Chassis 1C/10S Updated Information

Bill,

I am ignoring the 1C stamps. I am suggesting that the car may be 01S rather than 10S.


Will,

I agree.

Regards to both,

Art S.

PS. The referenced stamps are in post 370 of this thread.

 

Post #1: "As far as stampings on 1C/10S go… the only stamping that my father found prior to prepping the car for Palm Springs was a smallish 1C stamping on the chassis near the front left suspension arm (not the one photographed and posted earlier). It wasn’t until Bill Noon crawled under the car to inspect the chassis that the previously photographed and posted larger 1C and 10S stamping was discovered in the "correct" location. The car had been covered with nearly 40 years of grease/grime and black paint on the chassis. It was only until the chassis was pressure washed to clean up most of this debris that the 1C/10S stampings could be viewed. These stampings had been obscured all these years"

John

Can you confirm the sizes (say heights of the 1's) of the 'smallish' 1C you mention above, the larger 1C, the 10S, and the 1 on the front crossmember?

I don't see evidence on the photos of the peening Bill Noon mentions where the 10S is stamped. Bill says also that the 10S looks 'clean and deep' whereas on the photos it looks less so than the other stamps. Can you see this on the car itself?

Thanks
Will

 

The "1C" I photographed and inspected is stamped backwards and on-top of a square "box section" of the front frame not on an Oval Frame Tube. The stampings, position, font and location where all very much suspect and in no way appear to be similar or in the same location as that found on 002C. 002C is stamped on the main oval frame member in a normal traditional way and done so as if someone was standing where the engine would be prior to installing it.

The "01C" stamping was done from a position where someone would be leaning over and looking down onto the frame crossmember from the front of the car when it was already assembled and fitted with an engine.

As I said, these are my direct observations and ones that I both pointed out and shared with the judges and other curious individuals who have since asked for my opinion.

The "10S" stamp looks period real and correct. Just not necessarily Ferrari correct.

The "1C" stamp simply looks more than a bit suspect in location, font, size as well as where and how it was struck.

Again, my opinion but one I am sticking too.

Bill

 

Again:

Bill
How come you don't discuss the '1' stamp uncovered in the correct position on the front cross-member in the presence of a local judge?
I am mystified that this hasn't caused more interest.

Regards
Will

 

Just did a check of my photos and notes and sorry but no extra 1 in the same location and the front frame is box section squared, totally different size and configuration for the cross member area and nothing like 002C or even remotely close to it.

None of the FCA judges I was with have shared anything like what you are describing.

I am still thinking the frame may have been a special on the lines of a NARDI, maybe Abarth ??? Dr. Stu might have some thoughts on those lines.

The more I keep checking back at measurements and configuration, the less and less it appears to be an early 1950s Ferrari but more on the lines of something like one of the above.

With the early 1950s engine, gearbox and late frame features, shock mounts etc... I date the construction sometime post 1950. Only the wheels, body, gauges seem to tie the car to an earlier date and the source and timing of those being fitted is well known.

Bill

 

Hi Bill, I wondered if I would hear from you on this. I refer to a FC thread on the subject of 001S started 8/24/06 at 9.26AM by "Stratos" starting " Hello a friend of mine has original pictures of 001S..." At the end of post #2 of 8/24/06 someone using your name{??} stated " Both 01C/0010I and 001S survive. I cannot discuss here the details of 001S...."I printed this out 8/30/06. At the time I was just getting started on my research[often I think I still am} and assumed, considering the source, it was something to know about. Sorry, I should have checked with you first. Regards tongascrew George

 

Hi Bill

Thanks for your response. My mystery solved: It seems you didn't see post #370 (page 19)of 07/29/08 where John describes how (in the presence of a Superior Court Judge) his father took paint stripper to the front crossmember in the place where Jim's frame is stamped. The before and after photos show how a number " 1 " was revealed under the old paint.
This was in response to Napolis post #95 (page 5):
"The problem is that there is no record of any chassis stamped 1C or 10 S that has come to light anywhere. The other problem is that there is no stamping on the left side of the front cross member where it would normally be. That is probably the next step. Removing the paint on the front cross member to see if there is any trace of a stamping on that tube at all or to try and determine if that tube is original.
It would also be telling to see a shot of that entire cross rail. If it is from an early car it will have a cutout in it to allow a hand crank to pass through and engage the crank like 002C chassis does. " - It has the cut out

Also Bill, John has this to say post#99 (p5) "If you inspect the initial string of photos that I posted, one will see that it looks as if the chassis 1C/10S has been modified to accomodate a later suspension/shock configuration. IMHO, it looks as if the two front "chassis extenders" that were needed to support the original Armstrong-type front suspension have been modified (cut away) to enable the Houdaille shock conversion (see photos in my first posting). " Would you care to comment as it goes against what you say above somewhat.

Thanks
Will

 

Here's the link to that earlier discussion thread from 2006 in case it helps:

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118469

>8^)
ER

 

Just reviewed the photo on page 19. Still not even close in location or similar frame design to 002C or any of the other early 125/159/166 era frames.

Hard to tell size and font but it does not look from what I can see in the photo to be a Ferrari period stamp.

The use of single digit numbers stamped on the four corners of each frame usually was for assistance in repair work. 010I had four "1s" stamped on the the top of each corner of the frame. This was something Rogliatti referred to as frame internal numbers. I believe 006C has something similar.

As for the shocks on the "10S" car, there was no machined provision anywhere built into the frame for the mounting of these types of shocks. There is a massive amount of machining and finishing done prior the attachment points being capable of the fitting of these shocks and "10" simply does not have these. Even the pick-up points do not have the same drilled locations for the front suspension as any of the early frames.

There seems to be a lot of secondary motivation to give the frame of this car a different identity. Nowak new otherwise and I made direct observations, photographs and measurements as have others.

I give more credit to a 1950s special than any other revisionist ideas. I think Dr. Stu should be put on the case to figure out what Nowak really did and exactly when and how this car came to be.

Cheers,

Bill

 

For Tongascrew... I did a check, yes, I was told back then some new information was forthcoming on the chassis of 001S. I have not ever been provided with anything additional and therefore think that it likely does not survive.

I could be wrong on this but at this time, I do not have an direct knowledge or information to share about the whereabouts of 001S.

Cheers,

Bill

 

Are we looking at the same photos? The '1' is within a cm of the position of the first zero of 002. The crossmember looks very similar to me too.

Why do you mention the four '1's on the corners of a frame? This is a '1' where the chassis number is actually located on 002 and it looks like it was there for a long time and never seen before.

Of course it could be chassis number one of a 50s special, but I don't think it can be dismissed altogether as if it weren't there.

You also say: "As for the shocks on the "10S" car, there was no machined provision anywhere built into the frame for the mounting of these types of shocks. There is a massive amount of machining and finishing done prior the attachment points being capable of the fitting of these shocks and "10" simply does not have these. Even the pick-up points do not have the same drilled locations for the front suspension as any of the early frames."

This is more convincing evidence of this not being a Ferrari frame if it is the case. Can I suggest to John (Jawsalfa) that he measure up the pick up points so we can compare say to Jim's?
Also can you/Jim/someone post photos of the machining that would remain on the chassis when the attachment points are removed?

"There seems to be a lot of secondary motivation to give the frame of this car a different identity. Nowak new otherwise and I made direct observations, photographs and measurements as have others."

What are you suggesting here? John has posted some details of his father's car and hasn't been arguing too hard, just asking opinions. I am a bit surprised that having started this no more info has been forthcoming and some could conclude from this that the Willimans don't want it to be checked out too thoroughly any more, but who knows?
What does Nowak (k)new otherwise refer to? Is there some info that is being withheld?

"I give more credit to a 1950s special than any other revisionist ideas. I think Dr. Stu should be put on the case to figure out what Nowak really did and exactly when and how this car came to be."

Yes please! What does Dr Stu say?

Best wishes
Will
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Something does not make sense; it is like we are talking past each other. Bill is claiming a box section crossmember of different frame design and different stamping location and I am looking at pictures of Jim G.'s car and 10S and frame section in the photo matches Jim's car very well (to my eye). What am I missing?

Regards,

Art S.

PS. Bill, regarding the 'secondary motivation' it feels the same to me just reversed. Thus I suspect that it isn't the case (besides, I don't see how either of us benefits or is hurt from the answer as neither of us own or have owned any of the cars in question).

 

I don't have even a remotely educated opinion on this one. Many of the chassis Gilco built in the period of 1946-1950 are similar in design and dimensions, and as I have no direct access to Ferrari records (I don't even know what exists), and Gilco's own files are far from complete, I can not say if the chassis being called 001S or 10S are in any part Ferrari.

As to my opinion on 01C/010I, I would tend to think at least some of of 01C was incorporated into 010I, and photos Bill Noon has provided tend to back up my opinion, but as Marcel posted in a another thread, we have no PROOF..here is his post:


01/010 of Roger Willbanks
I did personally see and inspect the car shown by Roger Willbanks at Pebble Beach 20th August 2006. Mr. Willbanks and his son showed me a file of documentation which included printouts from a certain German website. Also they showed me a letter in which they had asked the factory HOW to restore the car, into which configuration and possibly by whom. I did also see the answering letter from the factory in which they suggested the car being rebodied back (into the current body) by Dino Cognolato in Padova, Italy (Carrozzeria Nova Rinascente in Vigonza near Padova). In the entire documentation shown to me there was NO, I repeat: NO, certificate whatsoever from the factory or any further correspondence between the factory and the owner confirming that their car is actually real and authentic. It was just a simple inquiry, nothing more. To the best of my knowledge, the car has NOT been certified by the factory and I don't think that an attempt has been made. All I was shown was a letter inquiring about WHERE to have such a car rebodied and an answer from the factory, WITHOUT checking the car's identity. I was also shown a copy of the old factory certificate of origin which means nothing about the authenticity of today's car.
Marcel Massini


As to 02C and 020I, I would tend to think some of 02C was incorportated into 020I, but there is even less evidence of this being fact than with 01C

As far as 002C (Jim's car) is concerned, IMO it never was a Tipo 125. It probably started out as a Tipo 159, and was upgraded to a Tipo 166. IMO, this is the oldest Ferrari left as the major portion of this car is "as originally built".

 

I fully agree with Marcel on these three cars.

 

As a fascinated lurker on this thread- and it may be out of turn or misinformed for me to say this, but...
I would love to see two or more of the cars in this discussion brought together for the purpose of contemporary side-by-side examination to see if any further insight could be gained.

Best,
Dave

 

I don't think that would reveal a great deal, as the chassis (with the exception of 002C) seem to have had a number of repairs/modifications since they were first built. What would be much more valuable is for someone to reveal/find photos that show the chassis configurations when they were first constructed.

 

Stu

We actually have a chassis, and you're saying that it's not worth examining in detail because it 'seem(s) to have had a number of repairs/modifications since (it) was first built'

Fair enough to conclude AFTER it's been examined fully that nothing was proved, but to not think it's worthwhile to examine it to look for further evidence seems a little or even very perverse (sorry!).

I have seen plenty of chassis that have been hacked about over the years and it is not usually too difficult to see which sections are original, where bits have been cut out or cut off, and what has been addeed at later dates. Admittedly where a motivated faker has been at work this isn't the case, but it seems clear that this car hasn't been touched since the days when it wasn't worth faking.

If 1/1C/10S were stripped back to bare metal I think it would be reasonably easy to determine which parts were there in the beginning. If original features were revealed which made no sense as early Ferrari or which were the same as or similar to some other chassis then the 50s special theory is upheld. If on the other hand the original features remaining proved to be consistent with early Ferrari chassis then in combination with the 125 bits present this car is super interesting to Ferrari enthusiasts even if it cannot be definitively proven what it is.

---

John (Jawsalfa)

Why the complete silence with regard to suggestions for a proper strip down & examination? After all you started this thread to try to discover what the car is.

Kind regards to all
Will

 

I think you may have misunderstood. What I am saying is even if was stripped and compared to other chassis, as far as I am aware, no written or photographic documentation exists at Ferrari or Gilco of any kind to know with absolute certainty what you have. I'm NOT saying you chassis is not Ferrari, or at least in part Ferrari, but without documentaion, we can never really know for sure. Provide the photos and I am willing to make an "educated guess", but that is the best I think anyone can do...

 

After re-examining all the photos posted, I believe I can say for certain that the chassis was built by Gilco. I also think that I can say with 90% or better certainty it is Ferrari, BUT as exactly when it was built, and what is the true chassis number, I hesitate to even hazard a guess until/unless some actual period documentation can be found.

To Marcel: Do you have any idea if Ferrari has any documents that have not been revealed? Having been to Gilco (now Trafiltubi), I am 90% certain they have nothing, but with the Italians tendency toward secrecy, it is possible that they DO have something that I was not allowed access to....

 

some times it's fun to grab a straws and see what you get. Inquiring minds want to know. just one man's opinion tongzascrew

 

Here's one for you.Check out the thread 001S by "stratos" and look at post 106. This tongascrew guy has some strange ideas sometimes. just one mans opinion tongascrew

 

I don't think your ideas are particularly strange. On most of the early cars we are all guessing based on the level of our "eduction" about Ferrari, and without any real documentation to back up our opinion.

 

I posted this in reply to Napolis comment in the 001S thread that 1 & 10S aren't Ferrari numbers, but it really belongs here:

Imagine for a moment (if it's not too painful) that 1/1C/10S is the first chassis.

Why not stamp the first chassis that you build up as number '1'? Saying that '1' isn't a Ferrari chassis number makes sense when the series is already underway, but I can imagine the idea of using the 'C' & 'S' could have started with the second car. Who would bother to get access to the front crossmember to go back and restamp the first car, and who would remember that the first one wasn't restamped?

TO JOHN/JAWSALFA:

Has Ed definitely decided not to take the body off to check out the chassis fully?

Whichever way he goes could you address some specific questions without stripping it:

1. Proper analysis of the chassis stamps in regard to dimensions and font compared to Jim's 002 stamps (assuming Jim will help)

2. More detailed photos & measurements of the areas where you believe the original shocker mountings were removed, including a response to Bill Noon's assertions that there are some machined areas which should be present or can be seen to have been removed. Maybe contact Bill to see exactly what he means?

3. Proper measurements of the suspension pick up points, again comparison to 002 could be revealing.

4. Generally looking any other discrepancies which Bill (or anyone else) believes to exist and dealing with them methodically. As Jim seems to be such a helpful interested person comparisons to his car as such an early and accessible example would seem to be the best way forward.

--

I absolutely don't go along with Stu that we will never have an idea what this is without historical documentation, as if it can be shown that all the early features are really either (a) present or (b) have left traces of their removal (as it seems you believe) then the weight of evidence becomes sufficient to conclude that this is either:

1. One of the very first chassis, which happens to have the number '1' in the correct font in the right place
2. A cunning fake constructed over 30 years ago, almost certainly without access to the chassis it was going to have to conform to, to prove it's genuineness when it was to be released to public scrutiny in the unforseeable future when it's value would have climbed to 50,000% of it's then current value. Oh, and the master stroke would be to stamp it with a number which didn't conform to any known Ferrari numbers.

Will

 

There are a lot of other posibilities. 10S could be a number stamped in the day on a non Ferrari for example.