01C or 02C The first ?

Judging by the characteristics that Bill describes, his story about Ferrari's own 1997 interest and the parties involved, it sounds like 01C and 02C were reused.

10S is one early Bista, that's for sure. Nothing on the car gels. But those wheels are pretty.

 

When Doug Nye inspected and drove the car in 1993 (just before the Brooks auction) he noted that the left rear spring pick-up has been repaired at some time by welding and plating, and this damage would match the Nuvolari Mille Miglia story. So it is very likely that the frame was indeed the original one and no spare.

Source: Historic Race & Rally Issue 5 July/August 1993

 

Agree that repaired chassis damage is useful when considering provenance but still think Nathan's posts about the stampings raise serious questions and would hope they'd be included in the next auction description should this car ever go to auction again.

 

If you read the written requirements published by Ferrari Classiche to Certify a car you'll see that an ABSOLUTE requirement is that the chassis is stamped with it's ORIGINAL stampings. If the person you spoke to stamped the chassis as you've described in the 1960s Classiche's Certification of 01C/010I would seem to me to be in contravention of their own written requirements.

 

Has any real progress been made here since last week?

Do we know any more, or is it all still speculation?


_J

 

We know that Tom S.'s statement has been backed up by Nathan's conversations and they speak for themselves as does Ferrari Classiche's written rules regarding the necessity for original chassis stampings for certification.

 

Michael.good point on the magnito mounting on the middle car. The holes in the firewall would certainly indicate the the magnitos were horizontal and protruded thru the firewall. I am glad you were able to clear up the chassis on the background car. It certainly would be nice if we could get a better idea of when this photo was taken. Is it possible that these two bodies were being installed on SC chassis in preporation for F2 events and so the high cockpit side pannels? If you have any more factory shop photos from the period you would like to share with us please do so. Thanks much. tongascrew

 

The speculation is really piling up here. What we need is for 10S to be put up on a lift and detailed photos taken of the entire frame. It would be nice also if body off photos could be done but this would probably be to complicated unless the owner is convinced they would support his case for the car. The photos we do have from the show clearly show me two things. The cross members at the center of the X are not consistant with the original frame design or construction as I have discussed in previous posts. Also looking at the X members themselves the left one seems to be quite different from the right. This leads me back to the famous "scrap heap" behind the factory and the real possibility that 10S is a compilation of "junk" parts.Remember the same type frame rails and oval chassis tubing were used for many years. If you look at the basic frame of a 275GTB the same "type" tubes were still being used.We really need some of the experts who have had lots of experience working with these early frames to spend time examening, measuring and photoing 10S before any real conclusions can be reached. Just one man's opinion. Tongascrew

 

Agree Totally. What are your thoughts regarding 01C/010I in light of Nathan's Posts?

 

There had been only 2 occasions where at least 2 SCs had been in progress - the batch 006I/010I, and the batch 008I/012I/014I/016I. The horizontal magnetos exclude the latter, so the photo must have been taken around February 1948. Both 2 cars had been delivered to their new owners end March 1948.

The frame in front clearly is designed to carry a full width body, so only possibility is 001S or 003S. Considering the registration date of 001S (10 Feb 1948) there is no other possibility than 003S for the frame in front, which was ready for the MM early May.

There had been different left side cockpit panels, some cars had removable ones, for others photos look like they had been integral part of the body. All photos I have of 006I show a non-removable panel, so I'm pretty convinced the car in the middle is 006I. The other SC therefore must be 010I, which in fact had a removable side panel. Surprising is the nose cone, which is identical with that of 006I, and not the horseshoe-shaped one we know. However, it is known that Zehender crashed 010I at the training for the Giro di Sicilia, so it is very likely that after that 010I got a new nose. Since years I am looking for photos of 006I and 010I from the 1948 GdS/TF, but without any success so far.

 

Michael, thanks much and keep looking. tongascrew

 

I am relatively new here and am some what honored that you want my opinion. I assume we are discussing the "mystery man's" [aka. deep throat] statement that when he started his association with 010I he found no chassis numbers.It would help to know when "deep throat" first came in contact with this frame and what condition it was in. We know that the car was imported again into the UK some time in 1951, presumably by Williment, in some dismembered form to avoid the customs/tax on a complete vehicle. I think we also know that three or four years prior to this the car had been rebuilt at Ferrari and renumbered from 01C to 010I. My question to "deep throat" is if you were unable to find any numbers on the chassis and decided, for what ever reason, to stamp numbers on the frame, how did you know what number, or numbers,[years later Symbolic found two numbers 010I over 01C] to use? Somewhere, my guess is, there was paperwork relevent to this car with 01C and 010I on it. Now if "D T's " answer is "just follow the money" he is not being straight with you and you better set up another meeting with him in the underground garage. Just put the potted plant back on the balcony and see what happens. Just one man's opinion. Good luck and keep us posted Tongascrew

 

We don't know that Ferrari re stamped THIS car. Ferrari MAY have re stamped a chassis but even if they did we don't KNOW it was this car. He believed the car was 010I. The underlying "01C" may have simply been an error. He may have picked up the "C" stamp by mistake instead of the 0. He may have covered up his mistake with lead and over stamped 010I.

IMO Nathan and Tom's posts are very troubling and do raise serious questions that need to be addressed by Willbanks. The Williment car 10S is an entirely different puzzle.

Thanks For Your Posts!

 

Want some interesting reading. Go to Google and enter Ferrari 01C. The show is refering to 10S as 01C and implying that this care really is the first one. Tongascrew

 

Well, why wouldn't they? What sounds better - "Come and see the first Ferrari - discovered again after 20 years!!!!" or "Ferrari with strange S/N on display"?


Regarding the S/N issue with 01C/010I - how valuable was the car when Mystery Man stamped the chassis? If it wasn't like the 250GTO who became a hen house, I guess the person in question would have taken care for taking the right stamps, although it is of course possible tht he just mixed the C and 0 stamp, I guess he would have been more careful... I don't know much about stamping numbers in metal, but the few times I had those stamps in my hand, they either was one box with characters and one box with numbers or the stamps were ordered A, B, C....X, Y, Z, 0, 1, 2....9. So assuming you have your tools in order, it is somewhat hard to pick a C if you want the 0 stamp, isn't it?

 

I finally found the solution to end this struggle for the oldest Ferrari....
Somebody has to stamp the frame of his car with "00C" and we have a winner!

 

Then someone would stamp 00C-1 and we'd have to start all over again....

 

No way - you simply can overstamp 00C with 0000C...!

 

Many have come to that conclusion, but we do not know to be fact...

 

FWIW - there is a cutaway drawing in Autocar July 8 1949 of an early Ferrari which looks surprisingly like 010I whan Dudley Folland owned it. As there is also a photo of the Folland car in the same article it would suggest that the artist studied 010I to make his drawing (and it was the only Ferrari in England at the time, so there would be no other for the artist to refer to). The drawing shows a chassis that arches up over the rear axle, has the magnetos coming through the firewall, and it doesn't have the cross-brace(s). The chassis looks the same as shown in Starkey's book.
Nathan

 

Don't forget that Ferrari were seeking to sell this as a new car. Otherwise why go to the trouble of restamping the chassis anyway?
They wouldn't have simply ground off the original stamping as they wanted to sell 010C as a new car (built on a new chassis). A ground out chassis would be a sure sign that this was an old chassis being re-used.
Wouldn't you cover the old chassis stamping with lead, re-stamp it and then re-paint the chassis to make it look like a brand new one with no tell-tale signs of its former use? I would guess that's what Ferrari did at the time.
Nathan

 

FWIW, I think in the very few known cases where Ferrari used old frames (be they used or just delayed in production) renumbering occurred also to keep the build sheets in order. A serial number in correct range would instantly tell them which revision of each to component to expect to find in a car, which without a doubt helps servicing the cars. It is very difficult to say if they frequently renumbered chassis frames and which methods they chose to use. I would say that if a chassis number was properly filled (be that with lead or with filler), it might never be found again. Being sure that no old chassis numbers exist, one should clean and polish large areas of the frame for close examination and this is very unlikely to happen in case the car has a chassis stamping that matches current paperwork. One should also remember that with the serial number plate on firewall many owners never even knew the frames were also stamped!

 

For the most part I do agree with you, but still cannot eliminate the possibility that the picture would show 012/I, 008/I and 003/S. Best wishes, Kare

 

Great idea or how about -O1C. Tongascrew

 

008I and 012I had vertical magnetos.
And 008I was a SWB, thus had the underslung frame.