steps, etc

[<JHertzman@xxxxxxx>]

I will cheerfully leave the parsing of the step-nose chronology to Dana,
making only one (two? three?) quibble(s).

Dana says "If my memory of late juniors I have seen is correct, they not only
got the flush hood, but are visually identical to the 2000 GTV, with four
headlights, a cast grille, aluminum snake badges on the C pillars, a console,
carpet, and the rest." Probably the ultimate trivia recognition point is that
the last Juniors, otherwise indistinguishable from the 2000, did not have
overriders. Or so says d'Amico-Tabucchi.

If d'Amico-Tabucchi is correct that "Production of the GT Junior with the
traditional frontal treatment ended with chassis No, 1257114. The version
presented at the Turin Motor Show of 1970 featured a front section unified
with that of the 1750 GT Veloce", then the change occurred well after the
introduction of the 1750, which I thought would have been logical, and well
before Dana's recollected "that the change in the junior occurred when the
2000 was introduced, which could be said to be 1971 or 1972, depending on how
you want to date it". D'A-T gives June of 1971 as the initial production date
for the 2000 Berlina, but does not give a date for the GTV or Spider.

I had questioned Dana's citation of photos taken in the seventies as "clearly
late cars", saying "there is little to suggest which of the photos taken in
the '70s were of freshly minted cars." Dana responds "This is true, but there
is equally little to suggest that they were not". The only thing to suggest
that they are not, to my mind, is that barely ten percent of the GTA Juniors
were built after 1969. 320 were built in 1968, including the 300 Autodelta-
prepared cars, if Fusi is correct. On a pure roll-of-the-dice logic (aarg!
That word!) I would suspect that a very large number of the competition photos
taken in seventies would have been of the two-thirds of the cars which were
competition-prepared by Autodelta, and if not would still have been among the
90% built in the sixties. I don't have Adriaansens's "Aleggerita", and if it
suggests otherwise (or even if it doesn't) I won't argue about it.

I want to emphasize that, however it may have been read, my references to
logic were not to Dana's logic, which is impeccable, but to Alfa's logic,
which is not always. Where there are separate production lines (as with the
Giulia Sprint at Bertone's facilities and the Giulia Sprint GT at Arese) there
is no conflict; when there are unavoidable major differences, as with coupes
and sedans on the same assembly line, any conflict will be accommodated. Where
there is an essentially cosmetic difference, as with the two hoods, which
nevertheless requires separate jigs for assembly welding, it seems logical to
assume that the differences will be rationalized. Alfa, for whatever reasons,
apparently worked around it.

John

------------------------------