| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Cathelijne
Netherlands
744 Posts |
 Posted - 10/11/2017 : 13:41:44
|
I too have been following this topic and have more than once felt the need to reply but then thought I might as well steer clear. The train of thoughts on this subject -or subjects really- in my mind is so utterly chaotic, that I feel insufficiently equipped to convey them. In my own language even, so let alone in English. However, it is now four in the morning (not quite the end of December yet a famous blue raincoat springs to mind) and I find myself very much awake and mulling things over and over in my head. Might as well give it a go after all…
Bearing in mind that I strive to live without opinion and accept things for what or how they are and therefore think everyone is entitled to build the cars they want however improper or ugly I may think them, just accepting the (old car) world as it is can sometimes be a bit boring, so I have decided to give the reader of this epistle my thoughts anyway!
There are many subjects running alongside each other here: fake cars, real cars, dodgy cars, dodgy people, original air, corruption, chopping up saloons, money, history, and, last but not least, the committee. To name but a few. Let's see if I can make sense of a few of them. If not for your benefit, then at least for my own …
I for one don’t think there is such a thing as fake or real cars. If it has wheels, a monocoque or a chassis and a body, an engine, drivetrain, etc., it will be a car. Whether newly made or built in the 1930s. Or whenever. Whether built up with old stuff or with new bits or a combination of the two. Consequently I certainly don’t think the Register should pass judgement on which car is entitled to a Register number and which car isn’t. However, people have come to rely on the Register for just this judgement, but whose fault is that? The Committee’s? As was the case back in the day, the Register is still being run by a committee of AMATEUR ENTHUSIASTS who may or may not know as much about cars as you or I, so surely ‘the people’ are as much at fault for letting this happen as the Committee is?
Personally I make 'use' of the fact that the Register seems to be seen as an authority by my government to my advantage when trying to get cars road registered when insufficient paperwork comes with a car or if the identity is of doubtful provenance which may leave us with an otherwise unregisterable car if it wasn't for the Register being able to help with letters 'authenticating' cars.
However, when it comes to matters 'hobby', I feel the Register is just a list of cars accumulated by AMATEUR ENTHUSIASTS. Nothing more, nothing less.
Back in 1961 a bunch of AMATEUR ENTHUSIASTS got together and decided to start listing surviving Triple-M M.G.s and founded the Register. They decided the knuckle bearing the chassis number would be 'the thing to have' not having the faintest clue where time would take them and how the world might possibly change over the course of time. They did not pass judgment, nor call for proof of claims to cars, they simply listed them and allocated numbers in order of when they were submitted for inclusion.
Fast forward 50 odd years and the world certainly is a completely different place with more money being had by fewer people than ever. Somehow people have come to apply value to these Register numbers. If it has a number, it must be ‘the real thing’. However, having just established that these numbers were handed out by a bunch of AMATEUR ENTHUSIASTS, how on earth could this have happened?
My suggestion for a solution to this problem the Register is in my view facing, would be for the Register to drop the numbering system and just list cars solely by their chassis numbers (or better still; not list 'cars' at all, just chassis numbers) without judging, rendering the whole sorry list of Guidelines used to check if a car is eligible for inclusion or not superfluous. With the new database, there is ample possibility to do just this and add all the necessary extra information for past, present and future owners to retrace their car’s provenance. Register numbers allocated up till now can of course be included in this information, but would no longer be of relevance. So what if there are two J2s with chassis number so and so? If the DVLA or whatever the authorities are called in your country, have deemed it possible to grant it a road registration number, then who are we to say differently? All we need to do is record this stuff as correctly as possible and openly share the knowledge with people who have been, are or will at some point in the future be involved with individual cars. Our cars are about 85 years old, of course some - if not most - will have lost their Airline (or Salonette or four seater, or standard two seater for that matter) bodies due to rot or fire or whatever, will consist of two chassis welded together because at one stage either the front or the rear has been bent irreparably or have a F**d engine installed. Some will even have been built on entirely new chassis, including a new knuckle and only have an old log book to claim its identity within the Register. This is what history does, it changes. And though I realise most people are not too fond of change, in my view it is not something to fear but to embrace. As the Serenity Prayer will have you strive for:
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
Of course there is no way we can rule out corruption or dishonesty entirely, either amongst committee members or 'the public', but by taking away the value attached to a car for the simple fact that it is listed by the Register and by being as honest and as complete as one can when providing information to be held in the database on certain cars, we can at least try to come up with a list which holds no secrets. Having said that, I do on the other hand fully understand why no member of the Committee has so far replied in a -to 'the public'- satisfactory manner to the other topic where NA0356 is discussed and has shared the info that is kept on the database. My reasoning is that, even though those committee members who also hold a position as Registrar for certain models and therefore have access to the full story held on record, it is not for them to share that information. Nor is it appropriate for 'the public' to attack these committee members, or so I think anyway.
As Registrar for the C-types I am thus able to go behind the scenes myself and see what the database holds on every car and of course have done so in this matter. It may not be a very pretty truth, yet I don't think there is much to hide either. However, you can hardly blame the Committee for not spilling the beans as owners are involved who may or may not wish to have the whole story told by others than themselves if at all. Plus there's the privacy bit to reckon with. Again, the Committee consists of AMATEUR ENTHUSIASTS who may have access to information but are not necessarily obliged or even capable to judge or share said information. People on the Committee have tasks to perform when it comes to organising events, keeping score of Register championships, selling library goods, reporting on events, chairing meetings, taking notes at meetings, writing pieces for magazines and editing bulletins and yearbooks (although Simon has proven that you do not have to be a member of the Committee to be the Register's Yearbook Editor, as mentioned before.) and of course keep a list of known Triple-M chassis numbers and what not, but it is certainly NOT their job to judge on the authenticity of certain cars or respond to forum enquiries after dodgy cars by 'the public' simply because they are committee members.
Going back to that bit on F**d engines and other similar modifications bring me to the next point I for one should like to see change: why, if the chassis number is what the Register deems to be the one important thing (as opposed to having a 3-out-of-5 system for instance), then why are foreign engined cars not eligible for the COTY and other Register championships? I would suggest either changing the chassis number rule or allow foreign engined cars to compete.
A 'post production' car (a lovely creative term recently issued by Barry Walker) on, say, a brand new chassis and no old paperwork to allow it to have an factory chassis number which was given a new VIN number by the authorities, would automatically not be able to compete for it has no Triple-M chassis number. Simple.
With shifting the value of a car from the Register number to its eligibility to compete for Register trophies, you might just lessen people’s hankering for new cars and eliminate the problem altogether while at the same time promoting actual use.
As for another bit of the discussion, here's my view:
While the larger part of the world's population is still dying of starvation, I feel that a very tiny portion desires more and more material possessions and would choose fake over real (if such terms apply …) to establish this. I.e. owning a car that looks like a K3 (or a Double Twelve or Le Mans M-type, a C-type, J3, J4, Q, R or even an NE) rather than one of the 33 produced by the M.G. Car Co. Ltd. and simply enjoying yourself when you actually see one in the flesh, preferably being used in anger.
Of course everyone is free to build exactly what they want or lies within their possibilities, but the least you can then do to accommodate the 'other half' who have made the effort of 'accepting the things they cannot change' and who do not particularly like what you have turned your car into, is to keep referring to it as what it is for the sake of history. Why pretend you have something else by calling your lookalike a J4? Why not take pride in having a ‘simple’ M, D, F1, J1, J2, K1, K2, KN, L1, NA, NB, PA or PB and naming it thus even if it does look like a K3 or a C or a Q?
Without wanting to sound pedantic, should we not aim to be better people and not desire what we cannot have? I for one would rather enjoy the look of someone else’s real C-type than own a lookalike. To me, the history is such an integral part of what makes a car beautiful and so a newly made car -however well done- could never evoke the same feelings in me. Money doesn't even come into it.
Right, I think I have sort of mastered the subject(s) or at least have given it sufficient thought to be able to let it all go again and I can now get back to work … Perhaps even catch up on some sleep tonight I missed out on early this morning …
I should like to leave you to ponder the following two quotes by Friedensreich Hundertwasser:
If we do not honour our past, we lose our future. If we destroy our roots, we cannot grow.
When we dream alone it is only a dream, but when many dream together it is the beginning of a new reality.
Thank you kindly for you attention!
Cat
|
 |
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5998 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2017 : 14:06:18
|
Sounds sensible to me, Cat. My only comment would be that if there are some issues surrounding NA0356 then all the Registrar or the Chairman has to do is say so and not just ignore the issue. I’m afraid that this tendency to ignore things that didn’t suit was one of many things that persuaded me it was better to leave the Committee.
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
Dolts
United Kingdom
1128 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2017 : 15:15:17
|
Wow some good catching up do here! My view .... to also break the perceived silence
Some interesting discussions, none have which have been ignored. Infact the volume of discussion and emails on these topics has been huge in the last few months.
I haven’t had spare moment to really follow this or discuss with any committee member. But I m sure it will be widely debated in a few weeks when we meet.
I think we are all keen to listen to opinion and hope to steer the register in the right direction for the future.
All these discussions, feedback, ideas and concepts are so important, hopefully any changes / decisions are then based on a broad base of opinion and not individual influence.
We are listening but my forum activity isn’t a very good time sheet recording facility for Triple-M based Work! 
.
Mark Dolton
www.triple-mracing.com
|
|
|
|
JMH
United Kingdom
910 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2017 : 15:54:09
|
Cat, Ref non MMM engined cars & championships:
I believe it's been the case since formation of the Register & the reason was quite simply to encourage owners to stick with the "proper" engine - at a time when you had to search hard for vital bits (no specialist suppliers back then) & it was all too easy to just stick a different/more modern engine under the bonnet.
Nobody was really thinking about rebuilding just "recording and preserving the surviving cars".
JH
|
Edited by - JMH on 10/11/2017 16:00:05 |
|
|
|
DickMorbey
United Kingdom
3672 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2017 : 16:07:38
|
Shortly after I was persuaded to take on the chairmanship of the Register and through that seek to serve the interests of MG Car Club members and our Triple-M community I remember remarking that at least 50% of the 'challenges' that came with the job arrived through the medium of e-communications.
Over the subsequent 5+ years that percentage has grown inexorably and is approaching three digits.
The Register Committee is not a Trappist organisation, but neither are we willing to conduct our business in the glare of the ever rapacious expectation of instant decision-making seemingly demanded by the age we now inhabit. When considering weighty matters we prefer to allow time for mature reflection, ensuring that we respect the past (Cat's closing points are particularly relevant here) but also recognising the realities of the day.
We all need to keep in mind that the Register is part of the wider MG Car Club and therefore launching a wholesale change of the aims, objectives and operation of the Register - even if the Committee wished to do so, which I doubt - would be something requiring the Club's endorsement.
I am conscious that this Forum is viewable publicly - by non-members as well as Club members, so it is perhaps timely to say that the Committee is always happy to receive input from Club members and to welcome them by prior arrangement to our meetings.
The Committee meets in just over two weeks' time and if there is anything to report, or consult upon with Club members afterwards, we will do so.
Dick Morbey
PA-PB0743
Frieth, Oxon, UK |
|
|
|
O.Thomas
United Kingdom
755 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2017 : 16:15:43
|
| Surely if the said N type has already be de registered (which it appears to have been) then there is something to tell/make public already as the decision has been taken and has obviously already been discussed by the commitee with a conclusion.Or have I lost the plot completely?? |
|
|
|
Cathelijne
Netherlands
744 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2017 : 16:33:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by JMH
Cat, Ref non MMM engined cars & championships:
I believe it's been the case since formation of the Register & the reason was quite simply to encourage owners to stick with the "proper" engine - at a time when you had to search hard for vital bits (no specialist suppliers back then) & it was all too easy to just stick a different/more modern engine under the bonnet.
JH
Understood and point taken, but are you saying we should stick with this practice or would you (personally) be open to change?
|
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5998 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2017 : 16:38:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by JMH
Nobody was really thinking about rebuilding just "recording and preserving the surviving cars".
And the 'recording' bit, as I understand it, was the purpose of the Register number - to keep count, not to be conferred (or withdrawn) as a mark of authenticity (or not!).
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
Cathelijne
Netherlands
744 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2017 : 16:50:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by DickMorbey
We all need to keep in mind that the Register is part of the wider MG Car Club and therefore launching a wholesale change of the aims, objectives and operation of the Register - even if the Committee wished to do so, which I doubt - would be something requiring the Club's endorsement.
Dick Morbey
PA-PB0743
Frieth, Oxon, UK
Personally though, Dick, what would be your reason(s) for wanting to maintain the practice of allocating Register numbers? And why at this point say you doubt the Committee will want to change. I am anxious to learn the entire Committee's view, preferably by all individual members. Perhaps it would be a thought to implement a voting system within the Committee, or, better still, to include 'the public' and hold referenda 
It is all well and good that you want to discuss stuff at committee meetings first before conveying the 'official' view on the forum, but what could be against joining in this discussion right here, either as our Chairman or as a fellow enthusiast?
I cannot for the life of me think what the Club could or would have against it if the Register were to drop the use of Register numbers and should like to hear your views on this particular matter. I have no legal training, and so I don't know the first thing about the official side of running clubs with directors and chairmen and secretaries and the lot, but I do know that it is obviously easier to simplify than to complicate even though the entire professional world seems to be run by people who prefer taking the long way around ...
|
|
|
|
DickMorbey
United Kingdom
3672 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2017 : 16:58:54
|
Hi Cat,
To allude to Professor Joad, it all depends on what is meant by “wholesale change”, which does not of itself preclude the possibility of dispensing with register numbers.
I am sure that our worthy secretary will digest the comments made here and elsewhere and build them into a compendium of opinions which can form a basis for our committee discussions in a fortnight’s time.
Dick Morbey
PA-PB0743
Frieth, Oxon, UK |
|
|
|
Westbury
United Kingdom
1949 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2017 : 17:01:37
|
Simon.
I admire you for your honesty, integrity and for your principles!
Chris |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5998 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2017 : 17:25:11
|
You must be thinking of some other bloke, Chris, but thanks anyway!
As Groucho Marx apparently said “Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well I have others.”
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
Westbury
United Kingdom
1949 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2017 : 17:30:03
|
That made me chuckle!!
Cheers,
Chris. |
|
|
|
Ian Bowers
United Kingdom
937 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2017 : 17:31:15
|
Dick, I cannot find, at any point in this or earlier discussions on the subject of issuing or withholding register numbers, any suggestion which challenges the legitimacy of Triple-M Committee or Register.
The first Objective of the Register is:
to maintain a register ('The Register Listing') of surviving Triple-M cars, recording their history and other relevant information.
That founding concept is not challenged, nor is the principle of counting the cars registered in the database by issuing a number. The only issue is the relevance of the Guidelines, and whether they are helpful in identifying cars for inclusion in the Register. Some, amongst which I must be counted, have provided evidence that they have run their course and the many varieties of Triple-M cars have tested them to destruction.
I have suggested possible stances for the Committee to take on this subject, in the hope of breaking the 'log jam' which seems to have prevented any personal participation in the discussion by Committee members.
Hopefully the next Committee meeting will feel able to step away from the past and free itself of the shackles which the Guidelines have created. The new database provides a fine tool for any car claiming MMM heritage to be listed and the documents supporting its claim made available for inspection, the limits of access should be for the Committee to determine.
Ian Bowers
OD 6791
J3 3772 |
Edited by - Ian Bowers on 10/11/2017 17:35:11 |
|
|
|
Westbury
United Kingdom
1949 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2017 : 17:32:01
|
Sorry, Dick !
I was referring to Simon’s quote !!!
Chris. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
