.

Unfortunately we have hijicked David's for sale post far more than needed. This discussion would probably be best left to his original post in the main forum.

Jim Becker wrote:

Boss Hog wrote:It is factory , I would think that most of you would have more faith in me than to think I would pass something home made off as factory. I did a lot of research on it to make sure before.

I don't think Dale was accusing you of deliberately passing off a home made modification as being factory.. A lot of evidence suggests you are simply mistaken in your conclusion.

I was not referring to Dale. And you sir may be mistaken in your conclusion. I have the fender here and have looked at it very closely. I may certainly be wrong that they were made only in the latter years. But they were in fact made as far as am concerned. I will try not to post any more on this topic.
Unless I get more pics of the cut off fender
You are entitled to your opinion. As well as I am mine.

Boss