| Author |
 Topic  |
|
phdouchet
Switzerland
3 Posts |
 Posted - 27/11/2009 : 17:31:39
|
First, I would like to thank the MMM for their comments on the Web.
All facts are correct, but it is still an ongoing discussion as to on which chassis the car at Coys have been built on.
Unfortunately for Legal reason, the MMM authorities have had to withdraw their comments.
It is disappointing in such a liberal society, that our club authorities are not able to state what they really know to be facts without fear or pressure.
Here are my comments.
Comments from Philippe Douchet, owner of K3026
Lot 434 - 1 December Auction
I am the owner of the 1934 MG K3, chassis number K3026, which I refer to as the “the Douchet Car”. Coys is offering for sale at auction on 1 December a car which purports to be chassis number K3026, which I refer to as the “Gregory Car”. For the reasons set out below I require Coys without delay to correct the catalogue description of the Gregory Car, in particular to acknowledge the existence of the Douchet Car.
It is surprising that in the Coys catalogue description no mention is made of my car (the Douchet Car). Indeed the manner in which the description treats the history of K3026, as it existed after 1934, is inaccurate and highly misleading. This could be of great concern to a purchaser who was not made aware of the situation. This description is also highly damaging to my car, by failing to mention its separate and very visible existence since I recovered all original parts of this car from Czechoslovakia in 1980. If this misleading picture is not rectified, the history and the value of my car will be adversely affected by this inaccurate description.
Specifically, the catalogue description of the Gregory Car is inaccurate and misleading in the following respects.
NEW CHASSIS FRAME IN 1934
The lot description reads:
“After this race, much of the remains of K3 026 were rebuilt, and it was then sold to Czechoslovakia, where it continued to race until being severely damaged and rebuilt once again using a special chassis made in Czechoslovakia and a Skoda engine, where it remains as a Skoda-engined special, with virtually nothing left from its original origins”.
1. There is no evidence to support the theory that after the Mannin Beg race the MG factory rebuilt K3026 on a new chassis frame. Indeed the evidence indicates that the car was repaired without replacement of its chassis before being shipped to Czechoslovakia. In this respect I, Philippe Douchet, and other well known MMM peoples disagree with the conclusion of the Triple-M Register that K3026 was rebuilt on a replacement K3 chassis by the factory in 1934.It may be possible but to date there is no formal proof that has been given to me.
2. The statement that the car existing in Czechoslovakia “remains as a Skoda-engine special, with virtually nothing left from its original origins” is not only inaccurate, but in my view is grossly misleading. In 1980 I acquired the damaged K3 chassis and front and rear axles and the original engine and gearbox and all remaining parts from K3026 in Prague, directly from the Pohl’s Brother. In my view, the damaged chassis frame that I acquired was the original factory chassis from 1934; I have always disputed that the frame was not replaced before the car was shipped to Czechoslovakia. In my opinion, this factory chassis frame was repaired and K3026 was rebuilt with all these original parts. It is on this basis that, I claim not only to own the genuine MG K3026, but my car identity is far superior to that of the Gregory Car on sale.
3. The description of lot 434 is wholly misleading in failing to recognise the existence of the Douchet car and the facts stated above, mean that all the pre-war racing history belongs to my car.
THE WAGSTAFF CAR/ the Gregory car
The lot description reads:
“In 1937, a motor racing enthusiast, C.H Wagstaff, approached the Riley factory with a view to purchasing a factory chassis with which to self-build an ERA-type clone. As his request was denied, the indefatigable Wagstaff approached MG, where his request was seen in better favour – especially as MG had by then ceased racing at the command of Lord Nuffield, but still retained a stock of Works racing parts including the now-repaired chassis of K3 026 that was hanging on the factory wall. A delighted Wagstaff quickly agreed to Cecil Kimber’s offer of the redundant Works lightweight chassis along with its associated parts as invoiced, which forms part of the history file accompanying this vehicle”.
1. There is no evidence that in 1937 Wagstaff or Else acquired the “redundant works lightweight chassis” of K3026 from the MG factory. We understand that the only document that the vendor holds in this respect is a copy of an invoice or bill of sale of 22 February 1937 from the MG factory to a Mr Else as to the sale of a chassis frame, being part number “MG425”. Therefore this invoice alone can in no way justify the claim as to the Gregory Car that the frame acquired in 1937 was the discarded chassis of MG K3026.
2. On the other hand, I have all the documents relative to the sale of my car by the Works to Czechoslovakia and all Czech and Swiss titles.
In my view, the Gregory Car is a total reconstruction, bearing no relation to K3026 whatsoever.
WHAT PETER GREGORY BOUGHT
The catalogue description reads:
“…the re(sourceful Peter Gregory approached Wagstaff, having traced the history of K3026. Gregory successfully purchased the dismantled Wagstaff Special”.
1. I understand that the remains of Wagstaff’s Riley Special were offered by the Wagstaff family some years ago to Bill Morris (now deceased). They were offered to Bill because the Riley engine was of interest to ERA enthusiasts, and Bill Morris was then the leading ERA engineer in the UK. Bill Morris described to Mr X the chassis components which Bill had inspected, namely that there were various chassis components, but no complete chassis frame, and there was no number stamping on any part of those chassis components, let alone to indicate any part was from K3026. Also, no one of the three persons who have seen the chassis before Mr P.Gregory have accepted to put in writing that they have seen a Number stamped on it.( or the contrary)
2. In my opinion, the description in Coys catalogue is also inaccurate in alleging that by acquiring the dismantled Wagstaff Special Peter Gregory acquired the original chassis frame from K3026. My position is that he did not acquire that frame, and that therefore the chassis frame on which the Gregory Car is built must be of subsequent manufacture, bearing no relation to K3026.
CONCLUSION
In view of the material inaccuracies and omissions in the Coys catalogue description of the Gregory Car, I decided to publish my comments on the MMM Website.
This is very important to bring to the attention of any person who is interested by the Lot 434, to know the inaccuracies in the catalogue description.
I, also ask Coys via a lawyer to change the catalogue and their website version,
-and to place an amended catalogue description physically on one of the aero screens of Lot 434 when the Gregory car is presented in the auction room.
-and when Lot 434 is introduced by the auctioneer on 1 December, to ensure that the correction to the catalogue descripton is clearly stated for all to hear in the auction room.
At the time of writing, I have not received a response from Coys.
Philippe Douchet
E-mail: phdouchet@bluewin.ch
Mobile : +4176 585 5563
|
 |
|
|
ajc
United Kingdom
49 Posts |
Posted - 27/11/2009 : 19:07:25
|
Hello there Phillipe and thank you for reposting your comments.
Whilst not knowing what action (if any) was threatened against the Register, though if that is the case one can guess, it is refreshing to see your post in all its honesty.
These are important issues and we should not kowtow to legal threats if merely facts are stated. |
|
|
|
phdouchet
Switzerland
3 Posts |
Posted - 28/11/2009 : 10:28:30
|
I received this E-mail from Norman Ewing, who asked me to post it on his behalf on the MMM website.
Ph.Douchet
Normann said:
I feel I must now get involved in this K3026 discussion, because the most important point has not been mentioned. Henry Stone authenticated what Phillipe Douchet had bought. In 1987 I travelled to Switzerland and with Henry Stone examined all the pieces bought by the brothers Douchet. Although I had known about 'the purchase' three years before, I had been sworn to secrecy as Phillipe feared for the safetyof the remaining Pohl family, at that time still living behind the Iron Curtain.
Henry had been told of the cars existence only a week before at the Abingdon International, and when told that Phillipe had K3026 he remarked "The Eyston car." I asked if it wasn't a works car, and Henry replied that George treated it as his own, and had a little silver plaque with his London address behind the dashboard. He then described how he had made it a curved inlet manifold. I challenged him, saying that was over fifty years ago, and how could he remember a detail like that.He laughed and said after filing a manifold for nearly three weeks "Jacko" made him throw it away and start again."You don't forget things like that" was his reply.
Shortly after Henry and Winnie landed in Geneva we set off to examine the bits. The chassis had been repaired in a few places, and Henry pointed out the work to repair the chassis that he had overseen at the factory after the Handley crash. At no time did he ever mention that ANOTHER chassis could ever have existed. We then went through the boxes looking for the dashboard, and there behind it on the passenger side was a small silver plaque with from memory a Bayswater address. Henry was overjoyed-- "Yup,this is the Eyston car alright." I was staggered at his memory of this particular car as he had worked on so many of the works cars fifty years before.
So as far as I am concerned, there is only one K3026. The genuine one. So lets stop the nonsense. Only 33 of these cars were ever produced, now we have about sixty running around. Surely this "breeding programme" should be halted. By all means build replicas if you want to---but for heavens sake be honest and ensure that no one thinks that it is the genuine article, no matter how authentic it may be.
Norman Ewing
mgewing@polka.co.za |
|
|
|
F0355
South Africa
298 Posts |
Posted - 29/11/2009 : 09:04:28
|
May I ask why the "Gregory" car that's currently on auction was displayed at the K3's 75th at Silverstone, does it mean it is considered by the Triple-M register as the original 3026? Maybe the deleted posts I missed before I could read them would have answered my question....?
Peter Steyn
Johannesburg, RSA
|
|
|
|
peterfenichel
United Kingdom
79 Posts |
Posted - 29/11/2009 : 15:10:41
|
I would hope that the Register Committe would answer the question directly, but I believe at the time (of the 75th at Silverstone) the Register believed that there were 2 cars... and that the Gregory car had been built up from the original chassis. Based on more recent evidence which has come to light and discussion which has resulted from the Gregory car being offered at auction as "K3026" I would hope that the Register would revisit that determination.
Peter Fenichel |
|
|
|
Peter Green
United Kingdom
1682 Posts |
Posted - 29/11/2009 : 23:06:23
|
Peter (Steyn)
I organised the display of K3’s at Silverstone last year. The reason I included the car you refer to was because its chassis frame was originally sold to Mr. N. G. Else, by The M.G. Car Company Ltd., as part number MG425 which is the part number for a K3 chassis. Furthermore the cars owner had told me that its chassis number was K 3026. As I expect you know the other claimant to chassis number K 3026, the car owned by Philippe Douchet, was also in the display.
Peter.
|
|
|
|
tholden
United Kingdom
1638 Posts |
Posted - 29/11/2009 : 23:20:42
|
Peter, along with quite a few other "determinations" one would hope !
TH |
|
|
|
Bob Clare
United Kingdom
278 Posts |
Posted - 30/11/2009 : 00:56:46
|
There have been a number of court cases fought out over the years about the “true identity” of old cars. In the context of a court of law, evidence can be required to be produced, oaths on telling the truth taken and, in the end for better or worse, judgements handed down by the court.
The Triple-M Register and its committee are not and never have laid claim to be either a court or an arbitration service for those minded to challenge a particular view on such matters.
The Register should always try to assist owners but only within the boundaries set by the disclaimer in the Register’s “rules”. Thus the job of the Register is;
to record information received on surviving Triple-M cars on the basis that it is given in good faith;
to question such information if it is clearly in conflict with other information received;
NOT to undertake the judgement of the merits of a case but simply record the information received.
Thus, the correct forum for determining the merits of cases such as that relating to K 3026 is through the due process of law, not through the good offices of the Triple-M Register.
Whilst I have not doubt that this matter will in due course be discussed again by the Triple-M Register committee, the hopes of some contributors to the Forum that the committee will make a decision on the merits of one case against the other are inevitably destined to be disappointed.
Bob Clare
Registrar
|
|
|
|
peterfenichel
United Kingdom
79 Posts |
Posted - 30/11/2009 : 20:31:38
|
Bob Jones has asked me to post the following on his behalf (as a new member of the Triple-M forum he is awaiting the ability to post directly):
A note for the forum.
I think a vital point is being missed in all the discussions regarding the chassis sold by the MG Car CO to Mr Else in 1937. The part number invoiced seems be to accepted by the ‘experts’ as that of a K3 chassis although as far as I know no parts list was ever published. That the chassis in question was a K3 chassis is almost certainly correct as there is factual evidence that the factory still had a stock of unused K3 chassis at that time. J.H.T.Smith also purchased a new chassis un-numbered (which became K3015) in the winter of 1936/7. There was also another un-numbered K3 chassis in the USA in the late 1970’s which was probably not sold until after the war. As has been mentioned by others there appears to be no reason for the original chassis of K3026 to have been changed, but if it were then the damaged one would certainly have been scrapped. There is just no logical reason for keeping it. In addition I am sure that the company would not have risked their reputation at anytime by selling second hand damaged parts.
Draw your own conclusions!
Bob Jones
Peter Fenichel |
|
|
|
F0355
South Africa
298 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2009 : 13:11:13
|
Does anyone have the results for the Coy's auction of December 1?
Peter Steyn
Johannesburg, RSA
|
|
|
|
peterfenichel
United Kingdom
79 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2009 : 13:44:08
|
I've been told the car was "bid via the telephone" to £180,000 but did not sell. One has to wonder if that actually reflects a real bid or not. In my view it was very brave to set a reserve higher than that level. It seems Coys will now put the car in their London/Richmond showroom and offer it for sale by private treaty. In spite of the representations in this forum and in other forums there appears no sign that the "Gregory car" will be offered in any form other a than as K3026... !!
Peter Fenichel |
|
|
|
F0355
South Africa
298 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2009 : 14:35:37
|
Useless bit of info - Andy King had the "Gregory car" for sale circa June 2008 for £285,000.
Peter Steyn
Johannesburg, RSA
|
|
|
|
peterfenichel
United Kingdom
79 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2009 : 15:06:13
|
Peter,
That just shows that the information coming to light more recently is a positive addition to understanding just what is being offered. We can each make our own decisions about this. And, although I do not agree with the Coys representation they are certainly entitled to their view on the car itself. What is also interesting to me is that if the "Gregory car" had been offered as a 'replica' I believe it would have attracted a pretty fair price, as it is not inexpensive to build up one of these cars, which are fun to drive and quite impressive to look at... and I suspect, in my view, the car would have sold quickly.
Peter Fenichel |
|
|
|
doctorbob
United Kingdom
145 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2009 : 16:03:34
|
I presume the DVLA would have an opinion on this? Two separate vehicles claiming the same identity!!?? Or am I missing something here?
Would the "Douchet" car be registerable in the UK as the "Gregory" car has already laid claim to the chassis number? |
|
|
|
phdouchet
Switzerland
3 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2009 : 19:05:10
|
I'm satisfied that the Gregory car was not sold at Coys auction. It confirmed that people are much more informed than before and are not prepared to pay almost £200k for a replica.
At least this auction has giving us the opportunity for a thorough review of the situation of these two cars. New elements have surfaced there will be checked in the near future.
This forum will be inform in due time.
To reply to doctorbob, my car IS registered in the UK since 1999, as FSL696. I have always been taken aback that it is possible to get on the road two cars with the same chassis number and 2 different number plates.
It makes the charm of the UK.
Philippe Douchet |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
