| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ashley
United Kingdom
261 Posts |
 Posted - 07/11/2017 : 11:02:00
|
Simon,
Love the period shot and the van must be worth a few quid now, judging by the prices on eBay! Did the van havemat hing no’s, haha
Ashley |
 |
|
|
PeterL
United Kingdom
1711 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2017 : 11:20:42
|
My salonette is available to copy as it is not yet trimmed. Chris Blood could advise as he has just done this. You can get tourer bodies, I believe, I have the Stiles body you could copy but then the F2 was very pretty...
What is important, I think is checking the numbers and ensuring they match. With Fs I think you can only check engine to chassis as I don't think the records provide any more than that. With my J everything was recorded right down to dynamo and starter!
My view is that originality matters, you are in tune with the early owners and you won't have to explain what has happened to it but given that you have no salonette bits and do have the two seater body I think I would go with that, though the extra luggage room in the tourer is invaluable. Track or road...
Whatever you do it looks like you have a good starting point. Of my Stiles all there was was the dumb irons rear cross tube, dicky seat and fuel tank and thanks to lots of people I now have nearly everything I need, so it can be done...
Cheers
P
Cheers
P |
|
|
|
Russ Jackson
United Kingdom
102 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2017 : 11:46:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by ashley
The topic is proving to be very interesting and other very much associated issues are running alongside.
After repatriating my F2 special, copy etc, replica is a no no word.
I must say that Dick, George and John Hutchinson helped enormously with retrieving the original registration number from the DVLA for me. I when I bought my J2 with Dutch plates went through the very complicated task of obtaining the original regeistration which took a great deal of time and of course I did not have the clout or weight of the MG Car Club. The Registry have given F0707 a MMM register no, me providing photos of car, chassis no, engine no and a few communications from the factory file which showed the registration number.
Moving on from this which again runs alongside the topic closely. I would like to ask members opinions of F0707 by way I mean on what to be done to the car, how they see it, how they would approach it and any views.
I k know which way I am going with it but will leave that till later.
F0707 was an F1 Salonette Reg no GY 3450, purchase date 25th June 1932, supplied by Newnham Motor Company, Hammersmith. Factory file states the engine failed and a new complete engine replaced at Abingdon (I have yet to peer under the bulk head ash frame to see if the is a number). A historic photo shows the car with a J4 type apron but not clear enough to show a carb sticking out, so cant confirm it was supercharged.
The car as it stands, has doors which are not in good condition, door pillars are okay but not the best, S Gilbert suggests new body but no way does it need one, bonnet is an awful diy job as is are the valances.
So put back as Salonette at a vast amount of money, this being not just body but wings, bonnet, tank, windscreen etc etc etc, leave as F2 special/ copy or what else?
With all this in mind what difference is this car to Chris’s J2 which he wants to complete a J4 copy.
Also is my car a genuine MG then as it’s just the chassis, engine, gearbox and running gear which are left after leaving Abingdon?
Also does anyone have any info on the car. Bone Bros sold the car in the 70s and went out to Norway?
All interesting stuff, constructive comments, ideas etc please
Ashley
here's my opinion for what it's worth.....if the salonette body is shot I don't see why it shouldn't be rebuilt as a F2 if that's what you want but if the salonette body is repairable it really should be rebuilt as a Salonette......this is why I'm looking for something that has already been modified from original and passing on original cars |
|
|
|
JohnCecil
United Kingdom
4 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2017 : 12:05:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Russ Jackson
So not being fully in the picture with this character he apparently built 3x K3 Reps were they all new builds on new chassis as per the one that we all know has a new chassis's and new Vin number as discussed in a previous thread if so why do you think he built them and why do they appear to be so vilified and who would buy one now knowing that they're not an MG in the strictest sense because they're not built on an existing MG chassis of any type is it not being slightly churlish considering the amount of K3 reps going about that are built on F / L / N type chassis's......I think the PG K3's are bang on with the exception of the new chassis's they got all the right bits in the right places......discuss
|
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5999 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2017 : 12:16:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by ashley
Simon,
Love the period shot and the van must be worth a few quid now, judging by the prices on eBay! Did the van havemat hing no’s, haha
Ashley
I suspect it did have matching numbers as I doubt the engine was ever out of it  I paid a tenner for it in Newcastle, drove to Leeds to collect the bits of the J2 and then to L’pool for the ferry home. It was fully air conditioned however, having little or no floor on the driver’s side, but nothing that a bit of stout cardboard didn’t disguise! Happy days.
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
JohnCecil
United Kingdom
4 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2017 : 12:32:09
|
| I wonder how many of these people who are singing the praises of these replica cars would do so if it were THEIR cars that were being replicated ??? I think it would be a very different story ! |
|
|
|
JohnCecil
United Kingdom
4 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2017 : 12:48:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Russ Jackson
So not being fully in the picture with this character he apparently built 3x K3 Reps were they all new builds on new chassis as per the one that we all know has a new chassis's and new Vin number as discussed in a previous thread if so why do you think he built them and why do they appear to be so vilified and who would buy one now knowing that they're not an MG in the strictest sense because they're not built on an existing MG chassis of any type is it not being slightly churlish considering the amount of K3 reps going about that are built on F / L / N type chassis's......I think the PG K3's are bang on with the exception of the new chassis's they got all the right bits in the right places......discuss
june parkins |
|
|
|
JohnCecil
United Kingdom
4 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2017 : 12:52:16
|
I wonder how many of these people who are singing the praises of these replica cars would do so if it were THEIR cars that were being replicated ??? I think it would be a very different story !
|
|
|
|
Oz34
United Kingdom
2495 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2017 : 13:02:41
|
Ashley, FWIW and despite my frequently expressed disapproval of the destruction of tourers saloons etc, I feel you should continue with your F2 type F special.
The Salonette body is long gone and was probably replaced when it fell apart leaving, let's be honest, the then owner with not too many choices. You are not proposing scrapping a viable Salonette so go for it.
If on the other hand, you decided to spend the money on a replica (that word!) Salonette body I would certainly applaud you. Your choice.
Best wishes,
Dave |
|
|
|
Russ Jackson
United Kingdom
102 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2017 : 13:15:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oz34
Ashley, FWIW and despite my frequently expressed disapproval of the destruction of tourers saloons etc, I feel you should continue with your F2 type F special.
The Salonette body is long gone and was probably replaced when it fell apart leaving, let's be honest, the then owner with not too many choices. You are not proposing scrapping a viable Salonette so go for it.
If on the other hand, you decided to spend the money on a replica (that word!) Salonette body I would certainly applaud you. Your choice.
Best wishes,
Dave
I agree |
|
|
|
Russ Jackson
United Kingdom
102 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2017 : 13:30:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnCecil
I wonder how many of these people who are singing the praises of these replica cars would do so if it were THEIR cars that were being replicated ??? I think it would be a very different story !
as long as a car isn't being cloned or passed off as the real thing it shouldn't matter but I tend to agree you as well that so many replicas seem to dilute the model type pool down but if you take say AC Cobra replicas they've had no real effect on the real cars values or desire for ownership and there are thousands of them about some good and some not so good.....the MMM Registry should / does denote what the body type was originally so it's easily distinguished |
|
|
|
Ian Bowers
United Kingdom
937 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2017 : 11:35:10
|
This thread, exploring and testing the issues as to what is, and what is not, 'a surviving Triple-M car' has now been running for a week. It has provoked 71 comments and 5,000 reads. It relates directly to:
Objective 1 of the MMM Register “To maintain a register ('The Register Listing') of surviving Triple-M cars, recording their history and other relevant information” and the detailed Guidelines which support it.
The thread comments cover the Register status of Replicas on original, recovered, modified and new chassis, the extent of 'allowable' chassis and component modification, the importance of a contemporary V5C, ARV's (including the R type ARV) and so on.
The Register Committee develops and applies their Guidelines for entry to the Register, in order to meet Objective 1. They are applied to each car and therefore determine how the many and different variants discussed here are seen as meeting the Objective.
In these circumstances it is somewhat surprising that there has been no comment or word of clarification on behalf of the Register Committee. Until this happens the confusion expressed here will continue, with owners of MMM-type cars and those being constructed and restored, uncertain as to what is acceptable to the Committee.
In hope of moving forward, I have drafted some possible responses to the thread, which the Register Committee may wish to use to clarify their position on this matter.
1. The Register Guidelines meet all the requirements of Objective 1, and no further comment is necessary
2. The Register Guidelines have developed over time to respond to new challenges in determining what should, and what should not, be added to the Register, and to remove a Register number from cars which on further consideration by the Committee do not meet the Guidelines. The Register Committee will continue to undertake this work through the regular Committee meetings
3. The Register Guidelines have developed over time to respond to new challenges in determining which cars should, and which should not, be added to the Register, and to remove a Register number from cars which on further consideration by the Committee do not meet the Guidelines. Recognising the need for openness the Register Committee will consult with the Register members on any changes to the Guidelines and will, in future, publish its decisions on individual vehicle’s eligibility and the reasons behind these decisions
4. The Register Committee is aware of the recurring concerns expressed by some members of the Register, who question the continuing relevance of the Guidelines used in allocating a Register Number to MMM cars. It will put forward proposals at the next AGM which will include the option for the Register to register all cars claiming to represent the MMM MG marque and to publish all evidence provided by the member to support the claim. At the same time the Committee will propose that issuing a Register number does not in any way endorse the provenance of the vehicle to which the number has been allocated.
5 None of the above.
Ian Bowers
OD 6791
J3 3772 |
|
|
|
Russ Jackson
United Kingdom
102 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2017 : 13:29:13
|
| I suspect members have read this more than once but it's obviously a pretty emotive subject and just because it's written down doesn't mean people have to agree with it.....and let's not forget this is a discussion forum afterall....it's good to get different opinions on the subject whether we agree or disagree....71 comments and how many members? come on chaps...chip in.....remember use it or lose it....it's only a computer it won't bite |
|
|
|
JMH
United Kingdom
910 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2017 : 19:29:26
|
I was going to respond, but am rather tired (work in the real world), so thought it best to delete the rather lengthy tome I've just bashed out - probably for the best really.
JH |
|
|
|
bloodysalmon
Spain
1482 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2017 : 20:04:38
|
I just couldn't help it ...
It would seem now's a good time to put my pennies worth into this subject, although without any authority to say one way or the other ... atleast this forum 'does' allow opinions ... as we all know, nothing, yet nothing really appears to be 100% these days!
I suppose I've gone both ways recently, no, not that, I mean I've rebuilt 2 triple M cars, one as a Salonette and the other as a F2; I did have 3rd D-type rolling chassis (D0430), that could have been a C-type but I got Steve Gilbert to finish a new body and is now under John Emmett's umbrella.
The salonette (D0407 d-type) had when I bought it from a friend at work, had a partially built new ash 'open-tourer' body, so by mid 1970's the original body had gone, destroyed and burnt apparently. Having donated this tourer body to D0430, I along with Chris Wallis, we set off to make some salonette bodies for my D0407 and Chris's J1 some 7 odd years ago.
From 2 tons of mature dried English ash we managed to commission 3 salonette bodies, and kindly borrowed Peter Lansdowns F-type salonette body to use as a template ... which was also rebuilt some 40 years previous.
Building a new salonette body is not for the faint hearted, but Chris and I had the desire, determination and time to acquire, borrow, challenge and gather as much info about these bodies to ensure we knew all the answers ... and I think we do now. However, if we hadn't there could have been a few more C-types around. So why did we do it? Well, we had the choice! When we started this journey we didn't think about how much it would nor how much it may be worth at the end ... we just wanted to get them back to as they were.
However, clearly when I bought my F1/2 (which is for sale) 7 years ago, I knew it was originally a salonette but had lost its body and was set up to be re-incarnated as a F2, which must be the best looking MMM.
So what I am trying to say is , these cars travel through their lives in different modes, changed by one person, corrected by another and or resurrected to a higher level by another ... but ... today they are where they are. We know a whole host of D-types have been converted to C-types but I haven't heard much about this on the forum! But, I must say should we ask for them to be returned to a D ? Your thoughts ... mine turn towards desirability! We all like a car, our MG's because they look good ... dont we?
All perhaps a simplistic view but hopefully you get my jist.
Chris Blood D0407 & F0753 |
Edited by - bloodysalmon on 09/11/2017 20:05:57 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
