Thanks for the response. As for Mrs. JS in light of the 375mm debacle I'm not sure anything JS said has the same credibility as it once may have. It will be interesting to see how that case turns out. I agree with you that the JS 99999 is the first Customer F50 and that there were Prototype F50's before it. I think the Classic Coach 99999 is one of them. Classic Coach would have to import their car through US Customs with a VIN# and the placque with that VIN# is strong evidence that when they imported their car into the US and Federalised it that's what the paperwork from Ferrari who originally sold it said it was. As the Principal of Classsic Coach is also the owner of an Authorised US Ferrari dealer it's not surprising that he'd be able to buy an F50 Prototype.
Come one Jim, that post is far from excellent. It has really no merit whatsoever. Even if there is no written proof of Enzo having promised 99999 to Jacques Swaters, the story isn't all that unbelievable. Without any evidence there is as much reason to believe to story as to not believe it.
It's excellent. In light of Enzo's death date; In light of that fact, now confirmed by Victor, that there is NO written document reflecting this alleged "promise"; In light of the serious questions about JS's vin# varacaty raised by the 375mm debacle; In light of the fact that the Classic Coach Protopype F50 Vin # is 99999 as evidenced by it's US Federalisation Plaque the same plaque that is also affixed to the JS 99999; its Totally Excellent.
Understandable, but remember any time singular existence is claimed the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The creation of reasonable doubt that more exist has more than been surpassed and I think that's the point of this whole debate: we are not sure how many 99999 cars there truly are, and whether this number was simply a factory dispensation for prototypes, but its clear that the claim that there is only one stands on very shaky ground. Interestingly, this debate about multiple 99999 cars has carried on for all of 7 years.
I really don't see what is so unbelievable about mr Ferrari promising a certain VIN number to his longtime friend and business associate and that he made such a promise only once. You do know that Mr Swaters was very much within Mr Ferrari's circle of trust? Why stop at dreaming? If you think that mr Ferrari didn't promise 99999 to his old friend, than the old friend's daughter is a liar, no? Come on already. I don't even know if Sean Connery was a Ferrari costumer to begin with. And besides that, Ferrari has got more than it's fair share of famous, high profile costumers. Why would they even think of making a habit out of promising them novelty VIN-numbers? Yes it is. I don't think the relationship between Ferrari and Lauda ended in a way that would make such a promise in any way believable. How do you know no records exist? Maybe Mr Ferrari left a post-it on Brenda Vernor's desk to not forget to make sure that the car that happens to bare VIN 99999 is allocated to mr Swaters. I think mr Ferrari had multiple ways of showing his gratitude. I don't think Gilles Villeneuve actually had to pay for his Ferrari and besides him and Tazio Nuvolari, mr Ferrari wasn't all that fond of his drivers. And he probably gave Franco Gozzi a nice watch or whatever. And mr Swaters was promised a cool VIN-number. I believe he did have to actually buy the car though. I don't want proof, I am merely signaling that there are many stories flying around, hurting the value of other peoples cars, without any decent evidence to support them. Of course I don't call mr Massini (not Massani) a liar like you call Ms Swaters a liar, but if mr Massini wishes to present the case of more than one F50 baring VIN 99999, then yes, some proof would be nice. I am not denying the possiblity that there are more than one 99999's driving around (I wouldn't put it past Ferrari to be, let's say, a bit careless with numbering their cars) I am just signaling that there is still a case to be made.
Again, Enzo would have known that a Ferrari baring the VIN 99999 would leave the production line at some time. Victor did NOT confirm that there is no written document. He just confirmed he doesn't know about such a document. That is something else entirely. Are you denying that such a promise was made? I assume you are not, since you would have no way of knowing. Would you? As Victor correctly points out, it is a cute novelty story to come with the car. And why shouldn't it be true? Two friends in a light hearted conversation. One happens to be in the business of creating the most famous sportscars in the world, the other happens to be in the business of selling, collecting and at one time, racing them. How hard is it to believe that such a promise is made?
Sorry but I still totally disagree with you and the fact that the Classic Coach F50's Vin number 99999 proves that if Enzo had made such a promise, which I still don't believe he did, it wasn't kept. ("Unique" Victor) I also feel that the serious allegations of Vin number switching in the 375MM case to keep a stolen car from it's rightful owner, if proven, will forever change the way some of us look at JS's legacy.
I don't quite agree : I think that if there is no reason to doubt that a car is unique, the burden should be on those who claim otherwise, because it is impossible to prove that a car is unique (how would you?), whereas it usually very easy to prove it is not by finding another example. I first heard of the existence of the 5 speed car two days ago in this thread. Before that, no one has ever shown any concrete evidence. If, providing some documentation or photos of the actual vin number on the chassis (not plaque), that car proves to be a genuine 99999 car, I'll obviously agree that there are two genuine 99999 cars in existence ie. one customer car and one prototype with a 5 speed gearbox. But certainly not that there are any more, until proven otherwise of course.
Gentlemen (a potentially stupid-sounding statement in this thread) The only basis for this boring and possibly problematic set of statements is a certain article which came out not in 1995 but in 2007 when the Swaters sold what is called here "99999". Nothing had ever arisen in any publication elsewhere before or since. Many of you have ignored every fact presented by the two people with direct information - that is indeed your right. However, these sickening escapades regarding the denigration of any person's integrity are frankly demeaning to the poster(s) and to this website. As for the original disparaging article, it would be up to Walters' estate and RM Auctions to seek any action for loses proven to have been suffered. There is and always has been only one Ferrari F50-99999 VIN ZFFTA46B000099999. There has been no VIN fraud. There has been no DHS Customs, USDOT or EPA compliance fraud. Period. Now, as to the case of the claims of fraud against Mr Swaters himself, I must reduce my comments to their level. Have you read the court documents? Picking on a dead foreigner must make your parents proud. At this point I would only suggest that the moderator(s) recommend that slander and libelous statements can mushroom into actionable issues and should be avoided at all times. These are not used Fords under discussion. Thank you for your attention. Mr John Mushman
On the "unique" adjective, I feel serene because in 2006 when I wrote the text, there was no rumour neither any proof that I was aware of of any other 99999's, and the Modis database mentionned just one 99999 (and probably still does) . Regarding the allegations, you correctly said : "if proven", so his name is currently untarnished.
I agree re: Your 2006 text. I also agree that one is innocent until proven guilty and that's why I used the word "allegations" as you've noted. Cheers
Are you denying the photographic evidence of Classic Coach's F50 with a US Federaliser's plaque clearly displayed showing VIN #... 99999? Are any part of this photographic record including the link to the photo of the aforementioned Vin Plaque untrue? http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=336541 I personally Don't think Classic Coach or GK comitted Vin, US Customs, or EPA/DOT fraud when they federalised their F50 and attached VIN Plaque ...99999 to it. Do you think they did or that their car doesn't exist or that we're confused and that this is the JS ...99999 even though the US Federalization Plaque and the one on the Classic Coach car are mounted in slightly different places as evidenced by photographs in this thread? The allegations of JS switching VIN numbers to keep the rightful owner of a 375MM from getting it back are public record and the case is still before the courts. Is any part of that not true? Are you implying that I personally haven't read court documents of the 375MM case? "Have you read the court documents?" Are you stating that Marcel Massini who's statements on this matter speak for themselves and categorically refute your following statement a liar? "There is and always has been only one Ferrari F50-99999 VIN ZFFTA46B000099999."
This thread does seem to have got rather heated and it is quite hard to understand why. Personally I cannot see what the issue is because I cannot see that having chassis number 99999 is of any particular significance nor of any particular value and I rather thought the market had proved that too. Saying "my car has chassis number 99999" isn't quite on the same level as saying "my car won Le Mans in 1965", is it? I have heard the story about Jacques Swaters being promised 99999 several times and over some period of time. I think it quite likely that over a boozy Maranello lunch at some point Swaters mentioned it and at some later stage (after Ferrari's death) reminded Gozzi of it. Surely what isn't in dispute is that Swaters did end up with a car bearing that chassis number so, on balance of probability the story of the promise by Ferrari is likely to have some truth in it. Or maybe no promise was made but Swaters just said "remember Ferrari promised me 99999" and the factory acquiesed. As for multiple cars carrying 99999, we "know" that to be the case because right at the beginning of this thread it was admitted (and no-one has refuted it) that a car in the Galleria carried that number for a period when the Swaters car was elsewhere. From all I know I am personally convinced that Ferrari put that number on more than one car (prossibly various prototypes that they weren't originally going to sell). But then they've been up to all sorts of mischief over the years and it doesn't much matter since, as far as I understand it, they only recognize the ex-Swaters car as legitimately carrying that number now. As an aside, Modis has been mentioned but I suspect that Modis did not exist back when this/these cars were built and that the data has been back-loaded in since. Probably Modis will not allow recording of multiple entries with the same chassis number but that doesn't mean you cannot stick the same chassis plate on multiple cars either at the same time or over time. Jonathan
Exacto. I agree and personally would rather own the other car you spoke of. At the present time there seem to be at least two F50's in the US with VIN # 99999 the JS car and The Classic Coach car. Both bear plaques certifying their Federalization with that VIN #. All is good. Once again if anyone has verifiable proof that the Classic Coach F50 and the JS F50 are in fact the same car please post it.
At all times I have indicated that I would be willing to respectfully review any documentation you can post to back up your claim, and am willing to have an open mind accordingly.
This is a very balanced post and I cannot disagree with it, although I would add that there is no doubt that some people will value this Vin number and the history of the car. Proof enough is that I sold it for a hefty price, far higher than other European F50's were priced at the time.
JT, in fact I think this thread has remained quite calm, with an interesting exchange of thoughts and information. Or lack thereof, in the case of the latter.
Having VIN number 99999 is indeed not quite on the same level as owning the car that won Le Mans in 1965, but imagine owning that very car and then someone turns up claiming there is another car stamped s/n 5893. There lies a problem, no?
But wouldn't that mean that the other 99999 car(s) aren't registered or at least not recognized in Ferrari's digital administration?
True enough, but now that years later the received wisdom is being scrutinized, you can see that it sold for LESS than F50s were priced at the time of this latest sale. Still, as I pointed out earlier, the current owner must be happy getting it for a number under par.
My opinion is that it is worth more than any other customer F50, and that it sold for less than expected essentially due to absence of a US title and not so much because of the eventual existence of a cryptic 5 speed prototype with the same vin and/or of the presence of a display car in the Galleria that sometimes carries a 99999 steering column plate, and sometimes not (see post #45 in this thread). Most US buyers will NOT buy a recent road going car that carries a risk of having to remain in "show and display" status, ie never to be registered or driven on the open roads. I think that RM made a rather significant blunder by selling this car before it was fully titled.
At the risk of making a long thread longer, I offer the following: (And contrary to some posts on this thread, I do not believe this is heated at all. In fact, I am enjoying talking about Ferrari history quite a lot. It sure beats getting my head kicked in every day in the Capital Markets business!) As I was suggesting earlier in the post, I don't know the relationship of Mr. Ferrari and his friends, but my suggestion that the JS promise was a singular one in over 40 years of auto production is hard to believe. My reference to Sean Connery was to say that Mr. Ferrari probably had lots of friends and to promise a meaningful serial number to someone could have been a 'neat' thing to do. Promise Babe Ruth something ending in 003. Promise David Beckham something ending in 023. The reference to Connery was simply illustrative of how numbers and people go together--much more closely than JS and 99999. So my point is that Mr. Ferrari HAD to have a friend who had a significant number assigned to the friend (like Lauda and 12). And, it follows that if Mr. Ferrari had promised a certain number to JS, he may--may--have made a similar promise to someone else. AND the lack of any other such promise--over a long career--makes me doubt the JS story. People are creatures of habit. Now THIS is something that makes the story even more remote. A mysterious post-it note that survives on a desk for a decade? (Smiling) Even you had a laugh at that one.
Nothing I say on this board is intended to harm the market value of any person's asset. If anyone has a contrary view on that, then you fail to understand the point of open and honest discussion among gentlemen.
I have received a PM stating that the car Classic Coach brought to Waktins Glen is the ex JS car. I asked why the photo of the VIN plaque in the photo Andrew linked shows it in a differen't location than the photo Jason took of the plaque on the JS car. He also mentioned that the JS car is a 6 speed and did not know why Classic Coach said it was a 5 sp. I asked him to publically post and hope he will. The earliest reference I found to there being "4" 99999 was in 2004 on Ferrari Life. Marcel's posts remain and personally I now think that the JS 99999 was the first customer F 50 and that the 99999 number was put on at least one other F50 in the galleria at one time and possibly on other F50 prototypes as well. I have also received an email claiming to have seen two 99999 F 50's at a well known European track day event several years ago. The Beat Goes On.
