The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Yes, of course it occurred to me that Jim may have been in correspondence with Ferrari hence my question below:

No evidence of confirmation in writing whatsoever has been forthcoming from Jim.

 

I am not quite sure why so many people are up in arms about whether or not Jim's car is the original 0846 or not. He has presented his evidence in this thread and even won a court decision on the matter. It seems he has proven his case.

But even if it's NOT the original 0846 chassis, who cares? It's a beautiful car and its percentage of originality does not affect anyone in the least. Has some great injustice been committed here? If you think it's the original chassis, great. If you have your doubts, that's fine too. But why have a cow about it? Let the guy enjoy his car in peace. MAYBE I could understand if he was going to put the car up for auction and was trying to pull a fast one on a potential buyer, but this is not the case here. Every detail about the car's history has been laid out in the open in this thread. Also, he has stated many times that the car is not for sale and never will be, so no one has to worry about anyone being "duped".

Jim shares his very rare and very special cars with us all, something that most car collectors in his category do NOT do. I for one am grateful.

 

I too think Jim's cars are great. All of them. I also think it's great that he shares them with the public. However, that does not give him the right to make false statements about any of these cars or twist what Ferrari have written. My concern is that Jim has stated that Ferrari have confirmed in writing that he has resurrected 0846 on its original chassis which is a huge statement to make but no proof of it. Where's the evidence? Show us the written statement from Ferrari confirming this!!!!

 

+1000

 

Who cares, it's a great looking car and the job was done good and that's that.

 

I care.

 

I searched this thread for the word "resurrected." 50 posts have used that word. Mr. G's first post to use the word is this one, from May 2009: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/423520-one-only-0846-debate-thread-300.html#post138671420. Here's the quote:

"The legal process of proving that this car was 1967 Ferrari P 3/4 0846 to US and Italian DMV and Custom Authorities took time but now that that has been done and the fact that that ruling can never be legally challenged by anyone changed things a lot. Ferrari's using an image of my car for an Authorised Ferrari Product was a another change. Marcel Massini's referring to this car as 'Resurrected 0846' was a change. The recognition of this in the FML article that proceeded the latest RM Auction that featured 0858 was a change. 0846 is what she is. Everything she is and isn't has been fully disclosed for many years. She remains in parked in my garage on Ferrari S.p.A.'s new web site, the content of which is solely in Ferrari's discretion as she has been since 2000."

Mr. G's May 2009 post also included this quote from Ferrari Market Letter:

"between the two cars. Chassis 0856, still as a 330 P4, was sold to England and remains the only original P4 in existence. It is now in the hands of a prominent North American collector. Chassis 0858 and 0860 were also sold off and had some further competition history in private hands. Eventually 0860 was converted back to P4 configuration and is in a collection in France and 0858 is coming up at auction next month. While Ferrari insists that 0846 was scrapped and is no more, a car exists with strong claims to be the resurrection of that car."

In September 2009 Mr. G posted his second use of the word:

"0846 was not 'Destroyed at Mugello'. It was not as Wayne pointed out used to build P5. It was as Marcel notes and Ferrari agrees 'Resurrected' by me."

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/423520-one-only-0846-debate-thread-302.html#post138973814

If you review the May 2009 post, you'll see that the reference to "Ferrari agrees" is based in part on the presence of Mr. G's car in the "My Garage" section of the Ferrari web site.

Later in September 2009 Mr. G wrote this:

"Ferrari also told me that they were happy that I was happy with 0846 and all between us is good.

"Their position remains that they scrapped, not sold 0846 and that I should not have used the scrapped remains, including the remains of 0846's original chassis to 'revival' (Ferrari's words) 0846 ( 'bring again into activity and prominence') but allowed that these were 'glorious pieces'. ( Marcel Massini used the word 'resurrected' 'Brought back from the dead' to describe 0846. )

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/423520-one-only-0846-debate-thread-303.html#post139002179

When read in context, the terms "bring again into activity and prominence" and "Brought back from the dead" are copies and pastes by Mr. G from an on-line dictionary's definitions of the words "revival" and "resurrected." That is, he is not attributing the quoted words to "Ferrari" or MM.

In November 2009 Mr. G posts this:

"Marcel has always been very straightforward when describing 0846 as it exist today using the term 'Resurrected' (Brought back from the Dead) a term the factory has also used which I think is the right way to describe 0846."

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/423520-one-only-0846-debate-thread-304.html#post139136556

It is ambiguous whether Mr. G is representing that "Ferrari" has used the word "resurrected" in reference to 0846, or not. That is, one construction of the sentence is that Ferrari has used the word "resurrected" in reference to one or more of the many other Ferraris that have been found in various states of completeness and restored to original condition. I think if Mr. G had intended to represent that "Ferrari" had used the term in reference to 0846, he would have written the specific statement "I agree with Marcel and Ferrari [that he has 'resurrected' 0846']," not the more general statement "I think [the word 'resurrected'] is the right way to describe 0846."

But the quote is also susceptible to the construction that Mr. G intends to represent that "Ferrari" had used the term "resurrected" specifically in reference to 0846.

I am sorry, but I have no more time to review all 50 posts in this thread which use the word "resurrected." But I think the four posts I have quoted show where the word came from. They also show no "lying" ("to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive").

 

Why?

 

The guy has absolutely no reason to lie, not one. He bought the car believing it WASN'T 0846 and later discovered evidence to strongly suggest that it was. He is also not trying to sell it. So what reason would he have to lie? To impress us? To upset you? Come on.

 

Full Definition of RESURRECT


1

: to raise from the dead


2

: to bring to view, attention, or use again




re·build (rē-bĭld&#8242

tr.v. re·built (-bĭlt&#8242, re·build·ing, re·builds
1. To build again.

2. To make extensive structural repairs on.

3. To remodel or make extensive changes in: tried to rebuild society.


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.








re·viv·al (rĭ-vī′vəl)
n.
1.
a. The act or an instance of reviving.

b. The condition of being revived.

2. A restoration to use, acceptance, activity, or vigor after a period of obscurity or quiescence.

3. A new presentation of an old play, movie, opera, ballet, or similar vehicle.

4.
a. A time of reawakened interest in religion.

b. A meeting or series of meetings for the purpose of reawakening religious faith, often characterized by impassioned preaching and public testimony.

5. Law Renewal of validity or effect, as of a contract or judicial decision.


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

I agree he has no reason to lie. Sadly, the fact that some people have no reason to lie doesn't actually stop them from lying. "There's nowt so queer as folk" as they say.

 

There's nothing ambiguous in Jim Glickenhaus's statement:

"What matters in the case of 0846 is that Ferrari in writing has confirmed That I "resurrected"
0846 on it's original chassis which they "binned" and that I have owned Ferrari P 3/4 chassis 0846 since 2000 and that fact is recognized by Ferrari, US and Itialian Customs and Motor Vehicle Authorities and those facts have been affirmed in a legal proceeding that can not be
Challenged by anyone ever."

I ask the question again to Jim Glickenhaus:

Where have Ferrari confirmed in writing that you resurrected 0846 on its original chassis?

 

Interesting that you redacted the "I can think of 25 million reasons to lie" comment. But still . . .

Defamatory and actionable as such.

 

Please let me make it clear again. I think ALL Jim's cars are fantastic and I appreciate very much his sharing of them with us on Ferrari Chat. However, I am bothered by this statement claiming that Ferrari has confirmed in writing that his car is a resurrection of the original 0846. I only ask for proof of this. If Ferrari have confirmed it in writing I will be the first to offer my congratulations.

 

I disagree that there is nothing ambiguous about the statement, "Ferrari in writing has confirmed That I 'resurrected' 0846 on it's original chassis." "Ambiguous" means there are at least two possible constructions of a statement. One construction is that Mr. G intended to represent that "Ferrari" has written the words "Mr. G has resurrected 0846." Another construction is that Mr. G put quotation marks around the word "resurrected" because this word was not uttered by "Ferrari" (as we have seen, the word originated with MM and the Ferrari Market Letter), and that Mr. G is using the word only as a shorthand for what "Ferrari" has confirmed regarding his car. We would use the term "scare quotes" to describe this usage of quotation marks.

My conclusion is that the "scare quote" construction is correct. (<== see, I just used "scare quotes" myself). If the intended meaning is that "Ferrari has confirmed in writing that I have resurrected 0846," it would make no sense to use the quotation marks. On the other hand, the usage does make sense as an intention to communicate that the word "resurrection" originated with someone else.

But I can tell that some people will never be convinced.

 

It is unlikely that Ferrari will officially acknowledge 0846 in the short term, since as far as they are concerned, they threw it away. They importantly have not said that the chassis is a replica and seem to acknowledge in oblique words and actions that 0846 does exist, regardless of their official position. I have explained elsewhere how the chassis was appropriated and reused. It was not JG that did this, but a chassis maker, used by Ferrari, looking for a shortcut. Ferrari did a deal with DP that came back to bite them to a degree and that it somewhat uncomfortable. This is why 0900 was reassigned by Ferrari, not in error IMO. In fact, after using all 0x00 numbers, they skipped the entire 09 series in its entirety. What JG did do, was identify (correctly IMO) that what he purchased from DP was indeed not built as a P4 chassis as the other two were. The facts are that the chassis had a history prior to DP and that history is now viewed as important. Better that it exists than to have been lost as other chassis the Ferrari threw away. Even cars that are acknowledged replicas (Ferrari lancia d50 or 156 F1 cars) are appreciated as important historical representations when they are well done. The rest of the demanding proof and ax grinding is only so much bluster and time wasting. Go inspect the car in person and report back. Many have, myself included.

 

Why should he provide any evidence to you?

 

It's not to me in particular but to the populous of the forum in general. There's a lot of interest in the car, and deservedly so. It's apparent that Jim is not making this claim for financial gain but if Ferrari have confirmed in writing that he has resurrected 0846 on its original chassis it will change many people's perception of the car including many sceptics. Without any evidence such a perception changing claim just adds fuel to the sceptical fire.

 

Even though you Steve are now on my ignore list, I'll say one more comment.

Nobody can in writing confirm Jim's car is 100% definitely #0846. There is an enormous amount of evidence indicating it is but Ferrari, Jim, other experts cannot make this conclusion because it is impossible.

Why, because a chassis is just pieces of metal and while it is not a P4 chassis and definitely a P3/4 one, there is no way of proving that it is. You cannot do DNA sampling on metal, all you can do is confirm the type of metal, not its history.

Jim has never said otherwise and has provided all the evidence to us and Ferrari, and Ferrari were convinced enough, after an investigation (yes this happened), to put the car and Jim's ownership in the "my garage" section of their web page.

Please move on. You are wanting Jim to say something I believe for an alternative motive ... I wouldn't say it either.
Pete
ps: There are lots of historic cars where this is the case, lots ... all you need is a gap in its history

 

I don't think I'm alone in saying this but the forum in general doesn't need anymore evidence.

I don't think I'm alone in saying this either, you're the only one that does need more evidence.

We have all looked at the facts and EXTENSIVE disclosure that Napolis has provided and are all convinced this is in fact 0846 resurrected in the best possible craftsmanship available.

We are all thankful that the car was not lost and that Napolis took the care to get the job done to the standard that it has been done.

We are also thankful for how cool and open he is with his cars instead of stashing them away.

If Ferrari did not believe he was the owner of 0846 would they have cast the uprights?

CAN I GET AN AMEN!!!

 

I must admit to having a problem accepting that the chassis maker, said to be Vaccari & Bosi, Ferrari's main supplier of chassis for many years, would take a fire damaged and written off chassis from a skip to save work. This chassis suffered a major accident at the Targa Florio in 1966 where the front of the car was said to have had major damage; another accident at the Targa Florio in 1967 and the fire damage at Le Mans 67. I just don't think a company of their standing would do that. You say the car had a history: 0846 had too much of a history for David Piper not to notice the repairs that it would have had.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

You have already said that you believe the chassis to be that of 0846????

Are you now saying that you don't think it is?

If not then what do you think it is?

And if they wouldn't do that then why was it repaired after it suffered a major accident at the Targa Florio in 1966 where the front of the car was said to have had major damage; another accident at the Targa Florio in 1967 and the fire damage at Le Mans 67. Why didn't they start from new after the 1966 Targa Florio accident?

 

In other words, even if someone could produce a piece of paper that says, "I, Ferrari S.p.A., confirm that JG has resurrected 0846," you would not accept the truth of that statement.

 

It is pretty simple Ockhams Razor:

It is fact that the chassis in Jim's car is built to the specifications of a P3 chassis, modified to P4 specifications. Only one chassis is built like this, the one in 0846.

It is fact that the chassis in Jim's car shows signs of prior damage, which corresponds with incidents in which 0846 was involved.

So the most logical explanation (Jim's car is built on the remains of 0846) is probably the truth.

Besides, perhaps Ferrari haven't confirmed Jim's car to be built upon the remains of 0846 (which is probably to prevent any liability, since they never meant for the damaged chassis to be used again because of safety reasons) but they haven't denied it either. Because they can't.

 

It was not so badly damaged as to be unusable. It simply was not in Ferrari's interest to repair it at that time. If you think the chassis maker would not take this shortcut, you have much to learn about Italian firms of the 60's and 70's.