I think it's pretty safe to say that the c/o or D do not relate to the order type as we have found too many inconsistencies to disprove it.
Charles,
Since discovering the 1968 Order Sheet you posted the other day, I've been curious about your statement above. The Order Sheet uses three main codes:
1 =
Retail (a customer order)
2 =
Stock (a Dealer)
5 =
Fleet (a customer order with multiple units)
The 68 Order Sheet then goes on to further break down these three classifications into subsets of these main types. These can be read in two groups of codes. The first group of codes are:
3 C L 4 7 8The second group of codes are:
A B D G H J K M N P R S T V X Y ZI believe that these codes provide a more unique classification of the three major codes Retail, Stock, and Fleet. For instance, a "L" might stand for a car purchased by a Ford employee (just an example here, not fact). To-date I have actual copies of build sheets with Order Types
1, 2, 5, and
C. It's interesting to note that the "C" code is a second tier code.
My point being: all of these codes, regardless of the level of detail they provide, can really be summed up with two designations - at the time of building, either there was a retail customer involved, or the car went to stock inventory (and no sale was registered). Now, you say that the two codes on buck sheets of
c/o and
D do not mean customer order and dealer because of "inconsistencies". My question is: what are these inconsistencies?
If, for instance, you have a copy of a car's build sheet that has an order type
1, and the build sheet has a
D, then that is certainly a contradiction in assumed meanings. The same is true if the build sheet has a
2 but the buck tag has a
c/o. However, if the build sheet has a
5 and the buck tag has a
c/o it still might be correct if we understand that a Fleet sale is simply a multiple unit retail customer.
So when you are saying that there are inconsistencies, can you elaborate on what those are? Your findings might further help my decoding process.
Thanks,
Pete