| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
John James
United Kingdom
963 Posts |
 Posted - 30/01/2016 : 22:45:21
|
There was much discussion on this Forum regarding PA0520. At the time (was it last year or the year before?) the debate centred around a chassis bought on the Internet and a car in Sweden.
To the best of my knowledge this was never resolved. It was supposed to be going to the Triple-M committee?
What was resolved?
The car in Sweden is up for sale for (unless I have got the currency conversion horribly wrong) the GBP equivalent of 48,674.
http://www.blocket.se/skaraborg/MG_Midget_PA_Triple_M_64281471.htm?ca=11&w=3
JOHN JAMES J3656, PB0722 (and TC0750) |
|
|
MaGic_GV
United Kingdom
868 Posts |
Posted - 31/01/2016 : 16:03:56
|
This problem has indeed been discussed by the Triple M Committee at great length. Unfortunately we have to accept that there are cases where we do not have sufficient information to make a decision. Neither chassis has the correct knuckle stamping, so at present neither chassis can be listed as PA 0520.
Triple M Registrar
Regards,
Graham
|
 |
|
|
pauly45
United Kingdom
435 Posts |
Posted - 31/01/2016 : 16:38:04
|
What would have happened if both cars had clear, or partial knuckle stampings?
Paul |
|
|
|
Peter Green
United Kingdom
1682 Posts |
Posted - 31/01/2016 : 17:58:04
|
Paul,
Two cars cannot have original knuckles with the same original factory stamped numbers. Please not the word 'original'.
Peter |
|
|
|
tholden
United Kingdom
1638 Posts |
Posted - 31/01/2016 : 18:16:06
|
Peter what you say assumes the man who did the stamping never made a mistake. That cannot be guaranteed. Also are we 100% sure that a factory supplied replacement chassis was never stamped with the original number for the car in question ?
In any event there is much more to a car being the original item than the number on the chassis knuckle. Anything can and indeed was replaced in years gone by but continuity of history and other factors can sometimes carry more weight than one stamped number.
TH |
|
|
|
graham3647
United Kingdom
448 Posts |
Posted - 31/01/2016 : 19:15:08
|
Surely Both cars can also be recognised for it's originality by checking the body number with the chassis number on the the factory records.
I am not an expert but both of my MMM cars have both numbers on the build record sheets which are still available. That's assuming a new body hasn't been installed of course.
Just a thought. |
|
|
|
pauly45
United Kingdom
435 Posts |
Posted - 31/01/2016 : 19:41:23
|
In this case neither chassis has the correct knuckle stamping.
If one did have the correct chassis stamping, but the other one held the V5C for that chassis, what would have occurred?
Would the V5C have been transferred to the correct chassis?
|
|
|
|
MaGic_GV
United Kingdom
868 Posts |
Posted - 31/01/2016 : 20:34:56
|
The car in Sweden looks excellent, while the chassis in England looks to be an original P type chassis (both seen in photographs only). However, neither car has a correct chassis stamp as produced at Abingdon (completely wrong font in both cases). We are not in a position to be able to dole out chassis numbers as required - if we do that DVLA will soon begin to suspect ALL cars we recognise.
There are cars where knuckle stampings are less than ideal, but we can only recognise those on a conditional basis, usually with the help of documentary evidence (see rule 3.1.4). In this case there are two competing cars with no clear claim to be PA 0520, though each has a certain amount of validity. We are talking of the identity here, there is little doubt that these are original P-types, and if further documentary evidence comes to light we may be able to act further.
Triple M Registrar
Regards,
Graham
|
Edited by - MaGic_GV on 31/01/2016 20:37:56 |
|
|
|
Kts
USA
107 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2016 : 02:59:56
|
The test currently in favor with the BDC is one of continuity of history. This because chassis were replaced by Bentley Motors as a mater of course when damaged, and the damaged chassis was often rebuilt and resold. For instance, my 4.5 contains the chassis of one car, the engine of another, and the body of a third, all assembled by Bentley Motors Ltd in 1936. The history is known from new, so it is a legitimate car. Incidentally, the top half of the original crankcase surfaced a few years ago, and is now being "rebuilt", after being "scrapped" 80 years ago!
KTS
J3459 |
|
|
|
MaGic_GV
United Kingdom
868 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2016 : 10:05:55
|
Continuity is the problem here - neither car was recorded until the mid '90s, by which time each had acquired features of PA 0520, hence our difficulty.
In answer to questions from Paul and Graham, it is the chassis stamp we regard as all important, bodies and engines get changed around, documentation and chassis get separated, perhaps deliberately, more than likely at a time when these things were taken more lightly. We have to be rather more stringent these days for reasons alluded to in my previous reply.
Triple M Registrar
Regards,
Graham
|
|
|
|
Allan Bentley
United Kingdom
257 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2016 : 12:54:57
|
Certainly true for Cricklewood cars.
H M Bentley kept the Bentley line going throughout the 1930s by just such rebuilds.
Dorethy Paget did the same for blower cars, changing both the standard 4.5 litre chassis and fitting the uprated engine. Then selling on the old chassis with its original registration number. The Harry Rose / Anne Shoosmith car is a good example of continuity of history through this route, having been sold with a new chassis engine and registration numbers to C J Turner in 1932. This car was only reunited with its original registration number when owned by Bernard Rubin after being purchased by Harry Rose. No DVLA in those days!
Frazer Nash also rebuilt cars on secondhand chassis and sold them on as new.
I now believe after recent research that MG may have done the same on the non mass production cars.
Allan Bentley |
|
|
|
tholden
United Kingdom
1638 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2016 : 13:32:22
|
Well done BDC for taking a more sensible and pragmatic approach.
There are quite a few of our cars out there that have had a chassis change including some prominent well known and rare ones. But as long as they have continuity of history they can surely still be accepted as the original car whatever the chassis stamping says.
I think the big problem The Register has is not so much dealing with new cars but identifying and recording those cars which were built up out of parts in perhaps the 60's or 70's and have somehow become the real thing, gained " Register Recorded " status and in many cases original Registration numbers.
Not an easy task for the Register to deal with but an important issue if we are going to maintain an accurate and honest Register and for it to be available for future generations.
TH |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
