I manage the records for the Victoria Association and we have over 500 surviving 190As in the data base. In a standard situation, the car assembly date is calculated in the data base as follows:
Engine Assembly Date + plus 60 days = Probable Car Assembly Date.
The above methodology allows for situations for example, where bodies built by suppliers (Murray, Briggs, etc.) may have sat at a Ford Branch for quite awhile before it went to the car assembly line. The assumption is that there was always pressure for engines to keep the branch lines well supplied, so the engine assembly date is the pinpoint of reality.
The 60 days leeway between the engine assembly date and the car assembly date comes from The Model A Ford Judging Standards & Restoration Guidelines, and it has a reasonable rationale.
So each car has three event dates of significance in this order:
Body Assembly Date; Engine Assembly Date; Car Assembly Date @ A Ford Branch.
The dilemma is that there are no records that have been uncovered by Murray, Briggs, Ford or others that correlate body serial numbers to the calendar, or its eventual engine number, or to its car assembly date at the branch. For example, it is unknown when Murray built Body Number 190A29256. However it is known from Ford's foundry records that the original engine in 190A29256 was built on April 8, 1931. The original engine number, 4545497 was verified to be the same as the number stamped into the frame. Thus applying the 60 days leeway, I estimate that this car was most likely assembled at a Ford Branch in April or May 1931.
Contrary to the practice of Murray, Briggs and other body suppliers, Ford did not serialize its body production. So for example in the case of a 45B Coupe, the only way to date the body is by its features using Ford branch service letters, and Ford's service bulletins.
There is a caution regarding the use of the Ford branch letters. That is the branches did not necessarily incorporate changes at the same time, nor in the same way. For example, Ford branch letters regarding the interior passenger's side sun visor going out of production in slant windshield cars consistent in Chicago and in Indianapolis. Chicago announced that the passenger's visor was back into production shortly thereafter, but the corresponding letter from the Indianapolis Branch says that the dealers could install the visor, but gave no indication it went back into production. Thus slant windshield cars built in Chicago could have a difference from those built in Indianapolis.