| Author |
 Topic  |
|
rodb
New Zealand
260 Posts |
 Posted - 18/11/2013 : 18:53:24
|
The logical answer to the Gregory cars is to describe them as Gregory K3’s or Gregory MG’s. We cannot ignore them as they will not go away, but they could come back years later with some more dubious history attached. They cannot be called MG’s as they are not on MG chassis. The Gregory cars will find their own market value and following and indeed will be desirable if that’s what someone can only afford. They should never be described by only a chassis number.
The FIVA in their wisdom suggest in their vehicle code that the builder should reflect the vehicles name. I.e. MG or Gregory.
The chassis is the founding component that a car is built up from. If an original MG engine resides in a new chassis it’s a great place to be if the alternative is to sit under a bench, but it will never make the car an MG. Consider the Lister Jaguars, HWM Jaguars etc., all desirable and valuable but not Jaguars.
The Gregory cars should be acceptable to the register as Gregory ??? Just as the above named cars are acceptable to the Jaguar Clubs.
Continuous history is just that. If a chassis is beyond repair and a new one is made, documents should accompany the vehicle to show and detail the significant repair that should have the original chassis number welded into it, and evidence to show the original unusable chassis was destroyed.
If a damaged chassis is not destroyed then it continues its history onwards as the car, and any subsequent chassis for the original car will create its own history like the K3015 pair of cars.
RodB NZ |
 |
|
|
Peter Green
United Kingdom
1682 Posts |
Posted - 18/11/2013 : 20:44:49
|
Rod,
I agree with the majority of what you say but it must be pointed out that the ‘early’ K3 Replica’s (I know that I should not use that term because the Triple-M Register does not recognise the word ‘Replica’ except when referring to the factory built 12/12M type Replica’s) that Peter Gregory built were on original shortened chassis, it was only in later years when he was not able to purchase original chassis that he had new ones made and it is these that the Register does not accept.
As George Eagle has pointed out the Register is trying to ‘keep tabs’ on all the K3 Replica’s (oh! I have used that description again) but it is difficult when their owners do not notify the Register that they have them. Many of the Gregory built ones, and others, have never been notified to/registered with the Register for understandable reasons. As an example none of the owners of the car purporting to be K0302 in Australia have contacted the Register. The only reason the Register knows something about this car is because I was asked to inspect it for a prospective UK purchaser when it was for sale at Coys, needless to say he did not purchase the car when he found out that it was not acceptable to the Triple-M Register and the VSCC in the UK.
Peter.
|
|
|
|
Bob Stringfield
United Kingdom
854 Posts |
Posted - 18/11/2013 : 23:45:03
|
My PA has all numbered components as fitted originally by the factory; such a car is historically more significant than one with replacement or non-standard units, or built from parts of a car, whether K3 or M-type. it is no better or worse to own or drive.
The Bugattis, et al, already mentioned whether original, re-constructed or modern copies are of Bugatti design and are carefully documented. I knew Peter Gregory and admire his workmanship. 'His' MGs should be carefully recorded by the Register under whatever heading is preferred for future reference.
I watch the Lansdowne Series where Manx Nortons and other British bikes are raced at a speed which makes most vintage car races look like parades; their use of modern replicas where preferred on the grounds of preservation of the originals and possible metal fatigue keeps their bikes in the public eye.
I ride a replica Dursley Pedersen bicycle, recognised by the excellent Veteran-Cycle Club, since the originals are a century old and frail. I see no contradiction between the 1980 Copenhagen Pedersen and the PA in my garage.
Bob.
|
|
|
|
rodb
New Zealand
260 Posts |
Posted - 19/11/2013 : 00:33:49
|
Peter
My intention was to describe the new chassis cars not the early cars on MG chassis. I should have made that clearer.
What I have observed through time is if rules or acceptability are too pure the not so pure vehicles are driven underground and it is very difficult to get information on these as a result.
If the MMM register would cater for these specials (I don't like the name replica also) then I am sure the owners of these will become more open and accurate in their descriptions and allow the vehicles to stand on their own.
As I have said they are not going to go away so a place should be found for them.
The unfortunate aspect to all this is the builders use of Original MG chassis numbers on new Chassis, we can guess why this has been done and no doubt someone made a lot of money and someone may loose a lot of money. To solve the issues we must bring these vehicles into the open where they will establish there own market and values.
Eventually (if not already)an owner will be proud to own a Gregory MG just like an owner is proud to own a Lester MG etc, etc.
RodB NZ |
|
|
|
George Eagle
United Kingdom
3230 Posts |
Posted - 19/11/2013 : 11:31:58
|
As already noted the Register is planning to keep a list of vehicles such as the one subject to this topic, but I thought it should also be noted the Committee agrees such vehicles could take part in events but would not score any Car of the Year points or win trophies.
George
Hon Sec |
|
|
|
PreWarMG
Australia
395 Posts |
Posted - 21/11/2013 : 05:26:52
|
Just where is K0302 being advertised in Australia ?. A search of the usual places has drawn a blank ?.
We are here for a good time, not a long time !. |
Edited by - PreWarMG on 21/11/2013 05:27:59 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
