| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6141 Posts |
 Posted - 11/09/2013 : 11:33:15
|
I personally think it would be a fool's errand to start to rework George Jarrard's Octagon Heaven. Far better in my view to take it for what it is - useful research material but by no means definitive - and recognise it as a tremendous accomplishment in the days when communication was by no means as swift and easy as it is today.
But we also would need to be mindful that the factory photos are often of prototypes and cannot be relied upon to give a definitive answer for queries about production cars. But that aside, they are a wonderful resource and many of us would, I think, like to see them accessible once again.
|
 |
|
|
DickMorbey
United Kingdom
3677 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2013 : 12:39:23
|
Thanks Gary, Simon and others,
The fact that there has been little or no progress doesn’t mean that the committee doesn’t want to create this resource! We recognise the importance of getting together a meaningful collection of pictures, particularly as a means of providing guidance – perhaps even definitive guidance – about the construction and appearance of our cars.
And herein lies a difficulty! Many if not all of the factory pictures show prototype cars, not production cars. Perhaps these are not quite in the same vein as ‘concept cars’ of our present day, but nevertheless they do display significant differences compared with cars ‘as built on the line’.
Furthermore, as the recent posts about J2 headlight mountings show, many build modifications were introduced as production proceeded; some being necessary improvements or refinements, others being customisations in accordance with a customer’s requirements or foibles.
So, in parallel with the discussions about posting factory pictures, we also have a small group of people pondering how to assemble a worthwhile collection of definitive pictures of cars, components and construction details that people can reasonably rely on. And here comes another difficulty! So far, many of the pictures that have been offered to us don’t quite meet the brief of being ‘definitive’. The modest collection of pictures currently available for this part of the project has been placed in Dropbox where it can be shared by the working group but at present the project is on ‘pause’.
In short, the problem is not finding people to scan photographs, drawings etc, etc, it is first finding the pictures and drawings in the first instance (we would welcome pictures and drawings from any source). Then, judgements are required about which pictures to include and which to discard.
As I have said before (and I apologise for repeating it again), please bear with us - we just need a decent amount of time to devote to the project/s.
In the meantime, if anyone has any material that they wish to offer for possible inclusion in the database of images etc, please send them to me in the first instance. My e-mail address is richard.morbey at gmail.com (use the @ symbol instead of the word ‘at’)
Dick Morbey
PA/PB 0743
Nr. Henley-on-Thames, Oxon, UK |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6141 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2013 : 12:46:02
|
Dick,
Thanks for the update. My initial reason for raising this issue was to see if the photographs that had previously been available as prints could be made available digitally, whether paid for or free. Could we not start with these at least, or is there a copyright issue as well? And whether these are of prototypes or of production cars is hardly a reason to hesitate to make them available. Caveat emptor and all that!
|
|
|
|
Bob Stringfield
United Kingdom
854 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2013 : 17:15:14
|
Dick, this explanation sounds like the workings of a government censorship committee for sensitive documents.
If a contemporary, or works, photograph exists, make it available. Owners and rebuilders can make up their own minds; they certainly do not need a self-appointed band of selectors.
Bob.
|
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6141 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2013 : 19:23:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Stringfield
Dick, this explanation sounds like the workings of a government censorship committee for sensitive documents.
If a contemporary, or works, photograph exists, make it available. Owners and rebuilders can make up their own minds; they certainly do not need a self-appointed band of selectors.
Bob.
Agreed, Bob! |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6141 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2013 : 19:26:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by spitfire
Backing what Mr Johnston opens with..........
Spitfire, you're starting to sound like your good friend Barry Walker  |
|
|
|
Bob Stringfield
United Kingdom
854 Posts |
Posted - 23/09/2013 : 10:52:45
|
See 'mg prewar' on fleabay for what are claimed to be 'factory photographs'.
Have these been authorised by the MMM authenticity committee?
Bob. |
|
|
|
JMH
United Kingdom
911 Posts |
Posted - 23/09/2013 : 23:14:43
|
| the J2 is J3588. I have no record of it doing an Abingdon-Abingdon. It did though do lots of others. pre-war. |
|
|
|
spitfire
United Kingdom
371 Posts |
Posted - 26/09/2013 : 09:26:10
|
....Backing what Mr Johnston opens with.... (o: etc!
(o:
Just agreeing with what many members feel, in what is precious to our cars.
Factory photographs, whilst not being production images.. Do capture some of that wonderful verve and impetus of Kimber being behind the desk. Half the fun is " reading between the lines" of MMM evolution.
There have been some beautiful contemporary designs in MG literature, too.
We are all the poorer through not having the original staff to hand.
Doesn't owning the cars, give us a legitimate right to evalulate these inages?
Often outnumbered- But never outgunned. |
Edited by - spitfire on 26/09/2013 09:27:24 |
|
|
|
Oz34
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2013 : 11:35:25
|
As a plug for Simon's crusade, while at the same time resurecting an old chestnut, here is a detail from the L Type production line.
Being production line I feel the fact that engine, bell housing & gearbox are all the same tone bears out my contention that the whole gearbox was painted. I am thus further convinced (if that were possible!) that the only reason no paint is found on so many is that no etch primer was used, leading to a very short paint life on the alloy casing.
Dave |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6141 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2013 : 11:58:36
|
| Thanks for the 'bump', Dave, but as regards your conviction (!), I'd have to say that to my eyes, the gearbox casing is definitely not the same tone as either the bellhousing or the tail piece. Of course if we had a few more factory photos that might help ;-) |
|
|
|
Bob Stringfield
United Kingdom
854 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2013 : 12:46:45
|
You see, this is the problem - producing your own opinions before Dick and George have selected which factory photos should be available for you to comment on !
Bob CC. |
|
|
|
Oz34
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2013 : 16:45:44
|
Well Simon, there are all shades  of opinion; my own is quite definitely that they are the same. Let's agree to differ!?
Cheers,
Dave |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6141 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2013 : 17:11:48
|
Dave,
This one of a J2 from Modern Motor Repair (it's in the downloads section) certainly makes a better case for the gearbox being painted.
But then the question is, is it black or is it red? |
|
|
|
spitfire
United Kingdom
371 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2013 : 05:23:55
|
Always going to be a bit fraught analysing monochrome images.
More the better please. To quote the lads, "bump." |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
