The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Hi guys,
could anyone please send me Jim's PDF about 0846 since I can't download it anywhere else?
Many thanks in advance and please feel free to contact/send using my email address: [email protected]
Best,
Gab

 

http://www.ferrarichat.com/0846project.pdf

 

Thanks so much!
Gab

 

Piper may have had to use somebody else other than Vaccari & Bosi as they may have only been able to build one chassis for him as he only had Ferrari approval for one. I am told there are chassis builders in the UK who have the ability to have built the other ones for DP. I really cannot see that V & B would jeopordise their relationship with Ferrari by building more or taking an unsafe chassis from the skip to save work. It's absolutely preposterous.

That Jim won't answer valid questions regarding information contained in his 0846 pdf speaks volumes.

 

Very interesting question this, perhaps someone in Wales got out his collection of books and welded up on in his garage one Sunday afternoon.

 

Auction descriptions are notably the final definitive word and gospel aren't they.

Perry

 

May have, and proof that he did, are two different ballparks. If you really want to know what this frame is, figuring out who built it, why, and how will help you get to the truth.

So you believe Piper would be willing to jeopardize his relationship with Ferrari by doing this even though he knew V and B wouldn't due to they thought it could? Sounds a bit absolutely preposterous to me?

If the auction description is not heresay and the words are that of David Piper, do you feel he is being fraudulent in the auction description by stating it is a P3/4? After all, you allege with absolutely zero facts or proof, that the frame was built by him to be a P3. It was then modified by him to accept a P4 sized motor. Since you believe the work done is not a total transformation to P4 engine tubing how can you consider this to then be a P3/4 as it was originally modeled as a P3 and was not transformed to how it was done in the real P3/4? It therefore, even if started out as a real P3 cannot be considered a transformation to P3/4.

Or do you feel that David was being fraudulent in his SIGNED letter you posted above stating the cars racing history and listing the car as a 1967 FERRARI 330 P4? If the frame was as is in the auction and is listed as a P3/4 there how did it magically become a P4 when he sold it?

And why does he consider it to be a Ferrari? The argument is that his 0900 is a Ferrari due to he had a serial number and the frame was built by Vaccari and Bosi. Did he consider the same for this frame due to this was also built by Vaccari and Bosi?

Just wondering if he is being fraudulent in his auction description or the signed letter stating the cars history as a Ferrari P4? I don't think we have to argue that a P3/4 and a P4 are two different cars?

The volumes it speaks is that after ten years of having to spend his time trying to answer open ended questions only shows that he knows it is a waste of time to do so. It is time for us to do our own research rather then look to him to do all the work. After all you don't believe in anything he says so why should he waste his time? He knows trying to be forthright only leads to endless questioning by fanatics and I'd have to guess they guy has better ways to spend his time. I doubt anyone here, with the exception of you, blames him for that.

If you propose this is not the real frame then the burden of proof is your duty, not his.

You see Jim believes 0846 is a P3/4 due to his extensive research. For you to make a claim that the frame is a replica requires you to do the same. If not it is just speculation and the validity pales in comparison to what Jim has done to reach his conclusion.

Frankly, the fact that you are basing your opinion on absolutely zero fact or proof but on speculation and conflicting heresay is what really speaks volumes.

 

JG has stated clearly why he out of this thread. He has shared a massive amount of information. The way you obsess over 0846 like a jilted ex girlfriend also speaks volumes. Your initial fence sitting and eventual mud slinging of 'replica' has been beyond cowardly.

It appears that JG now deems your obnoxious spamming as not worth his time. I don't blame him.

 

Far be it for me to weigh into the debate I would argue that you have started a theme that I will continue.
What proof do you have that V & B didnt build the chassis?
Does this meet the same level of proof that you have asked others to reach?
Just asking....

 

Splendid room to continue speculation ... English builders or probably Vaccari & Bosi built the chassis to accept different kinds of engine and - may be - used some scrapped chassis remains without an number and identity. Very practical and perfectly unspectacular in Italy. But this creation is certainly a DP P4 with chassis number #0003 and not Ferrari's #0846.

 

A number of posters seem to forget that David Piper sold this car as a replica P4 and never made any claims what so ever that this example was sanctioned by or was ever based on an original ferrari.

 

I'm saying that he sold it as a P4 and not as a P3/4 in which he signed a document stating such. A document not written by a second person. This is a signed document as to his belief of what he was selling.

Although...

As Miura takes every definition to its exacting extent, one would have to argue that by his signed description he is indeed stating this car is a 1967 Ferrari 330 P4. Nowhere in this document does it mention replica. Anyone who reads this letter as a legal document would Conclude that Piper is selling a 1967 Ferrari 330 P4 that he acquired in 1974.

I, on the other hand, am not looking at it that literally for now, I am just looking at it as the construction type of this car, to his knowledge, was a P4. Whether he thinks it's a replica or a real Ferrari is not my point here.

 

The Doug Nye description of DP2 (P4 0900) in the catalogue of the 1987 Christies auction states that the chassis was built by Manicardi e Mesuri, the original suppliers to Ferrari of the sports protype chassis, not Vaccari & Bosi.

Does anyone know anything about Manicardi e Mesuri?

 

Jim knew exactly what he was buying from David Piper, I have never read anywhere he felt hookwinked by the deal. He believed though it was far more than just a replica/recreation built up from mainly original parts and was therefore getting a bargain. Whatever was written on the paperwork was no doubt just a formality.

It was what it was, Jim is the one who wants it to be something else, and good for him if it turns out to be true, but the smoking gun is yet to be found, which is proof positive that those engine mounts were modified in period by Ferrari or its supplier. At the moment its a case of one plus one equals ?

 

I'm not saying he did. My belief is that at the time of sale both parties looked at this car as a replica.

I'm just highlighting that taking things too literally versus logically can lead to false conclusions. The letter most likely means a replica of a P4.

My only question there that has not been answered is, why is the car a P3/4 in the auction description, then a P4 later in a signed paper?

I think proving, or not proving, how and why a replica frame was made this way, takes a lot out of the one plus one.

 

If Jim no longer wishes to contribute to this thread (and I can fully see why he wouldn't want too), is it really worth keeping it open at this time?

I'm sure if some new evidence once way or another comes to light it can be reopened in the future, but for now it just seems to be sucking the life out of the vintage section.

 

Here here well said.

 

I disagree. This thread is not stopping anyone contributing to other topics in the vintage section or starting new ones.

 

fully agree
Moderators think about it.

 

What will happen when one topic seems to have more interest than the others again? The same thing happened with the market values thread. The thing is, the value and high cost of classic and vintage Ferraris, or any Ferrari for that matter including modern and new ones, is such an integral part of their raison d'etre and ownership factor that in considering and discussing them this fact cannot be separated. The value or high cost is part of the Ferrari enigma. I believe interest and contributions have declined since the separation of the topics for the vintage market from the main vintage section which was evident before the revival of the 0846 thread.

 

For me statements like this show disrespect for valuable contributors with interesting Ferraris and stories. There is obviously debate which is healthy, but the passion shown is excessive and probably discourages participation.

If this was directed at me, I would leave and not come back, life is too short.

Just my 2c

 

Yes. Disrespectfull and pathetic!
Hopefully no one contributes anymore.
My last post here in this thread.

 

But Jim did contribute recently...keeping in mind that "recent" is all relative (look at the date of post #1)...

Jim posted the latest piece of the story...the alleged death-bed confession of Tom Meade as relayed by a third party.

Other posters twisted that into a Letter from Tom Meade...one person's fact eventually became a very dodgy story that probably shouldn't be included in the fact column.

There have been references court rulings in Italy and the US that don't exist...etc.

There IS a lot of emotion mixed in...but, there are also some people who are focusing on facts AND the metal. It is true that the metal must be inspected...the facts must also be kept straight. IOW, this thread is still serving a good purpose.

There are dozens of times this thread could have been put to sleep...a great deal would be missing from the story if that had happened. If it is distasteful to anybody, I suggest simply not reading it.