| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Barry Walker
United Kingdom
227 Posts |
 Posted - 08/07/2010 : 23:36:24
|
I would like to remind members that have so much to say about other people's business, that I have ALWAYS made it a rule, for almost 40 years, to advertise the cars I have for sale to MG Car Club members first, either in Safety Fast or MG Enthusiast; so nobody can moan if either a member or non-member chooses to rebuild a car they have purchased into a different configuration.
Not one Club member came forward to buy the blue K1 recently discussed on this forum, even though many Club members were telling me how reasonably priced it was. If you're so concerned that it stays as a K1, why not buy it and keep it that way. You all knew about it before it reached the National mags. In the end we had to drop by 10% and it was not my business to direct the purchaser with what to do with it, even though my heart may say one thing, and my head another.
I suggest you cough-up or shut-up, because you had the chance to save it. There are 100 more people wanting a K3 replica, than there are wanting a K1 tourer, and I suspect most of you would buy a K3 rep. if the price was right and the money available, and then you'd ask....'is it on a genuine K chassis.........?! |
 |
|
|
David Allison
United Kingdom
665 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2010 : 15:16:11
|
I have read all of this with interest and actually I think you are all correct!
It is up to the owner of a car to decide how the car is re-built - however we do have to realise that the modifications we carry out have little or no value to the cars history.
My father raced the NA through the 60's and 70's and the car gradually got more modified in an effort to keep up with modern specials - however he decided that it was better to build another car (the NB special) from a chassis only plus the spares amassed over the years - than to continue to modify a car with provenance.
Thus the NA has been returned as much as is possible (budget restraints allowing) to its 1935 Monte Carlo specification.
The NB special was built to a specification outlined by Cecil Cousins and Henry Stone regards the 6 cylinder car they would have probably ended up racing in 1935 (if Morris hadnt closed the racing shop) which was ostensibly a blown NE.
Modifications to this cars spec. were done on the basis that we wanted to stay as close as possible to a standard MG specification and use a modern slant on 1930's technology.
Modern MMM cars seem to be built (with a few notable exceptions) as specials - 6 cylinder cars built as K3 replicas (although it is only fair to point out that the works built 3 cars and 30 replicas - so actually the correct term would be facsimilie copies) and most cars do indeed have the cycle wings rather than the swept wings fitted to the later cars from 34 onwards.
Cycle wings were indeed an off the shelf option - although the swept wings were developed to prevent occupants getting sprayed by road dirt following complaints about the cycle wings on the J2 and how the F type was better - proving that you can never keep all your customers happy!
Regards Barry's comments - he is quite correct in his statements, although however I think it a shame that a K3 facsimile is commercially more viable than the original car and that people who want a facsimile copy are prepared to counternance breaking a perfectly good car when they could use a new frame.
The reason is that a pre-war frame allows the car to be registered and used in VSCC and FIA events and a new frame does not.
We have however lost a number of cars of historical significance in the past and also gained a few cars previously known to be lost.
The ER Hall sprint special - based on an N type frame - was re-built as a K3 in the 70's
A couple of K3's originally fitted with skimpy lightweights bodies have been fitted with wood frame bodys and a couple or three single seaters have been modified back to 2 seaters - even though in 2 cases the cars never were 2 seaters anyway.
Unfortunately we have become obsessed with the potential "investment" value rather than simply the custodianship of a piece of history.
N type frames cut up to make K type frames - when the N frame is actually superior.
N types built to look like K3's
P types built to look like Q types
Larger capacity engines.
Cars built on new chassis when it was known that the original chassis was no longer extant.
The crimes against history in the 60's and 70's should not be really blamed - the cars were virtually valueless at this time - that is why they got bought and raced, because it was a way that our Dads could get started.
The cars got modified to keep up with modern cars - telescopic shockers - IFS - tubular chassis - even one P type with a space frame chassis.
In the mid to late 70's though it all started to change and the cars started to return to their original specification more and more.
Unfortunatley since the 1980's the cars have become a comodity and as such valued.
Once this happens they also become a tradable item and this trade is made on the most viable return on investment - Barry should not be decried for trading - we should not be denied our opinion.
I have tried to see it from all angles - I am not a trader - nor now do I own a car (although I still look after a couple periodically) - I have no axe to grind.
Please gentlemen enjoy your cars - use them - but most of all accept them for what they are which is a part of history.
Good gracious me I have gone on too long - I doubt anyone will read this tripe - less still agree with it.
Regards David |
|
|
|
Onno
Netherlands
1044 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2010 : 20:31:42
|
To medle in the discusion again:
Barry I and most other posts(as i read them) do not mean to criticise you as a trader.
Since in my opinion you have no power over the wishes of the owner's of the cars and you have indeed tryed to find a suitable owner.
However i know of several post-war mg specialist who for example refuse to convert a ruberbumper B to chrome bumper look.
No one is free from blame is the point i am trying to make.
I to have been seen to drool over replica K3's and work in the luxury yacht businiss where monney buys the customer everything.
But most have passed the original question Martin asked:
"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"
So what is the view on this point?
Should the Triple-M register take a stance?
If it would it might partly solve the problem of good cars being choped up
Regards Onno |
|
|
|
LewPalmer
USA
3242 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2010 : 22:26:01
|
That is all true, but a more serious crime is the deliberate forging of serial numbers to make a car appear something it is not. As the Registrar of the NAMMMR, I and Bob Clare chased numerous examples where two cars appeared claiming the same chassis numbers. More often than not, one of the two was a significant car in some way. Occasionally it was simply an owner misreading a chassis number, but too often there was evidence of a deliberate altering or overstamping of a different chassis number. IMHO, that is a serious revision of history and should be treated most unkindly by the Register.
Lew Palmer
Registrar, NAMMMR |
|
|
|
Ross Kelly
Australia
227 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 19:59:52
|
I believe Lew Palmer hits the nail on the head, the cars should be described by the original chassis type and not what the car is now built to represent.
A better description would be a N special or J special rather than any mention of K3, J4 or C type. This hopefully would not lead to cars being mis represented as to what they are not.
Having recently gone most of the way through having a K1 tourer restored to original I can say that I will never recover the money invested, but I would not change what has been done.
When entering my Peter Gregory car in any event in Australia it is described as an N type supercharged special.
Ross Kelly
J3763
|
|
|
|
Chris Bucknell
Australia
107 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 02:13:38
|
| So I gather my plan to put a 2-seater P-type body (with cycle guards) onto our R-Type chassis is not a goer then? |
|
|
|
Matthew Magilton
Australia
179 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 08:27:19
|
Only if the guards are hub mounted Chris ;)
Cheers,
Matthew. |
|
|
|
Onno
Netherlands
1044 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2010 : 16:41:22
|
Depends on if you have the original body or not ;)
The discusion is about scrapping good less wanted body's for more wanted body style's
If you have only a chasis then you are free to put anny body on it you want jus give it a suiting name that makes the history clear.
All in my opinion off course |
|
|
|
William Cullen
United Kingdom
229 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2010 : 23:36:11
|
Hi All
This is an old topic re-visted by those privileged and lucky few who consider that their cars are now as they left the factory!Are they deriding those of us who have a MMM special? Should I therefore attend MMM meetings with my F1 special? given it's history.Sold as a chassis this car was,according to the Ipswich records office fitted with a coupe body,having no picture of the type of coupe body fitted by Egerton I am unable to say what it looked like as when I obtained the car some years ago it was in a derelict state having been stood in a leaky garage since the 50's it had also been crudely fitted with a very modified N 2 seater body plus a N engine and Q type pre-selector box.As I had no documentaion with the car and only limited knowledge of the car's history from the then owner I stated to reseach for the original history of both the F chassis and the N body/engine,with the help of the club and that great bloke Bob Clarie I found the registration number on the N body did not match the N body fitted nor did the N engine therefore this car had been put together from 3 N type 1 F type and a Q type. Around 40 years ago when it was found that there was money to be made from old cars & MG's many scrapped MMM car's were put together from parts found in scrap yards and the car was sold as original,many are still around today,the present owners being unaware.What should I have done? given the gist of the forum I should have scraped the car and sold the bit's(many did)but as the club recognises the chassis as being the car I decided to rebuild the F as a special, the club held the history file including the reg number which with the help of the club I retrived from the DLVA. With limited funds(well that's what I told the wifw) I created what I consider to be a MMM car,be it a special and whilst I could have turned it in to a F2(many did)I put a L" body on the car with L2 wings etc.( because I could never afford an original L2 and I consider the L2 to be the archetypal pre-war MG sports car)and yes I dis kept the N engine(unable to find a F engine,)and also the pre-selector box( be it out of a K type as the Q type racing box was sold to be fitted to a original Q type and the money help to fund the re-build.
The factory also created car's from previous models and use a mixture of model parts on trials car etc.
Perhaps if we special owners are not welcomed in the MMM movement as we do not have "original cars" we should consider setting up a MMM special group and enjoy our car's are they were intended I enjoy mine.Using a MMM car is what MMM motoring is all about after all it is a car using MMM parts although not as leaving the factory.Of course we should all be concern that a original car around to day should be kept as is but as Barry Walker put's it " if your that concerned put your money where your mouth is"
Leaving a pile of MMM parts in the corner of a garage is not in the spirit of MMM motoring I say.many of course will not.
Whilst I have no intention of selling the car at this stage should anything happen I have compiled a very detail history and photo history of the car and what it is and this will be passed on to the next "custodian" so they will be fully aware of what it is.
Go and enjoy your MMM be it original or a special.
Regards to you all
Bill |
|
|
|
46south
New Zealand
37 Posts |
Posted - 13/07/2010 : 07:39:38
|
As some of the previous posts have indicated there are a few K1 tourers being restored as original. We are putting a KD back together after it was dismantled in the 60's to make a special, a project which then stalled. Luckily most of the parts stayed with the car but some were lost. Only two K1 cars came to New Zealand so parts do not come up often at swapmeets (ie never). I am still looking for a pair of front seats and the bracket which holds the steering column on the cockpit side of the firewall. At the risk of appearing opportunist, I would be very grateful to get any leads on obtaining redundant parts from K1 cars being converted to other body styles.
Regards Cameron
K0389 |
|
|
|
kimber
United Kingdom
1529 Posts |
Posted - 13/07/2010 : 07:56:11
|
Bill, I have to admit I was tempted to go all defensive myself, but on a careful re-read I concluded that the sentiment behind most of the postings in this thread is to condemn the destruction/modification of cars which are either original or capable of being restored to an original state.
As you rightly say, an awful lot of inter-change of components occurred years ago and consequently many non-original hybrids exist in the MG world. Some of those changes are historic in themselves and if the car spends most of its life in one configuration there can be difficulty justifying undoing all that history in order to revert to an 'original' state. Unfortunately, as is often the case, money and scruples conflict.
Although some of it sounds a bit sanctimonious, I don't believe that any of the posters are criticising building MG 'specials' or 'hybrids' which I think is a perfectly healthy pastime, assuming one starts with a pile of bits which are not the basis of a mostly original car. I have built several cars like that and had a lot of pleasure from them. The difficulty comes when such cars masquerade as rarer, more valuable models.
My present MG is a a bit of a 'bitsa'. Most of the alterations were carried out as a cheap means of keeping the car going at least 40-50 years ago and I see no need to undo them.
As the owner/creator of non-original MGs (the last 2 starting with nothing more than the acquisition of a bare chassis frame) I would agree with you Bill that reading this thread it feels a bit uncomfortable, but I don't believe it is aimed at you or I, at least I hope not.
Now, where did I put that hacksaw....  |
Edited by - kimber on 13/07/2010 07:59:07 |
|
|
|
Cathelijne
Netherlands
744 Posts |
Posted - 13/07/2010 : 09:52:23
|
Indeed I am one of the posters definitely not condemning people building specials. Hubby Thijs is actually in the process of building one, having acquired a P-type chassis and bits without a body. More so, he bought a special body first, build in the 60s to fit a K1 and hence knew he had to look for a chassis that had already lost its body.
My main 'problem' is indeed the hacksaw technique and, perhaps even more so, the fact that people call their specials what they (think they) resemble ... Spoke to someone once who said he had a Q-type chassis at home. After a bit of further interrogation from my side, turned out he had a drawing of one ...  !
Not to mention the fact that a K3 looking car on whatever chassis is worth more than a four seater K1 for instance! Money wise that is ... ...
Cheers,
Cat
|
|
|
|
peterfenichel
United Kingdom
79 Posts |
Posted - 13/07/2010 : 15:14:32
|
Having just returned from the Le Mans Classic where I raced a Lagonda LG45 - not my MG K1/s which within the VSCC is clearly a Special... I missed most of the early post comments (perhaps luckily!). In my view this whole topic is somewhat moot... how many real servicable cars have actually been deliberately broken up to create facsimiles? (actually the correct term). Can anyone actually believe that a significant number of our Triple-M cars are "original"? I have always been fairly clear in describing my MG (MG3094 and chassis K0417) as either a K1/s (the Triple-M view) or a K Special (the VSCC view) or a K1/K3 (the Motor Racing Legends preferred label).
I think this topic is a bit overdone... and in any event the only real objection I have is being described as a "boy racer" based on what? That I race a Special? If I raced my old PB (which was so original it hardly could make it to the local Pub) would that make me a better 'sportman' or real race driver? I might, in actual fact be a "racer" but I'm certainly not a 'boy'!
My suggestion is to stop the winge and agree with Barry Walker and let's just enjoy what we have; the very few really real cars, the bunch of supposed real cars that are really not, and even the specials, built up faithfully to replicate an awfully neat part of our motoring history!
Peter Fenichel |
Edited by - peterfenichel on 13/07/2010 15:22:02 |
|
|
|
Bob Stringfield
United Kingdom
854 Posts |
Posted - 13/07/2010 : 17:44:21
|
I don't think any contributor has been against 'specials' per se. If one is made from otherwise unattached spares, then it will be of interest to all, I'm sure.
What the prevailing mood is against is the dismantling of serviceable original or restorable original cars to use the components to create MGs with no previous existence, or to create a car which might have existed but never did.
There is an interesting PB saloon on Prewarcar / Sussex Sportscars. My intuition tells me that this may not be an economic prospect for converting into a bogus Q-Type.
'Down the bypass' last Sunday, sun shining, 5000 on the rev-counter. Standard cars for ever! |
|
|
|
Onno
Netherlands
1044 Posts |
Posted - 13/07/2010 : 19:24:28
|
to make the original point clear
No problems with specials
just a problem with cutting up a perfectly service able tourer or other less wanted body styles!
And the main question was if the Triple M register should take a stand against it with the VSCC.
I love specials as it increases the chance of a full field of prewar racers on evets as silverstone (which should realy improve next year...)
Hope to build one some day but dependant on the project i find and not a replica but just a period special.
If however a good car comes on my path it will not be choped to please my personal preference. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
