| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Richard Hardy
United Kingdom
2143 Posts |
 Posted - 08/06/2019 : 08:24:24
|
Hi Lew
Whilst I appreciate the reasons behind why the committee refer to the chassis prefix as being the car identity, I am querying whether this is actually the best all-encompassing approach and is there not a better more accurate way to tell the wider population what these cars actually are.
The wider population don't have access to Register definitions and as such, the way we annotate photos or describe cars is not altogether helpful in this respect
Rich
Vintage MG Parts |
Edited by - Richard Hardy on 08/06/2019 08:29:10 |
 |
|
|
DickMorbey
United Kingdom
3672 Posts |
|
|
Richard Hardy
United Kingdom
2143 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2019 : 12:05:56
|
Hi Dick
With respect, you are completely missing the sensible points I have raised no matter whatever guidelines may be.
You and I know where the Register's own deffinitions are. I have questioned whether these are all appropriate. I dont think they are as it introduces ambiguity in some areas.
The non MMM MG enthusiast has generally never heard of the MMM Register. It is the wider circle who would question some of these parameters and I myself have had to conform where people have questioned model designations which do not accord with committee publications.
On this basis, tge deffinitions do not in my opinin sit comfortably. Thats all!!!
Rich
Vintage MG Parts |
Edited by - Richard Hardy on 08/06/2019 12:15:48 |
|
|
|
chapelfarmer
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2019 : 12:36:51
|
As a fairly uneducated car person / amateur enthusiast / potential buyer of a car , ‘replica’ seems confusing, especially re competition-oriented cars : could be anything from EG FN Le Mans Replica / Austin 7 Ulster Replica to a fibreglass kit car! Sorry if this is a naive position. I’d have expected a ‘recreation’ would be what they call ‘tool room copy’ and done as well or badly as the tool room in question. Some of these are breathtakingly good!
John
john |
|
|
|
KevinA
New Zealand
669 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2019 : 12:47:53
|
To get back to the original post this is a show car intended to show a (presumably) less informed (due to minimal exposure) public what MGs used to look like. Whether it is an M, J, 1,2,3 etc is almost irrelevant.
Richard's postings are a perfectly valid point of view but do not really form part of this thread, however they do highlight the perennial problem of classifying older vehicles. Times, and perspectives, change so we should always be prepared to revisit definitions. The recent production of "vintage" Bugattis for example shows that maybe some of these definitions need tightening or refining |
|
|
|
Richard Hardy
United Kingdom
2143 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2019 : 13:01:48
|
A fibre glass replica or a car which is not recreated correctly would not be a replica. In the example you refer to, that would more likely be an MG homage especially if also but on a custom chassis'! Also, a poor toolroom copy is not a replica, its more of an amateurish variation on a theme!
There are plenty of MG homages advertised on Ebay and elsewhere. In fact those T/Q cars create yet further confusion as there is little Q about them apart from a vague body shape resemblance to warrant deserving any reference to a Q designation unless possibly the first letter on the registration plate!!! Those are simply T type specials and not Q type replicas.
I suspect this topic has exhausted itself and without any sensible clarity other for enthusiasts to use the term appropriately, which may not of course be in line with the committee definition which is there simply to record chassis based details. This was not the topic I raised however.
Richard
Vintage MG Parts |
Edited by - Richard Hardy on 08/06/2019 13:05:51 |
|
|
|
powerplus
United Kingdom
599 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2019 : 19:16:45
|
Whilst sympathising with Richard’s issue, the term ‘replica’ infers manufacture of a copy of an original, which Richard’s car is not. In practice Richard has remodelled his original J1 to simulate an MG J4.
An accurate description of the status of his car would therefore be an ‘MG J1/J4 remodel ‘ giving a clear image and characterisation of the car, which is not adequately reflected in current definitions. This terminology could beneficially be applied to clarify the status of other models eg MG K1/K3 remodel.
Powerplus.
|
|
|
|
Peter Green
United Kingdom
1682 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2019 : 22:05:19
|
Richard and all,
As Dick and Jeremy have mentioned the Register Committee only recognise the word ‘Replica’ when it is used in connection with a M.G. Factory built replica, i.e. M type 12/12 ‘Replica’. The Register Committee do not like the description ‘reconstructed’ because it could be taken to imply a car is made/reconstructed of all new parts, i.e. a toolroom copy, which it probably will not have been. We therefor came to the decision that the best way to describe a car is to call/list it by its original chassis type/ number and the body style it currently has, i.e. in your case Richard a, J1 rebuilt in the style of a J4, or a, D type rebuilt in the style of a C type, or an, N type rebuilt in the style of a K3, or a, L1 rebuilt in the style of a L2, etc. etc. This way the chassis type is identified and so is the body style.
Peter
|
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6015 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2019 : 22:48:38
|
The trouble is that no one is actually going to say “do you like my J1 rebuilt in the style of a J4?”. That’s fine for an accurate description in the Register but in reality people are going to say “do you like my J4 replica.” Of course very few cars “rebuilt in the style of ...” are truly replicas, i.e. exact copies of the real thing. However, no one has to my mind yet come up with a word that conveys the notion that we all understand when someone says “J4 replica”, i.e. a car built on a genuine M.G. chassis of appropriate type, modified as necessary to create a car that has the overall appearance and attributes of the real thing even if it’s not the exact copy that the word 'replica' implies.
I personally think that we are too hung up on the fact that the factory built a limited number of 12/12 Replicas (in the true sense of the word) and therefore we can’t use the word 'replica' and so get ourselves tied in linguistic knots.
Thankfully, having a good ol' common or garden J2 it doesn’t really affect me. But once Mrs J wins the Lottery (as she has assured me she will ... one day!) I’ll be out there looking for a nice K3 replica  (I’d go for the real thing but she probably won’t let me have that much of her winnings!)
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
Richard Hardy
United Kingdom
2143 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2019 : 08:45:37
|
I think Alan's suggestion is very good indeed.
The register's approach for recording cars is strictly correct from a records perspective but it then sadly gets used for the wrong application ie annotation of photos etc. Less knowledgeable or newcomers to MMMs must be totally confused if they pick up a Yearbook as so many annotations at at odds with appearances.
Just looking at page 68 of the latest Yearbook for example, most of the annotated photos are completely at odds with the car appearances
As so many MMM cars now are sporting different appearances to their original factory spec, is this not something the committee should look to revisit, even for recording purposes?? Does the committee actually know what chassis are sporting what bodies the days ??
Dick, do you wish to provide further comment / suggestions on these issues?
Rich
Vintage MG Parts |
Edited by - Richard Hardy on 09/06/2019 08:46:08 |
|
|
|
powerplus
United Kingdom
599 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2019 : 10:04:43
|
Thank you Richard for your supporting comment.
Peter, whilst respecting your comment and the definition approved by Triple-M committee, the existing definition is rather cumbersome and seldom used for everyday use. An accurate short-form of the definition is now proposed, and suggested for every day parlance and description.
Powerplus |
|
|
|
JMH
United Kingdom
911 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2019 : 11:45:42
|
| Yes - it's cumbersome, but in many ways it has to be. In everyday use someone can call their car anything they want. We're talking about how it's recorded. As already stated by others; a replicas is an exact copy. The problem is whether we like it or not sellers & buyers refer to the register. If we record something as a rep & a happy buyer is told - "that's not right" by the first smart alec he meets at an event, it reflects on us. As Richard has said - some are better than others. |
|
|
|
Blithe Spirit
United Kingdom
185 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2019 : 12:32:03
|
My experience, with no MG connection, relates to a Healey (not Austin Healey) rolling chassis that I converted and re-bodied to look like a Silverstone several years ago. Mostly matching numbers original Healey bits, but a later copy body. Much like converting a J1 to look and perform like a J4. My club was happy to call it a "replica", as it has done with several others, but I agree with the sentiment expressed here and following discussion with my insurers we settled on "evocation", as in Healey Silverstone evocation. It is listed in the register under the original Tickford chassis number as a special, however! That would make Rich's car a J type special,I guess, though we would probably reserve that title for the XPAG engined cars or similar.
Personally, I have more of a problem with some J and P types being called Q or Q replicas, quite common in VSCC events, when they clearly have the incorrect chassis dimensions and not 750cc engines.
Perhaps not much help to the viewing public.
|
|
|
|
Onno
Netherlands
1031 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2019 : 13:11:33
|
Happy to call my D a special because that is what it is.
Not meant to be an evocation of anything just meant to go racing asap.
Those TQ things are not even near special ;)
The VSCC buff form is just a piece of paper on which you can get anything printed to go racing.
No form of provenance just a way of defining cars to fit them in a suitable racing class
So the VSCC and the register do exactly what they should.
Define cars to their own publicly available rule book.
The owners and traders are the ones who through ignorance or greed make a mess of it.
You can’t expect the register or VSCC to police that.
Onno "D" Könemann |
|
|
|
George Eagle
United Kingdom
3230 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2019 : 14:13:54
|
I was on the Committee when the rules were revised under Dick’s Chairmanship.
The very thorough review of the rules took into account points raised by various members and were the result of a lot of thought and work by all, but especially Dick and Peter.
I personally see no reason to change the current practice of listing the cars as described by Peter in his posting.
George
L2023 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
