With the experience gained in the Dodge-Plymouth block let's tackle the 35000-39999 block with DeSoto dealerships again (see
post #48 and
post #52). Right away it must be said that it is actually a 36000-39999 block, because the 35000-35999 namespace contains only three entries right at the start, at #35043, #35058 and #35059, whereas the remaining partial blocks (36000-36999, 37000-37000, 38000-38999 and 39000-39999) each contain 50 or more entries. So I will concentrate on these four partial blocks.
It is a bit more chaotic, but by and large the same patterns as those found for Dodge-Plymouth dealerships can be seen. I will only list the 1950s dealership numbers up to the point where the ordering becomes mainly chronological, at the start of the 39000-39999 partial block. We now know we have to look out for three cases:
- the 1950-1953 timestamps that are not expected to be in chronological order (marked "<-" in the listing):
- the 1954-and-up timestamps that should be (not marked);
- timestamps of the "early number/late date" type (marked "->"), that are out of sync because they leap forward in time.
36041/32 Liccardi Motors, Inc., Green Brook, NJ, orig. date 02-54;
36148/32 Brodlieb Motors, Inc., Woodmere, NY, orig. date 03-54;
36285/74 Poll Motor Co., Inc., Sheridan, WY, orig. date 05-54;
36315/53 Iverson-Max Motors, Mitchell, SD, orig. date 06-54;
36347/51 Central Motors, Inc., Evanstown, IL, orig. date 06-54;
36485/52 Repp Motor Co., Higginsville, MO, orig. date 08-58: ->
Operative as a dealership since 1953.
36537/33 Lombardi Brothers, Inc., Lakewood, NJ, orig. date 08-54;
36589/33 La Flam-Jentsch, Inc., Runnemede, NJ, orig. date 09-54;
36764/54 Marten Motors, Inc., Emden, IL, orig. date 03-50; <-
37104/35 King Motor Co. Inc., Reidsville, NC, orig. date 12-54;
37345/31 Manchester Plymouth, Talcottville, CT, orig. date 02-55;
37447/32 McKenzie Motors, Inc., Bronx, NY, orig. date 02-55;
37694/42 Vanandel-Flikkema Motor Sales, Grand Rapids, MI, orig. date 01-50; <-
37959/43 Lonaconing Motors, Inc., Lonaconing, MD, orig. date 04-55;
37997/51 Burton Motor Sales, Belvidere, IL, orig. date 08-58: ->
Active at least from 1950-1951 as a DeSoto-Plymouth dealer.
38023/69 Brown Auto Sales, Silver City, NM, orig. date 05-55;
38107/33 Barr Motor Co., Oxford, PA, orig. date 05-55;
38165/41 Gray Sales, Inc., Connersville, IN, orig. date 07-50; <-
38175/42 Northern Auto, Inc., Hancock, MI, orig. date 07-50; <-
38304/32 Main Auto Sales, Inc., Madison, NJ, orig. date 05-55;
38513/42 Beacon Sales & Service, Charlotte, MI, orig. date 05-55;
38622/42 Naylor Motor Sales, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI, orig. date 06-50; <-
38637/42 Unverferth Motor Sales, Kalida, orig. date 12-51; <-
38752/54 Harper-Lankheit Motor Co., Sikeston, MO, orig. date 07-55;
38923/35 Falls Church Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., Falls Church, VA, orig. date 11-52; <-
38999/53 Adamson Motors, Inc., Rochester, MN, orig. date 05-53; <-
39062/44 Van Dyke Motors, Middleburg, NY, orig. date 12-55;
39075/32 Buhler & Bitter, Inc., Hazlet, NJ, orig. date 01-56.
The 1954-1956 timestamps behave as expected, as they conform to a chronological order. The two timestamps from August, 1958 are out of sync and should have been listed in the chronological tail in the 39000-39999 partial block (1956 and up). From background information it's clear that the timestamps do not refer to the start of the dealership relation. Two out of three cases in the DeSoto-Plymouth block then behave exactly like they do in the Dodge-Plymouth block.
The third case is a surprise: the 1950-1953 timestamp series also seems to follow a chronological order. The two exceptions to this statement are the sequence #36764 - #37694 and #38622. Now, #38622 is part of a Southern Michigan-Ohio-Northwestern Pennsylvania geographical group, so it doesn't necessarily count as an exception. You can't have geographical and chronological ordering at the same time. That leaves us only with the sequence
36764/54 orig. date 03-50;
37694/42 orig. date 01-50;
as the counter example against a possible chronological grouping also in the 1950-1953 series. To the best of my knowledge, both these timestamps indicate the start of the dealership relation, so it's a rather strong counter example that on its own invalidates the presence of chronological ordering here. The apparent chronology is likely coincidental.