| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Peter Green
United Kingdom
1682 Posts |
 Posted - 02/08/2013 : 09:20:16
|
It has been pointed out to me that there is a car claiming to be K0302 for sale in Australia which has allegedly been re-built to K3 specification.
This car is not K0302, K0302 resides in the UK. Furthermore the car in Australia is not acceptable to the Triple-M Register because it does not comply with our rules.
Peter.
|
|
|
IanG
Australia
72 Posts |
Posted - 17/11/2013 : 04:59:25
|
The car in question is back up for sale again.
Could someone please throw some light on this car for me either here or by private message.
On inspection the brass plate displaying K0302 appears genuine. The engine number on the brass plate matches what is stamped on the engine block. The seller is up front saying the chassis is a recreation however all other bits are genuine. He maintains it was built by Peter Gregory as his own car & & was purchased from Peter Gregory's widow.
Can someone please explain why this car is not recognized by the register yet other Peter Gregory cars are. If the one in the Uk which claims to be genuine then what engine does that have in it. I am not prepared to spend the money only to find we are arguing about two cars with the same number. |
 |
|
|
Peter Green
United Kingdom
1682 Posts |
Posted - 17/11/2013 : 12:02:40
|
Ian,
As I said in my previous posting the original K0302 chassis is in the UK. You are correct the Guarantee Plate does appear genuine and I suspect that the car has been built around the plate. Is the engine block original or is it a new block that has been stamped with the original number. What parts is the seller claiming to be genuine? From the pictures of the car that I have seen very few, if any, appear to be original K1.
Peter |
|
|
|
George Eagle
United Kingdom
3237 Posts |
Posted - 17/11/2013 : 14:11:13
|
Ian
There other Gregory built cars which are not recognised by the
Triple-M Register.
George
L2023 |
Edited by - George Eagle on 17/11/2013 14:11:59 |
|
|
|
Josh_G
Australia
9 Posts |
Posted - 17/11/2013 : 21:54:39
|
Hi Peter,
As an outsider looking in how does this car differ from the K3015 and K3015-2 story? The now Australian "K0302" has had a replacement chassis when restored/re-built, thus forming a part of K0302's continuous history? One car has the plate and engine and the other has the factory chassis. Or is the argument that the chassis wasn't replaced by the factory and built in more recent times?
I guess this opens an interesting topic on when something is no longer what is and just what is accepted when maintaining, repairing and restoring these cars to keep everyone happy.
|
Edited by - Josh_G on 17/11/2013 21:57:25 |
|
|
|
IanG
Australia
72 Posts |
Posted - 17/11/2013 : 22:51:19
|
Hi Peter,
I believe the block to be original.
Ian |
|
|
|
Peter Green
United Kingdom
1682 Posts |
Posted - 17/11/2013 : 23:31:30
|
Josh,
K3015 and K3015/2 are both built on original factory made K3 chassis. K0302, the car in the UK, is built on the original factory made chassis and the car now in Australia, purporting to be K0302, is built on a new chassis that was made in the last few years.
If the block is original it is about the only part that is original K1 on the car.
Peter. |
|
|
|
Josh_G
Australia
9 Posts |
Posted - 18/11/2013 : 00:19:08
|
Hi Peter,
Thank you for clearing that up. |
|
|
|
IanG
Australia
72 Posts |
Posted - 18/11/2013 : 00:24:03
|
Peter,
I totally agree with you if the car does not have a factory chassis then it is not real. This then raises the question in particular to veteran cars where a chassis is beyond repair & has to be re manufactured but on most case items like the dumb irons are the original. It is unfortunate that this car at least does not have an original factory chassis.
Again buyer beware.
Ian |
|
|
|
tholden
United Kingdom
1638 Posts |
Posted - 18/11/2013 : 09:37:21
|
Ian I cannot agree with your statement that "if a car does not have its original factory chassis it is not real". There are quite a number of cars on the Register that do not have their original factory chassis. In my personal view if a car has continuity of history it does not matter if components shave been changed - over the life of our cars many have had major components including chassis's changed because of wear, accident damage or rot. If however that car has always existed as an entity then it must surely be accepted as the original car.
I do not know how this view applies to this car or how the chassis became separated from the other components but the question has to be asked as to which one has the continuity of history, that should be the fundamental question. I don't think a chassis with a number alone equals a car any more than owning an engine and a brass ID plate alone do. Just my view !
TH |
|
|
|
etlanpa
United Kingdom
560 Posts |
Posted - 18/11/2013 : 09:42:17
|
| The chassis (of the car in question) never became separated from the rest of the components - it was a case of a new chassis coming together with new components! |
|
|
|
MaGic_GV
United Kingdom
868 Posts |
Posted - 18/11/2013 : 10:11:20
|
I have long thought that we need to rethink our ideas a bit. We have all discarded worn parts and then later re-used them or sold them on, and cars built from such bits are not uncommon.
Peter Gregory's K3s and K3 reps are hardly distinguishable to the eye, and in my opinion reflect credit on their creator, the car and the Register, whatever the ethics of their origin.
Likewise recreating a car from a collection of worn components is no less creditable, and deserves recognition. Perhaps we need to recognise all cars with the right collection of bits, albeit at appropriate levels. After all, MMM rep built to a good standard is far better than, say, a TF rep built on a modern chassis, isn't it?
Got that off me chest, now I'm off the paint the garage ceiling...
ps I should add that I know absolutely nothing about the car in question!
Regards,
Graham
|
Edited by - MaGic_GV on 18/11/2013 10:12:13 |
|
|
|
IanG
Australia
72 Posts |
Posted - 18/11/2013 : 11:03:38
|
Not wanting to open a can of worms here but the Australian K0302 was produced on a brand new chassis. Other than the engine block & brass ID plate being original only Peter Gregory will ever know what other components are K1. The bottom line here is a fine example of a K3 look a like. It is just a pity it had not been built on a factory K1 or N type chassis. The rest of the car is prewar MG in some form or another. Surely this makes it an MG. It's certainly not an Austin. How many other cars on the register have been built from a box of bits or commonly known as parts cars.
As Peter Green has correctly pointed out it is not acceptable to the triple M register in the UK because of the chassis. I have owned many very early veteran cars including a 1902 single cylinder De Dion. Had I totally replaced the very fragile tubular pipe chassis frame it would have not been accepted by the VCC even though the remaining mechanicals where a complete car to start with. I have also been involved with Bugatti & I would hate to say how many Bugattis are around with a brand new chassis with original mechanicals that have been accepted by the Bugatti club, or an original chassis with all brand new mechanicals & blade wheels. I know one Bugatti that was split up to produce 3 Bugattis. I certainly do not support this or support replicas masquerading as the real thing. As much as I would like to own the car I will not based on the lack of Provenance & the negativity by the triple M register. Having said that I do believe that the register needs to document all these builds for generations to come because as time passes replicas somehow get forgotten & the next thing they are purporting to be the real thing. |
|
|
|
Oz34
United Kingdom
2538 Posts |
Posted - 18/11/2013 : 15:09:04
|
Your last sentence Ian I agree with; by doing so we reduce, although we can never entirely eliminate, the chance of someone being taken for a ride in the future.
As far as it being a shame, or not, that the car in question was not built on a factory K or N chassis, I cannot agree, unless that chassis was previously just a frame. Time & again we see perfectly good Ks & Ns broken to produce yet another K3 rep. Sorry, hobbyhorse of mine!
Dave |
|
|
|
George Eagle
United Kingdom
3237 Posts |
Posted - 18/11/2013 : 16:12:09
|
I totally agree with Dave's comment concerning perfectly good K and Ns being broken to produce K3 replicas.
As an example I am told the very complete and original NB 4 seater recently advertised by Barry Walker is now in Europe where it is being "rebuilt" as a K3 replica. What a pity. My personal view is that N based cars should not be called K3 replicas, they are at best N type specials.
With regard to the very valid comment by Ian, the Committee is planning to produce a list of the cars such as the one subject to this topic.
George Eagle
Hon Sec |
|
|
|
JMH
United Kingdom
911 Posts |
Posted - 18/11/2013 : 17:36:22
|
If true, that's a crying shame. That 4-seater was near as damit complete and as unmolested as you are ever likely to find!
Again, hats off to the people who are prepred to rebuild the saloons & 4-seaters.
JH |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
