Chassis 1C/10S Updated Information

As I understand the stampings "1" and "10S" are both on the correct place, and under normal conditions they should be identical. So let's put up the theory that the "10S" was originally also a "1". Best basis for a restamping, agreed? One could make nearly everything out of this - 01C, 011S, 031S, 0016M etc. So - if we follow the theory of restamping - why has a number chosen which does not fit in any known scheme? And why wasn't the "1" on the front cross member not altered also? Did the restamper not know that there is a 2nd chassis number? Or was he too lazy to remove the radiator? So if - I say "if" - there was a restamping, it is very unlikely that this had been done officially by Ferrari.

 

Not at all. 2420 mm was a standard Ferrari figure of that period.

 

Sharing a wheelbase figure is by no means a guarantee that a body will interchange between two chassis. And who knows what changes were made to the body or chassis (if any) to make it fit where it sits now? Is this chassis 'identical' to that of 002?

 

All these bodies had been handmade to fit onto a specific chassis. Not a chassis layout, but a unique specific chassis. Even chassis of the same layout or even series had been slightly different, because they had been crafted not manufactured. At least if we talk about these early cars. So always alterations had been necessary, sometimes smaller ones, sometimes more difficult ones. A good panelbeater was even able to shorten or lenghten bodies to fit onto a chassis with different wheelbase or track. Based on what is known up to now the frame of 10S is identical or at least very similar to that of 002, which would surely haved eased the "marriage" of chassis and body.

 

John,

Are you planning to remove the body from the chassis so more unhindered investigations can be made?

Jeff

 

"Correct" has to put in relation to type and year....

 

The first is indeed my believe, although I am of course not sure about that.
The second is not fully correct. The chassis layout of the later cars (starting abt. mid 1948) is different, most ones had been underslung, but it seems that some still had the arched frame. And also not all had the fishmouth-welded section (which was not "new" but something like "back to basics"), the competition cars had a bolt in center brace.

 

The only way to really identify the chassis is to pull the body off, strip off the paint, and do an inch-by-inch analysis for additional stampings, welds and tubing, determining which tubes appear to be original and which tubes appear to be later additions and which other alterations have been made (e.g., the shocks). To ensure that the car's provenance is unimpeachable, this should be done by a respected outside firm (as Napolis noted, Ferrari Classiche would be the best, although they may be somewhat conflicted in that they have already identified the other car as being "the first"). This will NOT be cheap. However, if it is determined that this really is "the first", the world will beat a path to your door and the dollars invested will seem like small change compared to the eventual sale price of the car, once the authentication process has been completed, a new correct body has been made and installed, and other later additions have been replaced by period-correct parts. The question is whether your father is willing to invest some money to see whether there really is something there.

As to the Motto body, although historically interesting, it doesn't really matter since it's clear that it was added later and even, when new, was built to be added to an existing car (002), which now has a replica of its correct original body.

This car is like the 340 Vignale with the Devin body bought by Shaughnessy on ebay or Marteen's spyder - a potentially really valuable chassis and not much else that matters (although the early brakes, wheels, steering box and transmission on your car are notable, and significant, differences). The 166 engine, although not correct to the car, is very valuable in its own right and could perhaps be traded for a correct earlier motor. Shaughnessy fortunately has the resources (and access to lots of correct parts) to get a correct body made in Italy and turn a "bitsa" back into an authentic, period correct Ferrari.

Best of luck with it. It's an enviable position to be in.

 

Built 2009. Did I miss something...??

 

Fair point. Perhaps I should have added "albeit storied" before "Ferrari".

 

jjmcd,

I totally disagree with your suggestions. This car spent the majority of it's life in its present, wonderful, configuration. Eliminating the majority of its history and all of its patina in order to make it into a quasi replica of what it was when it left the factory (which we don't even know yet) would be a sin.

Regards,

Art S.

PS. 202A had a more interesting and longer racing career with the Devin body than with the Vignale body. I hope Tom S. keeps the Devin body on the car once he has restored the mechanicals. Not everything needs to be sterile and new...

 

Art,

I generally agree with the sentiment of leaving old cars in their patinated original state, but if this really is Ferrari #1, there can be no doubt that, due to its historical value, it will be "restored" (and I recognize that is a loaded term) to its original configuration with a replica body constructed out of the original materials, likely by descendants of the original constructors, configured as closely as humanly possible to its original body (likely with Jim G's car as the model). The only question is whether the present owner will do so or, if the present owner will get an offer that he can't refuse for it, the buyer will do so.

My understanding is that 202A is or will soon be in Italy having a replica of its original Vignale coachwork created and fitted to its chassis. The Devin body served its purpose and, hopefully (if he hasn't done so already), Tom S. will sell it to someone who fits it to a Jag 120/140, 50's Corvette or other period-correct chassis and running gear and makes a running car out of it.

Taking the long view, keep in mind that these cars will be preserved for hundreds of years. If they don't have patina now with their replica bodies, they will in another twenty years.

JJM

 

Jim's car is a 159 with a 159 motor and a replica body. At best, the other 2 cars involved in thread can be real 125 chassis with the wrong motor and replica coachwork.....and I haven't seen anywhere near enough information that can prove either of the other 2 cars started as 125s, in spite of Ferrari's certification of one of them.

 

Last I checked, they hadn't fixed the crack in the Liberty Bell...

I personally think the discussion here should stay focused on determining what it was first, before any wild plans are entertained for what it could be with the right parts and the right amount of money mixed together. I think that's the owner's goal at this point as well and am pleased that this discussion remains an open one.

>8^)
ER

 

Is there nobody here who can narrow the search by eliminating known early alike chassis'?

 

I think I agree with Art on this.

Tom W

 

For the record, I personally think that the car should be left in its present configuration for all of the reasons that Art cited (and if it were mine, that is exactly what I would do with it). However, based on the history of the extremely valuable Ferraris with subsequently added bodies getting scrapped and replaced with replicas of their original bodies due to financial considerations (for example, the Drogo-bodied pontoon 250TR and 250SWB), the most likely outcome is that, if this chassis is determined to be #1, it will receive a replica of its original body.

I'll throw out another hypothesis - what if the stampings don't correlate to any known early Ferrari numbering scheme BECAUSE IT'S NOT A FERRARI CHASSIS? From what I understand, GILCO didn't make chassis solely for Ferrari, but also for other period Italian sports car manufacturers like Cistalia and Maserati. What if this chassis was constructed by GILCO using a design very similar to an early Ferrari chassis, but for another manufacturer? It wouldn't be the first time that a supplier uses the design work that it performed at the expense of client #1 to benefit client #2.... Under this theory, a Cistalia (or whatever) is constructed with this chassis in the early 50's, it gets wrecked sometime in the 50s or early 60s and the body is scrapped, the chassis makes it way to Desormeau who buys it because he either (mistakenly) thinks that it's a Ferrari chassis or knows that it's not a Ferrari chassis but it's close enough to be able to fit his Ferrari parts to it, he takes his early Ferrari brakes and other components, along with the Motto body, and makes a complete car out of the collection of parts. He puts it all together, runs it for a little while, gets tired of it and then sells it to Williston. This is all admittedly wild speculation on my part. Does anyone know if GILCO chassis made for other manufacturers would look similar to this chassis?

 

In the period of time concerned, Gilco made chassis to their own design, and also to the design of various manufacturers.....but most were for Fiat 750 or 1100 derivative cars, and have smaller wheelbases. Thy also sold tubing to manufacturers to build their own chassis.

The problem is that no one knows for certain exactly what any of the stamps mean, except perhaps, Ferrari themselves. Based on what I saw in the Gilco files some 20 years ago, there is nothing to lead us as to what the stamps mean. As far as I am aware, there is no record of any kind at Gilco as to chassis stamps. Again, I would like to see upon what basis Ferrari certified what is being called 01C/010I.

 

Stuart,as far as i know,the factory doesn't certifed the 01C/010I ...

regards
ivo

 

It has a Classiche Plate so stamped.

 

what does the "I" versus the "S" mean in Italian chassis builders terms normally?

would a "S" be a spider, a "C" for competition?

what word in Italian that starts with an "I", would relate to terms germane to these chassis?