| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ScottMcBurney
United Kingdom
2 Posts |
 Posted - 19/07/2017 : 09:23:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Westbury
Hello Oliver.
There are many original E.R.A. parts on the car but not original to R4D which was the only D series and the most developed of that particular type.
I prefer to believe David Weuglin's super book on the cars from Bourne and which is free from any bias. R4D had several chassis changes it was found that the gauge for the frame at 1/10" was too thin resulting in fatigue failure.The final solution was a frame with formed lightening holes which you see today.
Chris.
Chula & Bira had a D-type frame at the White Mouse Garage, there is a photograph of it leaning against a wall in period. R8C was fitted at some point post war with a D type frame which probably was the spare one at the White Mouse Garage. Subsequently changed back to C-type frame after a big accident at Goodwood. |
 |
|
|
Colin McLachlan
United Kingdom
987 Posts |
Posted - 19/07/2017 : 10:07:41
|
Back on topic, FWIW I support the current guidelines, including the description of specials and non-standard cars.
Colin
Markinch, Fife.
PA 0613
MG3242
Register No. 2591 |
|
|
|
IanG
Australia
72 Posts |
Posted - 19/07/2017 : 10:32:57
|
Ian
I am not sure what topics you refer to in recent weeks about contributions which raise questions over the provenance of some MMM cars as I am not on here on a regular basis.
With the risk of being shot down in flames like the last time I opened my mouth I will contribute my two cents worth.
It certainly is an interesting topic & I have mixed feelings.
I don’t believe a group of people should play judge & jury to what someone has, but a set of guide lines then everyone knows what rules to play by. If you don’t like the rules play another game.
Having said that, someone or somewhere a proper record of the Provence should/must be held.
We may all very well know the history of a car at this point of time but years to come the truth is lost & these replicas & fakes then become the real thing.
A classic example has just surfaced where the owner is referring to his build as a J3. It is as much a J3 as I am a member of the Royal family. The owner is a very talented engineer who has hand built himself every item in the car & all he started with was a damaged engine block. It is a credit to the man but the fact is it is not a J3. He openly will tell you he built it himself but still refers to it as a J3.
To add insult to injury he has stamped the chassis with a number of a car that is not known & thought to have disappeared. Unbeknown to everyone is I have the original stamped knuckle & what we believe to be other bits of the car. These bits have been in our family since the early 1950’s.
This raises the question if he registers the car with that number, & if anyone did anything with my bits in years to come we have another two cars with the same number. The other thing is that the original car has a racing history so in years to come this car could command a good price based on its history.
This is the car in question.
|
|
|
|
Ian Bowers
United Kingdom
937 Posts |
Posted - 19/07/2017 : 14:26:02
|
OK, let’s summarise and address the points above!
Currently guidelines are set-up and used by the Register Committee to decide, in their opinion, the type of car and whether it can be classified as ‘original’, ‘altered’, ‘reconstructed’, on a ‘new chassis’, or rejected. Inclusion in the Register, or exclusion, of any particular car and its type, is at the sole discretion of the Register Committee. Having said that, ‘neither the Committee, nor the MGCC accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy or authenticity of the information in the Listing’, which, of course, includes the MMM type attribution.
The Committee can therefore award or withhold allocation of a MMM Register number. It can formally label a car as ‘not an MMM car’, which will ultimately influence its reputation, future care and value. This overrides any opinion the owner has of his property, right or wrong.
My fundamental point is to question why, they, the Committee of the MMM Register have set themselves up to decide on the classification of individual MMM vehicles. At the same time, by not accepting responsibility for their decisions they confirm that they are not fully able to undertake this task.
I am simply suggesting that the Committee stand down from the role of unilaterally deciding car type and classification. They should continue to maintain and publish a record of any car claiming MMM heritage, along with the known history and any documents the owner wishes to place on record to substantiate his claim.
Of course all are able to use the Guidelines to advise an owner in assessing the authenticity of his car and any cars claiming the same provenance.
In that way the Committee would act in the same way as other Registers for chassis based cars such as Rolls, Bentley and Aston, and avoid the issues arising from the classification of individual cars.
Ian Bowers
OD 6791
J3 3772 |
Edited by - Ian Bowers on 19/07/2017 14:27:53 |
|
|
|
Ian Bowers
United Kingdom
937 Posts |
Posted - 19/07/2017 : 14:26:44
|
and there I rest my case.
Ian Bowers
OD 6791
J3 3772 |
|
|
|
Dolts
United Kingdom
1128 Posts |
Posted - 19/07/2017 : 15:09:32
|
Ian why don't you join us?
See first hand some of the approaches and challenges the committee has. Then validate your forum assumptions and proposals?
Not sure I get your solution but i do understand some of the concerns. Regardless of perceptions, This is not a closed group, dictating and mandating. Plenty of room for more committee members and changing committee members in cycles....
I can only comment on Today and the future...being so recently involved..
THEY, just a bunch of Triple-M volunteers are actively looking for people to come forward support, evolve and help us take the register forward.
Mark Dolton
www.triple-mracing.com
|
|
|
|
John James
United Kingdom
959 Posts |
Posted - 19/07/2017 : 15:53:56
|
IanG,
I hope that you will be advising the Triple-M Committee of the details so that when the "very talented engineer" tries to register the car he will not succeed and even in years to come there will not be two cars with the same number.
This is not a question for you, but whatever happened to the two PAs with the same chassis number (one of which was in Sweden)?
JOHN JAMES |
|
|
|
leckstein
USA
408 Posts |
Posted - 19/07/2017 : 16:57:57
|
John James. If think you are referring to my Pa . There really wasn't two PA's with same chassis number. The Swedish fellow had a bonnet hinge with my PA's number he thought. It turned out to be a bonnet from a PB. Thus no duplication of numbers.
Mike L |
|
|
|
Westbury
United Kingdom
1949 Posts |
Posted - 19/07/2017 : 21:26:27
|
Hello Oliver et al.
In reply to your 'query',re R4D,if you have access to David Weguelin's book please read carefully the pre'cis on page 211.
Please do not feel the need to reply as this will be my last but one of my posts which I will make.
If interested, please see my reasons under 'Goodbye to the MMM Register Forum'
Chris |
|
|
|
McEvoy
United Kingdom
252 Posts |
Posted - 19/07/2017 : 22:34:21
|
I would like to make a few observations to this post as a recently retired member of the Triple-M Committee and a owner of these cars commencing in the mid 1950's.
In support of Mark Dalton if I attend a motor race I expect the programme to reasonably describe the vehicle that is flashing past me. The expert may differentiate between a striped down J3 and J2 as it goes past. Surely it behoves the organising club and the entrant to describe as best as possible what the fee paying customer is seeing.
Tell me is this unreasonable?
Secondly what should we do about the 63 K3's the 20 J4's and 11 R types etc. No we should be aware of them for the future good of the purity of the Type. Yes of course you can say you have an xyz although it is nothing like an xyz but why should the Register accept it as an xyz. By all means log it but don't condone it as the real thing. Yes the final test is in a court of law but here comes the problem if xyz is registered as the real McCoy the Register is called upon as the expert witness hence the usual wording as in the Hawke book of Triple-M competition Cars and the Register that the information contained herein is as gleaned from printed sources or owners information etc. and is therefor treated as such.
Dealers are sometimes encouraged to assist their sale by quoting "accepted by the Triple-M register"
The Committee are doing as their constitution requires that is to keep a record of all known Triple-M cars. Let them get on with it for the good of all and Ian I would suggest your post title is inaccurate as " the elephant in the room" suggests all know about it but will not talk about it, well there seems to be a lot of talk.
I suggest your title would have been better as "the devil you know"
Bob |
|
|
|
Tony Dolton
United Kingdom
367 Posts |
Posted - 20/07/2017 : 09:34:28
|
What a thoroughly interesting discussion!
It all takes me back to 1969 when I first started racing.I wanted to race my J2/PA in VSCC events but couldn't because the club only accepted those MG's of a certain classification, having a prewar racing history or defined as a racing model.
So to get round this we had a PB special,called a Q type,a N type special called an NE,and a beautiful J4 which I'm now told is a J2.mind you the 3 cars in question may well have had a Brooklands history!
Perhaps I should have just called my car a J4 !!!
I don't recall anyone worrying about it then.However what happens if and when these cars come onto the market.the difference in value between a PB special and a Q type is enormous.where does a potential buyer go to validate authenticity,surely starting with the MGCC MMM register.
Isn't selling a car with a description knowingly false fraud,or are we just saying Buyer Beware ! TONY |
|
|
|
Dolts
United Kingdom
1128 Posts |
Posted - 20/07/2017 : 10:42:57
|
Your right it is an interesting one, and an important one.
Just for clarity, I am pleased that Ian B has raised his concerns and put a proposal forward to be discussed, even if it does divide opinion.
It's important that we do have openness about challenges and opportunities rather than under ground grumblings.
I m sure we will have a few ongoing chats on the weekend at a cadwell.
.
Mark Dolton
www.triple-mracing.com
|
|
|
|
John James
United Kingdom
959 Posts |
Posted - 20/07/2017 : 13:20:34
|
The PA(s) to which I was referring in my earlier post was PA0520.
As far as I can tell it didn't involve Mike Leckstein's car.
JOHN JAMES |
|
|
|
leckstein
USA
408 Posts |
Posted - 21/07/2017 : 05:22:44
|
John James. If think you are referring to my Pa . There really wasn't two PA's with same chassis number. The Swedish fellow had a bonnet hinge with my PA's number he thought. It turned out to be a bonnet from a PB. Thus no duplication of numbers.
Mike L |
|
|
|
Ian Bowers
United Kingdom
937 Posts |
Posted - 21/07/2017 : 09:14:39
|
I return to the subject with trepidation, but one of those corresponding directly with me has raised a fundamental point.
Referring to the BBC program 'Fake or Fortune', he points out that the Committee, by taking the view that 'we decide whether a car can be added to the Register' can affect its value. Bob Clare said 'the only troubles I encountered during my tenure of office were invariably associated with the cars at the top end of the market value scale'.
At this point, a rumbling of concern must be heard. Unless the decisions and reasoning behind a Committee decision are made public, and any Committee member declares an interest however distant, absenting himself from the discussion and decision, there must be a question as to what happens when a decision affects a value, and in most cases it will.
With a relatively small group of members, many well known to each other and much trading between members, this aspect, I believe, must be addressed.
I believe I am questioning the Corporate Governance of the Committee, and welcome clarification of this aspect.
Returning to the 'solution', I remain convinced that the Register can only be a record of cars whose type is as described and supported by documentation the owner supplies. The guidelines are there to underpin his description. The outcome of any discrepancies are not for the Register Committee to determine for the reasons above and in earlier correspondence.
Ian Bowers
OD 6791
J3 3772 |
Edited by - Ian Bowers on 21/07/2017 09:21:41 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
