| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Peter Green
United Kingdom
1682 Posts |
 Posted - 03/08/2009 : 21:39:36
|
| Yes it is. |
 |
|
|
Brian Kelly
USA
526 Posts |
|
|
Martin Warner
United Kingdom
85 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2009 : 17:40:58
|
Steve
I must admit that I had misread the detail of who was selling what. I had jumped to the usual conclusion that it was the auction house that were being economical with the truth. In fact it is the opposite.
I have contacted Simon Hope at H&H and this is an exert from his reply:
"For your information when initially placed on the web as 3015 we were contacted (I use the word advisedly) by the MMM register telling us that we were incorrect in referring to it without the suffix."
I am concerned about his "I use the word advisedly". I have been a member of the MMM Register for thirty-five years and nobody asked me, but then unfortunately I was not likely to profit from it. I thought the Register existed to stop the provenance of historic cars being denigrated, not to encourage the waving about of bits of scrap metal to challenge the honourable history of a fine car.
Only one car left the factory as K3015. Which is it? The one with a continuous history. Anything different devalues all our cars.
Martin Warner
|
|
|
|
Peter Green
United Kingdom
1682 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2009 : 22:34:48
|
J. Hall, who does not have internet access, has asked me to post the following statement to clarify my remarks in my posting of 26th July concerning his copies of Dick KnudsonÆs notes.
He writes:-
The notes Peter Green referred to were made by Dick Knudson when he read the files of the racing types (K3, J4 at least û perhaps also the others) at MGÆs Abingdon factory. The notes say;-
ôOct Æ34. Sold to J.H.T. Smith by MG Car Companyö and combined with brief notes on the 1935 and 1936 season, the latter includes ôlowered alloy tankö
For 1937 a brief description of the specification of the new single seater on a new chassis is given. Also noted is the sale of parts to MacArthur (K3006 owner) including ôthe chassis but not blowerö. There is no mention of the condition of the (original) chassis.
1938 mentions the sale of the lowered body to MacArthur.
1939 entry details the further modifications made including the sale of the 1937 single seat body to MacArthur and the manufacture of a new body by Grey Bros.
The notes by Knudson in the second part of his sheet 129 and then on sheet 130 appear to be a transcription of J.H.T. SmithÆs notes of 1974 noticeably the list of items 1-7 of the 1939 modifications including the error made by Smith of item 2, the fitment of the front axle from K3009. This work was done in 1938 not 1939.
It would appear that Knudson writing in 1995 about the discarded K3015 chassis either subsequently to 1974 accessed an authoritive source that stated ôthe chassis had been bent, flexed, twisted and drilledö or that the description he used was based on supposition and is an example of literary licence used to emphasise the case he was making in his article in The Sacred Octagon of April û May 1995.
J.J.H. 8-8-2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For clarities sake I think I should mention that when I restored the car that Syd Beer had built on the original K3015 chassis I saw no evidence of the chassis having been cracked but it was very slightly bent/twisted.
Peter.
|
|
|
|
Nick Feakes
USA
3331 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2009 : 15:27:25
|
Peter has asked me to unlock this topic.
Please do not post anything that I might interpret as a smear or innuendo about any other member or I will delete it.
Nick |
|
|
|
peterfenichel
United Kingdom
79 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2009 : 17:20:45
|
I would hope that would not be anyones intention but I do think that the nut of this problem perhaps goes back to an earlier decision taken, quite sensibly at the time, by the Triple-M Register Committee that the (sole) determinant of a car would be its chassis...
While that may have made perfect sense at the time, a recent conversation with a noted MG authority was that then the various issues with what are, in effect, a conflict between chassis, various other key components of a vehicle and actual recorded history were not fully appreciated.
Had they been perhaps the "decision" made would have been a bit more "flexible".
Fact is, life and the life of some of our cars is a tad more complicated once the reality of history is better understood.
Is it not time for the Triple-M Register Committe to undertake a review of the "chassis only" decision and perhaps come up with a policy which recognises the somewhat more complex life of our cars?
Peter Fenichel |
|
|
|
leckstein
USA
408 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2009 : 17:48:41
|
I am glad this topic was unlocked. I have found the discussion one of the most interesting on this forum. I do understand the merits of both sides, and that is why it is so interesting. If the discussion is kept on a high plain, it really merits to be continued. I guess there is no solution that would make both sides happy, and since a DNA test is not possible, we will always have to deal with two cars. I for one would love to have either one.
Mike L |
|
|
|
peterfenichel
United Kingdom
79 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 10:03:46
|
From indirect comments and some rather more direct ones... yes, there appears to be 3 cars. Or at least it is possible that various key bits of the single seat racer still exist and could/would form the basis of another restoration with "some" claim to the history which has been set out. I'm also pleased this topic has been 'unlocked' and as I suggested I would support a fresh look at the earlier decision to rely wholely on the Chassis as a determinant of "originality". However, I have no axe to grind here and it may be that on review the Triple-M Register determines again that Chassis numbers are supreme. Just worth a re-think I believe.
Peter Fenichel |
Edited by - peterfenichel on 11/08/2009 10:05:25 |
|
|
|
Ross Kelly
Australia
226 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 12:12:35
|
This is a interesting conundrum faced by many pre war race cars which often had short illustrious careers before being discarded in favour of the next new development.
Perhaps the decision of the register to recognise two factory supplied chassis is correct as the history of both is well known and documented. It starts to fall apart when one takes a small part of an original car and it morphs into another car claiming to be an original. Imagine the pitfalls in buying a Bugatti when all you need is an original bolt or screw to start a rebuild.
Having had similar issues with J3763 which came with what I thought was a spare chassis bolted to the floor of the trailer, it was only at a later date the the true significance of the this chassis came to light as being the original damaged chassis.
It is important that this information is recorded by the registrar and freely available for individuals to make informed decisions when considering to purchase a vehicle.
Ross Kelly
J3763
|
|
|
|
Bob Clare
United Kingdom
278 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 12:54:53
|
For those who have contributed to this debate, may I once again refer to the Triple-M Register Rules and Guidelines? These can be found at the beginning of the published Register List (available from the Register Librarian) and also in the introductory part to the ôRegister Your Carö section of this web-site.
As you may imagine, there were and always will be difficulties in formulating such rules so that they satisfy both common sense, legal precedent and vested interests. Equally it is all very well to suggest that ôhistory is bunkö or as we are reminded by Brian, the Tolstoy alternative ôHistory would be an excellent thing if only it were trueö, but as time passes, such history is all we have to rely upon since the originators of the records themselves have passed to the great beyond..
It is the job of the Triple-M Register Committee to make decisions about how the Register should describe the identity of cars or their remains when there is doubt or discussion. This is precisely what happened in the case of the two entities related to K 3015. At the time the Committee reached its decision these entities were not owned by anyone then serving as a committee member. The oblique comments from one contributor which might be interpreted as a reflection on one of the current owners are therefore uncalled for.
However, we are only too aware of our fallibility which is why we carefully added this to the notes at the end of section 3.2:
ôAny member of the MGCC who is the owner of a listed Triple-M car can discuss the classification of their car with the Committee.ö
I take the view (having served as an elected member of a local authority for 27 years) that there are always folk willing to carp from the sidelines, however hard one tries to keep a balance when decision making. My advice to them was the same as I now offer to those seemingly critical of the Triple-M Register Committee, donÆt stand there complaining, volunteer to join us and contribute your knowledge and skills!
Bob Clare
Registrar |
|
|
|
tholden
United Kingdom
1624 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 13:51:28
|
Bob you make it sound like the Triple M Register is a court of law ! It is just a part of the MG Car Club - an organisation which is there I assume to serve its members. The Register Committee can make whatever rules, regulations and decisions it wants behind closed doors but it cannot stop its members forming a different, and in some cases more informed, view of what is historically correct.
One has to say that judging by some of the decisions that the Committee has made in the past, not probably under the current Chairman, regarding the elegibility of certain cars perhaps there is a case to be made for a different set of rules and a different decision making system.
One of the great benefits of this Forum is that people can openly state their views and opinions on such matters. The opinion which appears to be emerging from this debate is that continuity of history is perhaps more important or at leastof equal importance to a number on a piece of metal but perhaps this debate still has some way to go yet !
With regard to your last comment I for one have been there and done that and am not going back. In my day the snoring from various members was more exciting than the discussions !
TH |
|
|
|
peterfenichel
United Kingdom
79 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 15:28:19
|
It is certainly not my intention to be critical in any way of the workings and decisions of the Triple-M Register Committee. In actual fact I am very supportive of the Register which I believe does a commendable job across a range of issues and events and serves its Members well. All I am suggesting is that in light of this most recent example of issues that arise from the earlier decision to rely entirely on Chassis numbers to name/describe a car and in light of the pretty obvious historical anomalies that exist the Committee might undertake a review of its "rules" with the view of either amending them, updating them, or reinforcing existing the current approach if that is deemed appropriate. I for one would like to see a balance struck between metal and history which more accurately reflects what is accepted as fact.
To reinforce this point around another K3... I understand a recent potential sale was unwound when the prospective buyer came to know that the current chassis on that car does not carry the original assigned chassis number. This K3 has no other "pretenders" the original chassis having been replaced in period by MG at the factory. If the Register had less of a parochial approach the details of this car would be clearer to all who might ask... rather than to assume that something was ônot rightö with the car and its historical place within the Marque.
Time I would suggest for a review... which may not change things but would certainly be worthwhile as an undertaking. I for one would be happy to participate albeit with limited Marque knowledge when compared to others.
Peter Fenichel |
|
|
|
Martin Warner
United Kingdom
85 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 16:44:16
|
"The oblique comments from one contributor which might be interpreted as a reflection on one of the current owners are therefore uncalled for."
Ouch!!
I presume that means me. I was only repeating verbatim the words of Simon Hope at H&H.
No offence meant.
Martin |
|
|
|
Dolts
United Kingdom
1128 Posts |
Posted - 14/08/2009 : 09:33:35
|
| I guess you all have seen the latest Automobile article! How topicable! |
|
|
|
Brian Kelly
USA
526 Posts |
Posted - 14/08/2009 : 14:11:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Martin Warner
"The oblique comments from one contributor which might be interpreted as a reflection on one of the current owners are therefore uncalled for."
Ouch!!
I presume that means me. I was only repeating verbatim the words of Simon Hope at H&H.
No offence meant.
Martin
Martin,
In absence of others putting your mind at ease, I'm sure Bob Clare wasn't directing his quote at you but at another contribution that was eventually deleted by Nick.
Rest assured.
Brian. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
