| Author |
 Topic  |
|
agn178
United Kingdom
57 Posts |
 Posted - 26/11/2017 : 15:18:48
|
Ollie, Nick & Onno: thanks for your comments & I'll certainly try to enjoy it in the coming years!
John, your post emphasises my point.
Am I now precluded from describing my car as "original" since I've now "rebuilt" it using "reproduction" parts?
Or a "bitsa" as I've sourced parts from different sources and resprayed it in modern paints?
Or have I now a "replica" having only an original chassis to work from?
Each (mis)description would suggest I'd need to adjust my valuation for both insurance & sale purposes.
Derek |
 |
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6303 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2017 : 16:57:55
|
Derek,
You will see that the Register guidelines and rules - http://www.triple-mregister.org/registerlogin.asp - apparently attempt to address the concerns you express, but fail miserably to do so. And the more conditions and requirements that might be added to address this set of circumstances or that specific case, the more impenetrable they would become. It really doesn't matter if it meets some arbitrary criteria to be awarded a Register badge, so do like most of us do - just call it a J2 and drive it as much as you can and enjoy it.
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
Ian Bowers
United Kingdom
952 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2017 : 17:38:04
|
Enjoy your J2 and please remain a member of a community which is a fine, generous source of help and information, put away any concerns coming from Guideline nit picking over the details of YOUR fine J2.
The point you illustrate, which several of us have pointed to, is simply that you have an MG J2, and it is as you describe it.
It has a history, it may well have parts which were made in Abingdon in the early 1930's, some of which may have been with your car from the start. To keep it working and safe it has had some new parts which replicate original Abingdon parts and others which just do the job. I doubt there is a single Triple-M car which is 'pure blood', every part as it left Abingdon. Every last one of them is a 'bitsa', some very noteworthy ones claiming a long history, are very much 'bitsa'.
The tension dividing authors in these threads arises from the Guidelines created by the Triple-MM Register Committee. These purport to define key aspects in the provenance of a Triple-M car. Those which satisfy the Guidelines, as interpreted by the Committee, are awarded a Register Number. Others, however fine looking and performing an example of a Triple-M car, but which fail the Guidelines are heretics to be 'excommunicated', refused a Register number or have it removed.
The original purpose of the Register, 20 years ago, was admirable, to record the details of Triple-M cars and give each a number in order to keep a count.
The Guidelines have now become so complex and detailed that debates about what is a Triple-M car descend into details of what is and what isn't acceptable, however fine an example.
Time surely to return to the past. The Register holding a record of all cars claiming a Triple-M heritage along with the supporting images and documentation provided by the cars owner. Decisions on provenance lie with the reader, and ultimately with any buyer, not the Committee.
Ian Bowers
OD 6791
J3 3772 |
|
|
|
LewPalmer
USA
3283 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2017 : 17:41:19
|
Is it still "original" if the original air in the tires has been replaced, the tires changed, or oil is not that which came from the factory?
Of course not. But as long as the chassis number is what is claimed as evidenced by the dumb iron, the engine is the correct style (not Ford or modern Midget), and the replacement parts are of the correct style, it's whatever the chassis number says it is.
Here in the US, we aren't quite as critical as others. Where people get in trouble, however, is as Simon has said, someone claims the car is something it is not, primarily in an attempt to increase its value. We have seen perfectly good saloons stripped to make them appear as something they are not and dumb iron numbers altered to make them appear as the "missing" special car. These are attempts to deceive. As long as one is honest about what the car is AND ENJOYS IT FOR WHAT IT IS, there should be no issue.
Lew Palmer
PA1169, PB0560 |
|
|
|
O.Thomas
United Kingdom
755 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2017 : 17:46:48
|
| Surely you mean 56 years ago? |
|
|
|
powerplus
United Kingdom
605 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2017 : 17:53:54
|
Well said, Ian.
Powerplus. |
|
|
|
Peter Green
United Kingdom
1682 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2017 : 19:46:45
|
Ian,
On the 9th November I asked you how you would describe a 'Triple-M car', you refused to do so. Are you now willing to give us your definition of 'a car claiming Triple-M heritage' as it is not a definition that the Register uses.
Peter |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6303 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2017 : 20:08:41
|
It's maybe worth reminding ourselves what it used to be like (almost a third of a century ago, as Dick Morbey pointed out). From the 1986 25th Anniversary Register publication:
Triple-M Register Numbers
These are allocated to the car when details of the car are notified to the registrar. The number stays with the car should it change ownership. If the car is dismantled the number stays with the chassis and is 'dormant' until the car is rebuilt. Cars with Non-original engines are accepted on the understanding that they are not eligible for Triple-M Register awards.
Note that there is no distinction made between being on the Register and having a Register number unlike today when only a car with an original, and thus unmodified, factory-made chassis is entitled to have a Register number, but it can be included in the Register listing.
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
Onno
Netherlands
1071 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2017 : 22:55:27
|
The simple definition of a triple M is given on the front page of the register website.
“The name derives from the ohc-engined MG Midget, Magna and Magnette cars built from 1929 to 1936 – hence ‘Triple-M’.”
Onno "D" Könemann |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6303 Posts |
|
|
Peter Green
United Kingdom
1682 Posts |
Posted - 26/11/2017 : 23:57:45
|
Simon,
My personal definition would be 'a car built on a K3 chassis that eminated from the M.G. Factory in period'. Having said that I am NOT going to answer any questions about any particular car.
Peter |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6303 Posts |
Posted - 27/11/2017 : 06:14:20
|
Thanks, Peter, a wise decision not to get into debates about individual cars (I can hear the collective sighs of all the disappointed lawyers!) but as a general point of clarification when you say 'built on a K3 chassis that emanated from the M.G. Factory in period' do you mean an 'original chassis' as defined in the Register guidelines, i.e. 'an original unaltered chassis', which would of course exclude any car, the chassis of which has been repaired, never mind modified, after leaving the works? How can the Register possibly be in a position to determine that about any car?
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
Ian Bowers
United Kingdom
952 Posts |
Posted - 27/11/2017 : 07:44:19
|
Peter, for the avoidance of doubt, there is no point where I have 'refused' (your emotive term) to 'describe a Triple-M car'.
I think it is pointless exercise expressed in the semantics and 'terminological weasel words' of the Guidelines.
If I were selling one, then it would be a description of the car in question setting out why that car can claim the description 'K3'. Then if necessary it is for the courts to determine whether I had misled. The Guidelines have no role to play.
Anything else leads to a coterie of 'high priests' working in their Inquisition bubble to denounce heretics, which other one Marque clubs have already discovered, and abandoned; as should this Register.
Ian Bowers
OD 6791
J3 3772 |
Edited by - Ian Bowers on 27/11/2017 07:45:06 |
|
|
|
MaGic_GV
United Kingdom
868 Posts |
Posted - 27/11/2017 : 09:57:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by agn178
Oh dear! I'm afraid to say that this topic has gone some way to discouraging me from MMM ownership.
A long time ago now (1983) I bought a J2 for rebuild. It came with Ford engine & a "custom built" body and a collection of very rusty & worn out parts. Since that time I've acquired a new body tub, panelled in ali, bonnet, valances, mudguards & wings. The fuel tank was beyond economic repair so was also replaced. The engine is now MG type but with almost everything newly manufactured, apart from rocker cover & oil filler. Upholstery by Collingburns of course.
Obviously all safety parts hubs, steering, axles etc have been replaced with new.
Given the tenure of this & similar topics, should I now be calling this car a replica, repro, rebuild, copy, or special? Or do I really have an MG J2 And how should I price this for sale as I seen to own a now-contentious vehicle?
If I'm not wanted in the MMM Register I will of course resign my membership.
Derek
Derek, you do not appear to have done anything to your car which has not been done to the majority of Triple M cars over the last eighty years or so. Please do not be distracted by those who have taken the website to use as their own personal soap box, they do not, as far as I can see, represent a very large proportion of owners.
Just enjoy your car - looks great to me!
Regards,
Graham
|
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6303 Posts |
Posted - 27/11/2017 : 11:20:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by MaGic_GV
Please do not be distracted by those who have taken the website to use as their own personal soap box, they do not, as far as I can see, represent a very large proportion of owners.
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Another K3 Rep
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
