| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Nick Feakes
USA
3372 Posts |
 Posted - 29/09/2009 : 02:10:03
|
Would love to Bob, but the forum is not of my making. Maybe that is something the Snitz forum folk might do in the future. Maybe I will suggest it.
Nick
The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. |
 |
|
|
rodm
United Kingdom
156 Posts |
Posted - 29/09/2009 : 19:29:27
|
For those who may want to know, according to H&H auction site, the car sold for ú231,000!
Rod |
|
|
|
phil
United Kingdom
149 Posts |
Posted - 29/09/2009 : 23:41:50
|
Sorry to add this, I have been watching this thread. Its all very good saying yes it rased this much etc. BUT, for me the price of ownership is dammed hard!
OK, so i spent in excess of 18K to rebuid a pile of junk!
Ok so i have seen the looks in the eyes of others.
OK so mines just a PB nout special.
But seriousley, for the hours, the knowledge and lack of another MG, you can keep your 200k plus (where it dont shine), it wouldnt buy mine, and Im totaly skint!!!!!
Whats 200k? Nothing, just paper. If some people are into is the value, then maybe nick should start another forum for us, Enthusiast or cash hunter!!!
Seriousley, everyone, get a grip.
What value is owning (or being owned by) an MMM.
I may be on my own, but in my case its priceless for a bog standard PB.
If you love the car, cherish it.
Every man has his price, fine!
I would easily refuse 210000 sterling on the table for mine, tho its not worth it.
NO OTHER PB WOULD BE MINE THAT I BUILT
However in circumstances which reach us all, we must move on.
I still wouldnt sell. I'd rther give it away to someone who loved the car as I do.
Yours,
Phil
(An anticapitalist, non conformist, punk rocker who by chance is just a common oik who has the HONOUR of being owned by this wondefull PB.)
Beauty and value is in the eye of the beholder.
all the best
|
|
|
|
David Allison
United Kingdom
665 Posts |
Posted - 30/09/2009 : 12:29:09
|
| Well Said! |
|
|
|
Martin Warner
United Kingdom
85 Posts |
Posted - 30/09/2009 : 18:47:27
|
Phil
Forcefully put. Money is the simple reason for the attempt to re-write the history of K3015 that has caused this thread to become so heated. |
|
|
|
Bob Clare
United Kingdom
278 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2009 : 00:17:15
|
Martin,
When the Triple-M committee came to their decision as to how to designate the two cars, back in 2001, money and the value of the respective cars took no part in the decision process. As I said (I thought quite clearly!!!) previously, no member of the committee at that time had any connection or vested interest in either car, the cars belonged to Syd Beer and Peter Gregory.
I admire persistence but when persistence becomes fixation then maybe it's time to move on or will you be coming to the AGM?
Bob Clare
|
|
|
|
kimber
United Kingdom
1529 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2009 : 07:48:26
|
Martin, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by re-writing history. As far as I can see, It has been made perfectly clear what the origins of the 3 cars are having an association with 3015. None, as far as I know, are claimed to be 'pur sang'. In my view, what any individual might be willing to pay for any car (fairly described) is for them to judge and not for others to dictate, although we can all of course have an opinion.
Personally, I see it as each of these cars being, effectively a 'bitza'. What the market subsequently decides they are worth is beyond our control.
I suspect most people would condemn the dismantling of any car with pre-war racing history, irrespective of any 'motive'.
As for the car now built on the original 3015 chassis, if you had been fortunate enough to come by that chassis, as a matter of interest, what would you do/have done with it? Personally, I'd have built it up just as it has been. |
|
|
|
ht1962
Netherlands
114 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2009 : 08:52:29
|
As far as I'm concerned the only thing that shouldn't have happened was breaking up the single seat JHT Smith car.
I know that my good friend Dudley would have hated that 
The rest is history |
|
|
|
Martin Warner
United Kingdom
85 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2009 : 10:21:35
|
Bob/Kimber (Andrew)
You say that none of these cars claims to be the original. The source of my irritation or fixation as you would have it is simply the second entry on this thread. I quote " the car H&H will be selling is NOT K3015, I own K3015".
You will be pleased to know that this is my final word on the subject. I am off now to drive my original KN a little bit harder than I used to. Who knows, if I wrap it around a tree and survive I might be able to turn it into an original K3 one day.
Martin |
|
|
|
kimber
United Kingdom
1529 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2009 : 18:44:58
|
I think it is important that we separate 'principle' and 'money'. Lets face it, if it had been an M/D/J/Ptype, nobody would have given a toss. Or would they?
If we have an accepted principle that the chassis alone is the car, then that principle should be universally applied. As I see it, here, we quite legitimately have two K3s built on genuine Works supplied K3 chassis, both supplied 'in period'.
Those facts cannot be denied and how that situation has come about shouldn't really influence us to bend our principle. The set of circumstances under which this came about are unusual and may not be often repeated but doubtless there are other shared identity cars, not just MGs. They have to have some identity and we have to accept the committee ruling on this or vote (volunteer) for change.
Nobody is trying to hide the truth, which would be a different matter entirely.
I am perfectly happy with the status quo. |
|
|
|
Peter Green
United Kingdom
1682 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2009 : 23:51:00
|
Martin,
I am sorry if my rather blunt statement ægot your back upÆ, perhaps in hind sight I should have said, ôH&H are selling the car that the Register designates as K3015/2 not K3015 as I own that car and it is not for saleö. As I am sure you know the car I own is built upon the original chassis of the car (K3015) that J.H.T. Smith purchased from the factory at the end of 1934 and raced extensively up to the end of 1936.
Kimber (Andrew) is correct when he says that the three cars associated to K3015 are all æbitzaÆsÆ to some degree or other. I have never claimed, nor as far as I know have the previous owners, that the car I now own to be æpur sangÆ, it is not, but I do believe that it contains more parts (all be it not very many) that were fitted to the original car that Smith purchased in 1934 than either of the other two cars.
Peter.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
