| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Westbury
United Kingdom
1950 Posts |
 Posted - 17/03/2021 : 20:58:25
|
Hello,everyone.
You can google Motor Sport May 1933 for the full report but it doesn’t reveal any further clues as to the registration number. (The reporter complains they were limited to 80 mph because the engine was still being run in !)
As Simon says, original photographs taken at the time may still be in existence in the Motor Sport archives.
Chris |
Edited by - Westbury on 17/03/2021 21:03:13 |
 |
|
|
nick westbrook
United Kingdom
20 Posts |
Posted - 18/03/2021 : 11:00:46
|
Morning All
I think I've answered my own original question.
The Motor Sport report has another photograph - this time of the front with the cowl off showing the supercharger.
There is no sign of the number plate or any fixings - in the side-on shot the plate is affixed between the headlamps.
I think we can all safely conclude that K3004 was running on the firm's trade plates and that perhaps as it was bought solely for racing their first thought was to fit a lightweight body so why bother with all that road registration rubbish!
A check via Kithead Trust will show what car the currently fitted JB plate was allocated to - or if in fact it was allocated at all?
I'll try and find another interesting topic for discussion till the pubs re-open!
Nick
J2118
Happy days |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5999 Posts |
Posted - 18/03/2021 : 14:51:23
|
In the 1930s there were two types of trade plates - General and Limited. General plates had white numbers on a red background and Limited had red numbers on a white background. Limited plates had very strict limits on their use (the clue is in the name!) but General plates, although considerably more expensive than Limited ones apparently, could be used for just about any purpose, no matter how tenuously connected to the motor trade. It was apparently quite common for people in the trade to use them all the time rather than be bothered registering a car.
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
Westbury
United Kingdom
1950 Posts |
Posted - 18/03/2021 : 15:24:51
|
I don’t know, but I would have thought Abingdon would have registered the car especially for such esteemed customers such as Manby-Colgrave and in particular with his association with Adrian Squire who was a former employee and well thought of by MG.
Chris |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5999 Posts |
Posted - 18/03/2021 : 15:52:33
|
But perhaps they didn’t actually want it registered, knowing that if necessary they could use their trade plates?
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
nick westbrook
United Kingdom
20 Posts |
Posted - 18/03/2021 : 17:03:55
|
I know that my J2 - Squire Motors Demonstrator was registered by Squire Motors rather than the works and Jonathan Wood makes reference to Adrian Squire buying his cars from MG's at a special discount so perhaps it was a case of saving even more pennies knowing how strapped for cash they were?
In the Squire book there is a letter from Adrian Squire to his future wife - with words to the effect that Jock M-C is mad buying the K3 when he only has to wait a month after April to get his Squire. They went to the factory to order it on 2nd February 1933. In fact he had to wait well over a year to get his Squire due to product delays etc.
Incidentally I did ask Jonathan Wood if was interested in writing another book, this time about the MG / Squire connection but he said that he was retiring from writing and his Squire book was in effect his Swansong. It is a superb book for those who have not read it - but not cheap.
Nick
J2118 |
|
|
|
Ross Kelly
Australia
226 Posts |
Posted - 23/12/2021 : 08:36:53
|
Hi, The following is a reply received today from the Kithead trust regarding JB 1411.
"JB 1411 was actually an Austin, first registered 6.1.1933. It passed through several owners and was owned in Cardiff when finally delicensed in June 1958."
cheers
ross
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
JB 859
Forum Locked
