Cab A vs. Cab B: which to get?

[jreinan]

I'm looking at a couple different Cab A's and Cab B's for sale. From what I can tell, the main differences are that the Cab A has some wood in the frame, a smaller back seat, and no back windows.  The Cab A is also about 30% more than the Cab B, and is probably more attractive with the top up.  Is the fact of all-steel construction of the Cab B something to consider, e.g., less of a risk of wood rot? Just trying to decide, I suppose, whether there is a good reason to spend extra $$ on getting a Cab A.  Any thoughts are appreciated.  Thanks!

[Scott Montoney]

I own a Cab B.  You've hit some key points in your summary already. 
The wood can be a concern, and very expensive to repair.  So if you're not sure of the condition, be careful.  Maybe someone can offer input as to what to look for to evaluate the condition of the wood frame members. Something about door sagging and alignment is just one thing.
I don't know that I'd even call the rear bench of the cab A a "seat" at all.  I'm glad to have the full rear seat for my use. I like the option to take more than one extra passenger.
The Cab A does have more chrome trim, and the dash is covered with the same leather as the interior, where the Cab B is painted.
There were fewer Cab B's produced, but the Cab A is probably considered more "sporty" so I think that makes it more desirable and more costly.

[jreinan]

Scott, thanks for the quick reply.  Funny -- I just happened to see the article on your car in the back issue of the Star!  Great story, great family history with that car.

I agree that the back seat might be a more useful feature to me than the sportier look and higher price of the Cab A.

Thanks again!