| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Simon
United Kingdom
447 Posts |
 Posted - 04/06/2019 : 15:17:51
|
| I expect someone knows what exactly is the story behind the rather curious but very glitzy red MG "J2" shown in the feature on the Shanghai Auto Show. Chrome wires, whatever next?! Simon C. |
|
|
Terry Hartley
United Kingdom
278 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2019 : 16:53:59
|
It'll be the pride and joy of someone, but it wouldn't be mine.
The answer to your question, Simon, "whatever next?" I fear is probably fitting an electric motor!! 
Terry |
 |
|
|
George Eagle
United Kingdom
3228 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2019 : 17:55:07
|
Glitzy maybe but it has some odd features e.g. headlamps and line of the top edge of the door....!
George
L2023 |
|
|
|
Simon
United Kingdom
447 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2019 : 17:58:43
|
| Still a mystery car, then. Would have been interesting to know how it arrived in China and any history. Ah well. Simon C. |
|
|
|
KevinA
New Zealand
668 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2019 : 20:51:44
|
"interesting to know how it arrived in China"
Simon, are you sure you're talking about the car or the MG name ;-)
|
Edited by - KevinA on 06/06/2019 20:56:13 |
|
|
|
George Wilder
United Kingdom
91 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2019 : 20:58:04
|
I have been able to estabish that the car apparently arrived in China many many years ago.
It belongs to a museum in West China - it does NOT belong to MG Motor. The car was was it loaned to them for the show.
George |
|
|
|
Simon
United Kingdom
447 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2019 : 11:44:16
|
| Thanks, all. So, that "almost" J2 will have to remain something of a mystery. Another survivor anyway, wonder what the engine is? Simon C. |
|
|
|
JMH
United Kingdom
910 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2019 : 11:45:48
|
| Any idea of the Chassis number George? To be fair, it looks as if some of the body work has been done by someone who only had access to some pictures (& the craftsmen in the Far East can produce absolutely anything from a picture) rather than all the info we have over here, particularly if it were all done years ago. |
|
|
|
Richard Hardy
United Kingdom
2138 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2019 : 14:32:43
|
With so much which is non-standard here, should there not be a new description say 'J2 Special' which would be more applicable than say 'J2'.
For accurate replicas of other models, for example my J4 replica on a J1 chassis and which is pretty accurate in small detail, should it not carry the description 'J4 recreation' or 'J4(J1) recreation', as opposed to it simply being referred to as a J1, which is bears no relation to in terms of current appearance
As the general public are not terribly knowledgeable about what these models should look like, is it not a little misleading if we simply refer to the chassis prefix and without providing an indication it is a car which is non-standard.
Not sure what the right approach should be but food for thought anyway!!
Richard
Vintage MG Parts |
|
|
|
leafrancis14
United Kingdom
323 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2019 : 16:18:39
|
Well - we don't know which car it is (it may not even be a J2) and I've had a quick look around the register records and can't find anything to identify it. So we will have to ask the MG company 'recreation' :) if they can help us.
I stand on the shoulders of giants (who no doubt debated all of this terminology at great length), but the register itself is only concerned with recording the lineage of the artifacts made by the MG Car Co. between 1929(ish) and 1935, and for that our baseline of identity has to be the chassis number and the model as it was originally produced.
Barny Creaser
(Wellingborough) |
|
|
|
Westbury
United Kingdom
1955 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2019 : 17:11:03
|
I am in agreement with Richard’s comments here !
Chris |
|
|
|
JMH
United Kingdom
910 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2019 : 18:04:27
|
The debate is almost endless..... & your committee does indeed scratch its head over this on a regular basis.
But a couple of points that are generally well established/accepted:
The word "Replica" is controversial because it undermines genuine period factory produced replicas offered for sale (we have 12/12s & other makes have similar issues).
"Recreation" is often used in the wider car world to describe something that has been produced from scratch - no period bits at all! Surely if you start with a genuine pile of bits & chassis, that should be acknowledged? What more logical way to do it than with the chassis number?
"Special" was historically used for something that was built up/substantially modified for a specific purpose (usually some sort of competition), but maybe just a luxury non-std body. Perhaps it's a bit harsh to describe a car as such just because not all the right bits were used in it's restoration which was intended to be "standard" but for what ever reason the correct bits couldn't be sourced?
And then there's the car which has had non-std bits added over the years to keep it road worthy- let's face it accurate lamps, mudguards, fuel tanks, instruments etc were all difficult to find in the past, with firms like Derringtons providing bits that "did the job". The old boy who's kept his car on the road for 50+ years through thick & thin would justifiably feel a bit peeved if someone with a perfect restoration from a "boneyard chassis" but the benefit of BW, S&V, VMGP etc to source from, told him his car was really just a special?
Everything is of course debatable, but I think our MMM descriptions where we try & stick to the original model ID & add "rebuilt to X spec" or "in the style of" etc is pretty close to keeping everybody happy(ish)?
JH
|
|
|
|
Westbury
United Kingdom
1955 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2019 : 19:56:24
|
Going back to Richard’s post, MG J1 ( J4 recreation ) would seem to me a pretty accurate way to describe his car.
Chris |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6000 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2019 : 21:09:20
|
I’m afraid that while “J1 (J4 recreation)” might be technically accurate, I’m quite sure in conversation it will simply be a “J4 replica”. A “replica” is simply an exact copy of something; in the motor car world a “Replica” is a factory built exact copy. I personally see no reason my Richard's car can’t be referred to, as he has done, as a “J4 replica” for that is what it is (or purports to be). Tying ourselves in knots to avoid the “r” word (not the “R” word) seems not only a bit pointless but also a bit Canute like.
P.S. I rather fancy the chrome wire wheels 
Simon J
J3437 |
Edited by - Simon Johnston on 07/06/2019 21:10:16 |
|
|
|
Richard Hardy
United Kingdom
2138 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2019 : 23:40:16
|
I don’t necessarily see that the term replica should be reserved for a factory built replica when in fact, anyone can build a replica if indeed it is correct. Similarly, any car factory could simply have called one of its replica models a ‘recreation’. They are one and the same, just choice on words.
The problem with the use of the word 'replica' or 'recreation' is that all too often people are building cars with limited research and as such lack of knowledge, calling cars as something which clearly, they are not.
I personally think descriptions should be used with care and replicas / recreations used only where appropriate.
Rich
Vintage MG Parts |
Edited by - Richard Hardy on 08/06/2019 00:11:31 |
|
|
|
LewPalmer
USA
3209 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2019 : 01:21:06
|
I think the semantics of the various car variations has been hashed out by the committee over a number of years. While we can argue over the usage, the definitions are well spelled out. All one need do is refer to the definitions at the beginning of the printed register.
Lew Palmer
PA1169, PB0560 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
