George,
Where is this guide? I couldn’t find a separate book, so do you mean the pages in each version’s guide?
Jerry
Just to clarify a few things.
I am Australian, live in Australia and indeed contribute significantly to the Australian (ACJC) equivalent of JCNA in matters Concours originality, and my writings/publications to date have been in British based specialist Jaguar magazines and books, and indeed contributions to European specialist Jaguar books and indeed web-sites, but indeed nothing in USA nor indeed JCNA, albeit I have made regular contributions to American authors and indeed JCNA to use as they see fit.
But no, my work on TOOLS and TOOL-KITS is all my own research and initiative, albeit soliciting help wherever I need it or from whoever can help, such as indeed my current theme on this forum seeking help on demarcation details regarding Metallifacture Jacks, and indeed as George mentioned, his supply of an incredibly useful Hornburg Bulletin re USA market (only) 1968MY cars lack-of-receiving-any tool-kit . So NO - my efforts are most definitely NOT based on anything JCNA at all, indeed quite the contrary - I am providing my work and research on and as requested, to help develop a JCNA work in progress, which I understand will be appropriately acknowledged when completed.
What I am doing, and have been doing for some 40+ years is researching tool-kit detail to a level way beyond what is conceivably practical to apply in a JCNA Concours environment which I have to say, JCNA is appropriately USA-centric and sensibly so for their parochial USA environment, and is accordingly necessarily subject to JCNA Policy decisions.
As with my request on this forum for help on METALLIFACTURE Jacks, my research has concluded on there being SIX distinctly very different major variants, and I will detail all, including as close as possible to my target of monthly accuracy demarcations between the variants - this level of detail is NOT supported by any factory documentation that has ever surfaced from factory archives, albeit it may be there somewhere within internal Engineering Drawings or supply contracts.
JCNA as I understand it, will and can only differentiate between only the TWO variants that are identifiably supported by available factory documentation, the FHC/OTS version or the 2+2 version, each having a different part-number. If after I publish my detailed SIX-variant efforts in a UK magazine that circulates Internationally, if JCNA wish to expand their guidelines to recognise more than their current two variants, up to say maybe four, five or indeed all six of my variants, then that’s a JCNA policy decision to make one way or the other, and go through their very necessary approval processes. Of course I will help, IF REQUESTED.
But lets keep this in perspective, Tool-Kits are only a very small part of the balanced content of the various JCNA E-Type Judges guides, so can only cover matters-originality at a macro level, and not to my detailed-micro level. Those who want the satisfaction of having their tool-kits as 100% accurate as possible, will need to refer to my published papers - this level is just NOT published anywhere else, but watch out for the rapid Ebay response soon after. Those who simply want to maximise their score in a JCNA Concours, should refer to the relevant JCNA Judges guide and comply at least with those ‘macro-level rules’. If you want to play the JCNA game, you abide by the JCNA rules, and as George has pointed out, if you are unhappy about any judged aspect, there is a Protest protocol that will fully consider your concerns, and update the JCNA rules if found necessary/ warranted within prevailing policy guidelines.
Anyone with a Tool-Kit that fully complies with my detailed published papers, will have no trouble at all, fully complying with JCNAs far-abbreviated expectations.
Publication of my DETAILED papers on E-type Tool-Kits is scheduled to commence from I expect the APRIL 2017 issue of Philip Porter’s British specialist monthly magazine THE E-TYPE available by direct subscription only, but it does enjoy an extensive world-wide circulation to E-Type owners and enthusiasts, including those in USA and I dare say also to some members of JCNA. But as above, apart from some help from George and most likely some other probable members of JCNA, my detailed publications owe little, if anything at all to JCNA - living in Australia, I am not a member.
But please, as previously - if anyone has any questions or input re SS and Jaguar Tool-Kits, and not just E-types, I am more than happy to respond, direct, or on-forum. I do have a wealth of information/detail/photos on all Tool-Kits from 1932 SS.1 through 1975 V12 E-type and later, albeit I do not have the same interest/passion for later models. A MAJOR stand-alone book I am working on covers SS and Jaguar Tools and Tool-Kits (1932 to 1975), with the SS-Jaguar period, XK period and E-type period well progressed, but publication is years away.
Thanks for your great work, Roger. Some confusion may arise from your name being listed along with Steve Kennedy on the JCNA publication Jaguar Tools and Toolkits being sold here: http://www.jcna.com/shop/items/60
I look forward to reading your more complete information in THE E-TYPE this coming year.
–Drew
Roger, I believe you and I exchanged posts on what I found in the boot of my 1968 E when I acquired it back in 1982, and that is a ratty tool roll with maybe half the tools missing but including the Tecalemit GC.3020 grease gun. I am not at all certain this tool roll is original to the car as there is some belief, if not evidence, that Canadian delivery Es that were transshipped through New Jersey - by far the majority - were configured the same as the US Federalised cars. It’s a question I didn’t think to ask other Canadian S1½ owners but shall when opportunities arise. I do know that home delivery Canadian cars had the toolkit, as there was a very original one here in the neighborhood that had one, along with the triple SUs and missing Tex door mirror, all other features the same as the US cars.
By the way, all other Canadian owners I have contacted report their cars fitted with SUs and lack the Tex mirror.
Jerry see the shoppe–it is under JCNA publications.
Nick you mis state what was said. Canadian cars that were ordered directly from Jaguar met RoW standards. That said t=most cars were transfers from Jaguar US. Not sure why you couch things the way you do but here is the proof–go to the archives (in the us not Canada) and go line by line to the order and disposition of cars. Th e work I have Cited was done by Karen Miller (Rip) so please make arrangements to go and search the data. I have seen a true 68 ROW car and it is exactly as you say but it ws ordered directly thru Jaguar Canada. Nick all cars encountered were exactly per the IPL> do you have a 1968 IPL?
You continue to make comments and all are toward your car. Please stop and simply go and do the research.
Canada at that time took full advantage of the US market. They had few sales so they simply transferred stock from the tax free zone in the US. Of course they made changes or the changes were made prior to trans shipment. Jaguar then–as it does now had a refitting/repair facility at the port!
Not deliberately George, I assure you.
George, it will not surprise you that you’re regarded as Mr. JCNA in J-L and as a consequence what you say with respect to what is and is not original carries considerable weight. And when you tell someone they misstate the facts those in earshot pay attention. So I must respond.
There is no doubt that your knowledge of things Jaguar is immense and impressive and I will be the first to acknowledge that.You are a great asset to this board. JCNA publishes judging guides and is a recognised authority on authenticity, having taken the time to investigate and document exhaustively what is and is not correct for any given model at any particular time in its production. It’s fair to say, however, that JCNA, and you by extension, are not always right and it is also fair to say that you will defend what are considered established facts in the face of assertions and/or evidence to the contrary. I would hazard to say that almost all of the time you are right but you will also back off if said evidence is strong, as in the case of washers over lifting brackets about which you challenged me recently, but in cases where evidence is ambiguous or anecdotal no quarter is given. That’s ok as far as it goes. We’re entitled to think differently and to consider some things important and others trivial. This particular ongoing conversation fits well into the latter category except when one’s integrity is publicly called into question.
Back in June you and I had a conversation about a certain very original 1966 E-type OTS that appears in a Hagerty commercial. That particular car belongs to someone who is a big JCNA booster and well regarded in enthusiast circles. It sports several features that according to convention are patently incorrect for a 1966 car, including three-eared safety knockoffs and smooth wire wheel hubs (introduced at the extreme end of the 1967 MY) and open headlights (introduced, according to the JCNA MY 1968 judging guide, the first time in January, 1967) yet you maintained in the thread that the car was as it left the assembly line because you personally know the owner who bought the car new and also know he would not deliberately misrepresent it. You made no mention of documentation. Yet someone who says his 1968 MY E-type lacked the Tex door mirror must be mistaken because you have personally gone over all the NA records and they indicate only cars delivered directly to Canada sported ROW features (I don’t blame you for rolling your eyes, George, but it’s you who brought this up again after all). If I am not mistaken, and I honestly stand willing to be corrected, you claim that Jaguar Canada either ordered cars directly from the factory for MY 1968, in which case they arrived in Canada from England in ROW configuration, or they ordered them from unassigned stock in New Jersey, in which case they were US spec. You maintained that only a handful of cars, a dozen or so, were direct deliveries and all the rest shipped out of quarantine. If I have this assertion wrong, please clarify. Your post above isn’t specific enough, and it’s not important enough for me to take the trip to NJ to verify the records myself. Even then they would be subject to my particular confirmation bias, which may or may not have been the case with you and JCNA, and this tiresome discussion would continue.
You will also recall a conversation we had back in January 2015, in the E-type forum and over the telephone, after I posted about a copy of a JDHT certificate I have that clearly contains false information, the archivist having bent to the assertions of the car’s owner who paid for the service that his June, 1967 production car was originally fitted with dual Strombergs. I sent you a copy. This was a bit of a bombshell as it cast the accuracy of the JDHT program into doubt and you asked, and I agreed, to let the matter lapse. That was two years ago. Your post above encourages me to demonstrate that not all that is written down is fact and that not all facts are written down.
Of course I keep referencing my own car. Why wouldn’t I? I’ve owned it 35 years and have torn it completely apart twice. We’re, y’know, intimate.
Nope.
I’ll dig up the links to the relevant threads if what I’m saying here is called into question, but I’d rather just return to our overnight guests.
We’re cool, George. Nice talkin’ with ya.
G’day Drew,
Most embarrassing I have to say.
Steve Kennedy and I have been friends for a LONG time, and indeed I have been responding to Steve’s questions re Tools for many many years now, but I am not really sure I was aware that this JCNA publication existed, albeit surely I must have known you would have thought. Certainly Steve has just now sent me a copy, and I am sure I have never seen it before, but equally I do recognise a lot of my input included throughout. But this is something Steve put together, way back in 1998, with later a few updates, thus I am sure it has filled a gap and provided good service as interest in this topic grows.
BUT I have to say after a very quick scan - it really needs some pretty significant updating and corrections, indeed I have to admit to certain mistakes due to some of my contributions. My research, sources of information, and detail accuracy has moved on significantly in recent years, once I got serious in addressing the clear demand for detailed and accurate information on Tool-Kits. I have already had published a detailed coverage of XK tool-kits, and you will find that in Philip Porters THIRD Edition of ORIGINAL JAGUAR XK, and as you are aware am expecting to have something even more detailed on E-types tool-kits progressively published from April 2017 onwards, being the two model-series of Jaguars with probably most interest in originality detail. Eventually however, the intention is in producing a detailed stand-alone book covering all SS and Jaguar Tool-Kits 1932 to 1975, which is a HUGE task, given the research effort needed to ensure satisfactory accuracy, but it is more than half done now, in draft form at least.
But the immediate task is to finish of current E-type Tool-Kit papers, although in the mean time, I do keep responding to Steve’s specific requests for additional tool-detail, thus I dare say he may generate further updates to this JCNA Booklet accordingly, but its such a complex task to do piecemeal.
I suspect I will need to send Steve a copy of my up-to-date E-type efforts once finalised, so he can get this JCNA publication a lot more up-to-date at least in parts relevant to E-types, but that’s a balancing act of just how much detail is justified in a JCNA multi-model guide, and what level of detail can be included within JCNA policy guidelines, but that will be up to Steve to progress.
Nick,
I most certainly am very aware of all our communication on both E-type Literature Packs and on Tools, as indeed my goal was always to provide a balanced coverage of all the major market peculiarities, and indeed Canada, although being the second largest LHD market, was (in my opinion) overshadowed and overwhelmed by your southern neighbour, so I had an agenda to try and better understand this North American situation as it impacted on Literature Packs and Tool-Kits.
Keep in mind my interests span the 1932 to 1940 SS period, then the postwar 1945 to 1975 period and there is a huge change in how things were handled for Canada, initially independently as a British Commonwealth importing country direct from UK and not via USA (as did Australia, South Africa and NZ), then with joint shared arrangements with USA but remaining independent technically, then once Leyland got their teeth into things and Canada started to align your local emissions/safety standards with USA. I can assure you that during the E-type period there are a lot of differences in Canadian and USA cars regarding their included Literature Packs, but I am not so sure (yet) re Tool-Kits, so YES PLEASE, if you can flush out anything more on Canadian 1967 and 1968 build cars that would be great and very much appreciated.
Nick go back to your guest. I know the car and the issues–I do not know the car but know of the folks. There are things that are not orig. but I did not defend them just stated they are a
partner"/
The one point on the Can. cars I do not think I am making clear is there were some cars directly ordered and would have not seen NJ. They were directly delivered and should have been ROW cars which are as you describe. The bulk were transfered from US trade zone stock.
Roger, It took a while, but I finally found the VIN of the '65 that my tool roll came in. It was 1E30398. I found the number in my Dad’s handwriting in the middle of the 4.2 spare parts catalogue. It was written on the page that documents the brake pad part number by VIN.
So I ran to xkedata.com to find nothing about the car, but the owners manual had been sold on Ebay. My guess is the car was parted out.
Thanks to you for the push to look for the VIN & for your expertise on this personal piece of history. Tom
Sorry, the feeler gauge was missing.
Jerry
Can anyone advise what year Jaguar used Ikea tools in their E-Type kits? Are they correct for my 1966 FHC? 
Seriously. I’ve bough a new roll and will now start my hunt for correct tools. Unfortunately I threw out the only original tool (SSP Pliers) that came with the car thinking that as they were not marked Jaguar they weren’t original.
Talk about testing the top of the market! A$4000 +
Geez. That price is way out there. Some of the tools in this roll don’t look like they match with the E-Type. Would love to hear Roger Payne’s comments on it.
–Drew
Interesting that he indicates that he will swap tools to ensure the bidder gets a correct set to match their car.
The pictured Ebay offering from etypetoolsandothers is an extremely good E-type tool-kit, and all tools look to be in excellent original condition and not restored, thus far preferably to say someone wanting ORIGINALITY in preference to 100% Concourse perfect finish, but unfortunately it is as he says, a reproduction tool-roll, and not an original - but a quick look shows this to be as good as is currently available with reproduction tool-rolls and impossible to get really good original tool-rolls anyway now as the material used deteriorates with age.
This general style of tool-roll/ kit was in use over March 1961 to July 1968 period, albeit USA market cars stopped getting any tool-roll/ kit after August 1967, but over this 7 year period every tool evolved in detail, and some changed in part number, thus I can date this particular tool-kit as presented as suiting a 1964 E-type, albeit the tyre-pressure gauge dates a little later.
So the comment that he will swap tools to get correct set to match your car, so presumably if you want a tool-kit to suit say your 1966 E-type, then whatever is wrong in this 1964 tool-kit he will exchange for the correct 1966 items and so forth.
If anyone is interested in following up, I am more than happy to advise what tools need to be swapped to suit whatever year 1961 to 1968 tool-kit you are seeking, the only qualification of course being does he have available all the needed tools in similar excellent/original unrestored condition to the 1964 ones pictured, and as above - if you do want a 1964 tool-kit I would ask him to change the tyre-pressure gauge to suit.
I wont comment on asking price, but can advise, I haven’t seen another E-type tool-kit offered on Ebay as good as this one is, in both originality and original condition, with most of the better offerings these days sprinkled with wrong and reproduction tools, and many offerings that are just deceptive rubbish or a long long way to go like Tommoxj62’s IKEA set 
so you really do get what you pay for, and can spend many hours hunting/ searching if you have the knowledge to avoid the many eBay crooks.
Speaking of price he mention a shipping estimate of 50 to 70 GBP, IIRC. Is shipping really that expensive in Europe?
If he sends it insured, then easily. Shipping is comparatively expensive here in Europe.
This US auction for a 4.2 tool kit has just finished. It was interesting as it was fairly complete and the seller did not know the value of the kit so bidding started at US$99. It was purchased in a lot from an estate sale so the seller would have a nice surprise. Final bidding was US$1,192
Looking at the bidder history it looks like a professional buyer. So I expect to see this kit again with the few missing tools relplaced and a much bigger price.
