| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Berthold
Switzerland
51 Posts |
 Posted - 19/11/2009 : 22:11:25
|
I have seen at coys auction 1. december with Lot number 434 : "1934 MG Factory Team Car Only Factory K3 lightweight chassis". The car has the chassisnumber K3-026.
Isn't a further K3 with the same chassis number in Switzerland. Is this the same story like numberK- 3015 ? |
|
|
JMH
United Kingdom
911 Posts |
Posted - 20/11/2009 : 10:51:51
|
As this car was at the K3-75 display last year I can only assume that is recognised as a K3, although everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
K3026 crashed & bent the chassis in it's first ever event (yes it was factory entered). the chassis was replaced by the works & the car went on to have significant & interesting history in the UK & Europe.
The first chassis was "discarded" by the factory & subsequently found it's way into a special (mostly non-MG I think, but don't quote me), where it had a pretty continuous history up until around the late 80s/90s. It appeared at auction & was subsequently rebuilt as a K3.
As ever, you pays your money & takes your choice.........
JH |
 |
|
|
JMH
United Kingdom
911 Posts |
Posted - 20/11/2009 : 10:54:42
|
To be clear, I should add that this car the "first" chassis, the one shunted, discarded & built into a special.
JH |
|
|
|
Bob Stringfield
United Kingdom
854 Posts |
Posted - 20/11/2009 : 20:23:57
|
As stated, much the same sort of provenance as the K3 cars discussed recently.
Are all K3 cars like this? Can the good Bob Clare tell us which ones have 'doubles'? |
Edited by - Bob Stringfield on 20/11/2009 20:40:40 |
|
|
|
wiggy963
United Kingdom
69 Posts |
Posted - 21/11/2009 : 10:35:17
|
| I notice that the photos on the Coys website tell us that their K3026 has engine number 620AN. According to my printed copy of the TRIPLE-M REGISTER 2009 engine number 620AN is in chassis number NA0366. |
|
|
|
graham holdsworth
United Kingdom
424 Posts |
Posted - 21/11/2009 : 11:43:03
|
Bob and Brian,Along with Bob Clares excellent Register and Mike Hawkes marvelous book K3 Dossier(1992)a must are the 3 recent articles titled 'History of the MG K3 in detail'by Malcolm Green (MGOC Mag. Nov.08 to Jan.09)absolutely essential reading for us K3 fanatics! This has the most up to date info on all the cars,a super read.
Graham(PB0602) |
|
|
|
F0355
South Africa
298 Posts |
Posted - 21/11/2009 : 12:13:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by wiggy963
I notice that the photos on the Coys website tell us that their K3026 has engine number 620AN.....
Left the factory with engine number 620AK. |
|
|
|
JMH
United Kingdom
911 Posts |
Posted - 21/11/2009 : 20:36:56
|
Doubles? If only life were so simple....... It can get much more complicated than that! Conversely, some are almost as pure as driven snow.
However, this particular chassis started life as the back bone of a K3, a month later it was damaged & replaced by the factory, then sold off as a part (not an identity) with some other minor bits (some of which, may ironically have even come from 007). It was not incorporated into another K3, far from it, and only "became" a K3 again more than 50 years later. That makes it significantly different to the other K3 case mentioned on this forum recently.
The trouble is there weren't enough K3s made to go around! |
|
|
|
Peter Green
United Kingdom
1682 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2009 : 13:05:17
|
Please note the items posted by Peter Green and Bob Clare have been deleted for legal reasons.
Peter Green
Chairman
Bob Clare
Registrar |
|
|
|
peterfenichel
United Kingdom
79 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2009 : 13:48:42
|
Having followed the "sale" of this car for a while now... and having read the posts previously posted and now "withdrawn..." it is clear that the car's history is more complex than most. If the Register can not be clear and position itself as an authoritative source based on the information available to it how can the buying Club member or others obtain any reasonable data beyond the story told by a keen seller. I find this both odd and quite sad!
Surely we are not saying that the Register is not in a position to challenge (perhaps, better put, share) information about our cars?
Peter Fenichel |
|
|
|
leckstein
USA
411 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2009 : 14:18:12
|
Not to deviate from the topic too much, but I am always amazed at British laws regarding liable. Here, in the wild and wooley colonies, almost anything goes as long as it isn't done with malice or intentional harm. The strict, and in my humble view, over restricted UK liable laws do ,as Peter Fenichel points out, restrict vital information about our cars and many other subjects. Talk about a chilling effect on ideas and speech! This topic, along with the previous discussion on K3s , is so interesting and informative. I wish the discussion would continue, contraversy or not. I am sure the information that was posted by Peter and Bob was exactly what was known to the Register, and a disclaimer to that fact should be enough! Have I liabiled this list just now?
Mike L |
|
|
|
ajc
United Kingdom
49 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2009 : 15:00:50
|
Luckily the USA has started enacting State Laws that states that any libel action that takes place in the UK is unenforceable in the USA.....ie outside of it jurisdiction
hence why lots of blogs and forums are being located overseas in the US or outlying islands to shield themselves from these types of ridiculous laws and libel tourism we are now seeing in the UK.
I see Jack Straw is on the case of this today in the news today again.
Back on topic, I agree with Peter F. , if the club cannot state the facts as they see them, and are classified as an authoritative source regarding MMM cars, then what is the point of the Register. Facts are facts and should be published as such. Is not the history of this car already known anyway? I have a feeling auction houses like to talk up the history to garner interest and price, yet we should not shy away from stating the facts as they arise.
It would be remiss and misleading not to, especially to a potential new purchaser. |
Edited by - ajc on 26/11/2009 17:58:20 |
|
|
|
Bob Stringfield
United Kingdom
854 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2009 : 21:12:48
|
Rather more on this car, including statements from the MMM Register, may be read under the heading 'Le Mans Riley' by VSCC members who have access to the VSCC Forums.
|
|
|
|
ajc
United Kingdom
49 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2009 : 21:53:29
|
| Especially as one member has photos of the Handley IoM crash and is surprised that the chassis frame was badly damaged. |
|
|
|
Mike Allison
United Kingdom
196 Posts |
Posted - 27/11/2009 : 09:13:47
|
Hi there,
The last comment from ajc bears the nub of the argument here.
Handley bent a wheel, which can be seen clearly in the picture in the Barre Lyndon book "Grank Prix".
When the chassis files were at MG, I was one who had the priviegde of seeing them, and under "K3026", after the Mannin race, there is an order to replace the wheel and the rear axle case, which was followed by a bill to George Eyston (who owned the car) for these and associated parts... no mention of a chassis frame, or work to that.
In my discussions with Reg Jackson, he stated that "... Handley was a bit of a tearaway, and wanted to beat Freddie Dixon. So we only put four gallons of fuel into his almost empty tank". No mention of a special frame. Similarly neither Cecil Cousins nor Henry Stone, in 1967 the surviving members of racing could remember such a thing.
In my view, the thought of drilling holes in a chassis frame is laughable. It might have saved 5 or seven pound, which in the overall weight of the car is insignificant (less than 1%). Running sicteen gallons light redused the weight by around 150 lbs, getting on for 10%.
So believe who you like.
I prefer those who were there at the time.
Mike |
|
|
|
peterfenichel
United Kingdom
79 Posts |
Posted - 27/11/2009 : 11:21:07
|
Quite a few years ago, when I was more directly involved in the commercial side of professional motorsport, I made a bet with a friend that Auction Houses would have increasing difficulty building their business model against Classic Car Dealers who had then expanded showrooms and provided the historic car enthusiast with the type of "private client" services they desired. Was I wrong!
Dealers are now few and far between and those that have survived often compete with only virtual showrooms...
And we have many more Auction Houses plus eBay, etc.!
I would refer Triple-M friends to the recent November Bulletin and the letter from Gerald Burridge on page 48 which sets out an issue with Coys which, I suspect, is not unique to that company.
Why anyone would buy (or try to sell) an interesting historic car via an Auction is frankly way beyond my understanding... ??
Peter Fenichel |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
