| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Martin Warner
United Kingdom
85 Posts |
 Posted - 06/07/2010 : 17:39:19
|
I was pleasantly surprised to see how much Barry Walker was asking for the Blue K1 recently. I remember the car well in the ownership of Peter Mace and Ian Davison. It was in excellent condition and I assumed that it would go to another good home. Then I heard a rumour that it was going to be cut up and made into yet another K3 replica. I did not believe it for a moment. A good car like that did not seem a likely place to start both financially and emotionally.
Today I opened the VSCC Newsletter and there is a photograph of the body sitting on a garage floor. For sale "to fit any old chassis you may have in your garage". What a sad sight.
I have discussed this problem with the owners of other four seater K-Types before. We all agreed that when we (or our next of kin) sold our cars we did not like the idea of them being chopped up. However once sold the new owner has every right to do with the car as he wishes so c'est la vie.
I remember some time ago the VSCC clamped down on perfectly serviceable 3 litre Bentley saloons being turned into Le Mans replicas. The view was that if you could not prove that the original saloon body was beyond repair the club would not recognise the car. Is it not time that the Triple-M register took a similar stance in conjunction with the VSCC.
I suppose I should be pleased that my KN tourer is becoming a rare car but it would be a sad day if it became extinct. |
|
|
Onno
Netherlands
1044 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2010 : 20:24:41
|
You say "the new owner has every right to do with the car as he wishes"
and legaly you are off course correct.
Moraly how ever i think custodian is a better title than owner.
And a good custodian uses and conserves the car imho.
I am i no way advocating "pure originality" if such a thing exists, because these cars have a long history and should show that
I think all i am trying to say is that in principle i support your plea, but hope that this would not be necessary
As i would once like to be part of a diverse group of vehicles |
 |
|
|
ags
United Kingdom
275 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2010 : 00:34:52
|
Hi Martin,
As you might have expected, I totally agree with you.
I think that the Register should take a stronger position in encouraging originality, particularly in appearance. For example, for a number of years after it was founded it was considered essential that both chassis and engine should be of contemporary Abingdon based types for the chassis or car to receive a Register number.
As a move towards this, how about weeding out the non-standard bodies from the selection of pictures shown in the heading of the web site home page? I for one am quite bored with the succession of cycle winged Ps, K3 lookalike Ns, and two seater L1s (no personal attacks are intended here with these random examples). If such a selection cannot be made, then could not the caption indicate that the appearance is not the same as the factory bodywork?
After all, how is someone like our new friend Onno going to learn what an MMM car looked like as it left the factory, if the majority of the photos we provide are of cars which have been considerably modified in appearance?
As has been said before, each to his own taste, but I am strongly of the opinion that the more original a car is the better it is likely to survive. There are few things more likely to be scrapped than a fifteen year old racing special with no particular history.
OK, rant over, but please everyone think about these things.
Andrew Smith
Grumpy Luddite and Custodian of MMM571 |
|
|
|
RacingSnake
United Kingdom
62 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2010 : 00:42:36
|
I think that is a shame too.
It will be just be another load of new bits trundling around, which are unlikely to develop any true history in my opinion. Period history "counts", and the continued use/non-use of that vehicle to the present day and onwards also "counts", but once you deliberately separate major components of a vehicle that is presently still functional you have put a stop to that timeline.
That timeline may seem rather worthless and mundane to some, but to me that is of great value, as no amount of money can ever retrieve it or create it.
Obviously one can live with a few specials created from the middle ground, as that maintains the spirit of MG/ revives basket cases/ provides interest etc. but owners of less common examples (cooking or racing) should take more of a custodian's approach I think.
Maybe you could apply some form of covenant to yours to dissaude future butchers... :-)
I searched for this car to remind myself, and find a "genuine K chassis" is about to be laid down by Barry Walker as the basis for a K3 rep.... One and the same? (It has details, but I don't know about the numbers etc.) |
|
|
|
RacingSnake
United Kingdom
62 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2010 : 00:46:52
|
Ah ags types faster than me...
I am not sure if they are more likely to be scrapped, but I'd be surprised if they hold their value relative to the real thing.
I think the pics are okay with the random selection, as it is possible to find pictures of things in more original arrangement (maybe even on this site..?) |
|
|
|
Dolts
United Kingdom
1129 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2010 : 08:38:43
|
Interesting comments. Especially regarding cyclo winged p types. Wasn't it a factory option. Whilist I totally agree about cutting up cars let's not be silly about a selective process of acceptance on photos! I d being lacking in options for bulletin photos! I m so proud of my p with cyclo wings. There was no body when we found it rotting in a barn and for many reasons we chose cyclo wings. I d prefer to be proud of our cars and celebrate them every moment possible!
Mark Dolton
|
|
|
|
RacingSnake
United Kingdom
62 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2010 : 08:56:12
|
| Back to the car in question....I hear (from a wiser owl than me)that the body is off to join a K1 chassis to revive a pile of bits, which is good news. |
|
|
|
Cathelijne
Netherlands
744 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2010 : 11:07:30
|
Gave the answer yourself, Mark, your car didn't have a body! That should give you sufficient freedom to choose your own body style, and very right you are, but when talking complete and functioning cars???
Anyway, I really think we should be consistent in the use of type names, i.e. always mention what the car you're looking at actually is. How hard is it to use a few more words? Would it be that tiring to say 'D-type built to resemble a C-type', 'P-type but with cycle wings' or 'J2 made to look like a J4'???
'Love your car, Martin, much prettier to look at than all the 'K1s made to look like K3s' in the world!
Cheers,
Cat
|
|
|
|
Oz34
United Kingdom
2536 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2010 : 12:43:50
|
How lovely to hear that a K1 is likely to be resurrected from this thoughtless exercise. As Cat says Mark, if you have no useable body the world's your lobster but people should not be removing perfectly good, AND RARE bodies to play at boy racers. It's little more than pure luck that this body has, if the rumour is true, found a deserving chassis. I must confess to looking at the car on Barry's website & dreaming of owning a beautiful tourer. Unfortunately I didn't win the lottery.
To indulge in a little more dreaming, what a shame we haven't a wealthy "Fairey Godmother" who could step in to buy & store unwanted bodies like this until a more enlightened owner wanted to return his K3 lookalike back to its correct configuration!
I think a tough line by the register may offend one or two, but so what? It would please most genuine enthusiasts who are in it for the pleasure the real cars give both in themselves & through friendship rather than for the possibility of making money.
Dave |
|
|
|
John Reid
United Kingdom
704 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 00:12:44
|
A not too serious reminder  that Cream Cracker P-types had cycle wings (fitted retrospectively by MG), and then they built three L1s with 2 seater P-type bodies... , but I agree with the spirit of the comments.
John R |
|
|
|
ags
United Kingdom
275 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 01:26:08
|
Hi Dave,
I think that your last sentence has the balance exactly in tune with my opinion. We all know that Barry Walker is an extremely good salesman with instincts that gauge the market to a nicety.
Me, I have always treated my car as a supremely enjoyable form of mobile Meccano. I paid £50 for it in 1965 and have put many pounds and multiple hours into it since then. I was and am relatively impecunious, being much too romantic to be able to make any great financial fortune but realistic enough to know that this means that an NB, let alone R types or Type 35 Bugattis, will be beyond my reach. However I prefer to have a genuine car with a known history, about half of which I have shared myself, to any more recent assemblage. In other words the workers of Abingdon, from Cecil Kimber and Hubert Charles to the canteen tea lady could make them, but I can merely preserve their handiwork and the knowledge necessary to appreciate it and display it at its best.
In my role as curator (over the last day I have preferred this word to custodian, because I do consider myself to have an active part in the preservation of this object) I allow myself to make any modifications at all subject to three overriding conditions;
(1) Anything which I do should be able to be returned to standard without leaving any traces of the change
(2) The car's basic purpose as a vehicle suitable for the road should always be maintained
(3) Nothing which I do should diminish (what I consider to be) the very handsome external shape of the car.
As long as these three conditions are met, then anything goes that I can devise. The inevitable postscript is, that for me - just like the Allison family, "You are free to take any risks you dare; but if you break it, you mend it".
This then is my philosophy, and whilst I hope that others would also follow it, I accept that it is not necessary for their own equal enjoyment that they should. So I hope that everyone allows me to remain a fellow member of the enthusiasts group.
Finally Mark I do not wish to spoil your obvious delight in your car (after all I raced against your father, knowing full well that my choices above condemned me to be at one end of the grid whilst he, without this heavy baggage, was free to star much nearer the front), but for me cycle wings do tend to be boring unless the whole appearance is designed around them, like the J2, whilst the P seems to be proportioned around the subtle flare in the wings and running boards.
And behold, after the rant came forth the heavy explanation,
Andrew Smith
Thoughtful but Proud Curator of MMM571 |
|
|
|
Dolts
United Kingdom
1129 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 10:42:57
|
Hey Andrew, dont worry I ve accused Dad of being a racing bandit on many occasions!!
Whilst the racing specials were quick, I can totally agree with your comments regarding the true lines of the orginal body work. For my father back in the 70's 80's he was a racer and somewhat resticted by cash on his restorations focusing on the mechanics rather than the body which as you say was built to be light. He was more of an engine man than a body work specialist, all a bit obssessed with bearings!
The PB was the first car with a correct Ash body we put togther but the wings would have been very expensive at the time and we had the spare cyclo wings in the garage! So we tried to replicate the Trials cars etc. Shortly after he restored a rotted M type back to orginal factory spec too, So I the special days are numbered!
The great news is we have recently aquired a PA restoration project with its exisiting wings. They need considerable work but we are hoping to salvage them and return the car to its orginal Factory spec, body work and colour! One to watch out for in a few years time!
Lets just ensure that the cars are described honestly and correctly and are what they say they are. Especially for the next generation who dont have the benefit of knowing the history in such detail.
All the best
Mark Dolton
|
|
|
|
Gordon
United Kingdom
691 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 11:14:17
|
Hi Andrew,
I like your reasoning and sentiments and am in full agreement with them. They are well expressed!
Gordon |
|
|
|
Oz34
United Kingdom
2536 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 16:13:21
|
I too agree with you Andrew, particularly with regard to making my own mods provided they can be removed without trace.
Cheers,
Dave |
|
|
|
Bob Stringfield
United Kingdom
854 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 17:49:57
|
It is particularly difficult when one sees a rare MG which one rescued back then and worked to return to original, being then converted into a cycle-winged, pre-selector, boy-racer model by another owner.
Building a convincing 'special' from bits has merit. Converting an original car is, in effect, denigrating (dissing?) the work of the factory. |
|
|
|
McEvoy
United Kingdom
252 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 18:38:31
|
Agree with Bob & others and believe it or not but the many mods I made to RA 0257 were all reversible to original spec as shown by the excellent finished article that Gerhard now drives although he did have to go to enormous lenghts and costs to achieve this as he only purchased the chassis and suspensions. Likewise Pip Bucknell did a similar incredible rebuild on RA 0259 from what was basically a box of bits with some very agricultural attachments welded to the suspension as I recall.
Glad to see Bob's last paragraph and I hope he and others will find "some merit" in the special I am building.
Bob |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
