The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Wax, could the reason for Jim not giving you the earlier document to post be that he didn't want anyone to know the above information?

 

It's on his Facebook page.......not exactly a "secret location"

 

He didn't post it through Wax here or the other guy Drive550???

Please post a link to the FB page. What date did he post it?

 

I forgot....you have to "friend" Scuderia Glickenhaus.....then you can see everything.....I don't think he's even posted in here in some time.

He's busy with the race team.....two cars will do that.

 

Are you saying he posted the 6 point document in Italian and English dated the 23rd of February, 2016? I can see he posted the short letter dated the 14th of March, 2016.

He posted here through Wax and Drive550.

 

Thank you for the clarification, Wayne.

 

Steve:

I will try it again, just to ensure you aren't missing it. If you will not take the opportunity, then anyone who's reading this, who has any integrity and constant logic, will conclude that you might simply lack it.

The issue is beyond just what you and others think the car is or is not. The issue is whether you are abandoning the standard of proof you set forth simply bc you don't like the direction it is going. The issue is also not whether that standard was correct or not. (As I've said before , many believe your be all end all standard itself was indicative of your bias.). The issue as it relates to you, is not the standard, or the car, but whether you will pick and chose standards based what conclusion you want. The issue is your unbais professional integrity. You can confirm it either way as you've made quite a detailed record here.

I will not repeat the whole question (which I ask your to read and respond to) but just my last premable.

 

Ferrari officially struck 0846 off the books. Big deal. This is like Prince, who then became "the artist formerly known as Prince". Call it 0846 before Ferrari scrapped it, and the same chassis is now "the Daytona-winning Ferrari formerly known as 0846". According to Ing. Forghieri, it is the same chassis, therefore it is the same car. We just won't call it 0846. Like Lord Voldemort, sorry, "he who must not be named" (yes, a children's book)

Agreed?

With respect to the modifications for the engine mounts - I said before, who cares? With respect to the identity of the chassis, the engine mount revisions are irrelevant. Those modifications, performed by Ferrari or <not Ferrari>, do not change the identity of the chassis in any way. It genuinely doesn't matter who hacked up the engine mounts on the chassis formerly known as 0846 - it is still the chassis formerly known as 0846.

Is there any chance that you are on this witch hunt against the car formerly known as 0846 because of your strong personal dislike for Mr. Glickenhaus? (quite evident from several of your posts today)

 

John,

I am certainly not questioning the veracity of Ing. Forghieri at all. I have the highest respect for the man. In my eyes he is the highest form of human being on this planet. The man is an absolute genius. Just look at all the fantastic cars he actually designed and oversaw the design of including the prototypes of which 0846 was one. The cars were technically superior and beautiful as well. Ferrari would not be what it is today without Ing. Forghieri. Nobody has contributed more to Ferrari.

How can you question my honesty and integrity? I have been completely honest in posting exactly what ing. Forghieri has communicated to me. He has proved that I was right to question the method that Jim's chassis uses to bolt the engine to the chassis. This was the main identifying feature according to Jim that his chassis was 0846. Ing. Forghieri has stated this is not the case and the solution used is not satisfactory as I thought. I got a beating on this site for stating this fact.

MF's emails to me seemed to myself and others to contradict what the short letter of the 14th of March addressed to Mr Glickenhaus meant. This is why I (wrongly) thought he had signed the letter in error. However, what we didn't know was that there was a previous 6 point document in Italian and English dated the 23rd of February, 2016 which goes a long way to clarify the emails Ing. Forghieri sent in reply to my questions. Jim Glickenhaus failed to post this absolutely essential document as it clearly contains information he did not want us to know. Instead he only posted the short letter which more suits how he wants people to perceive his car, without the negative information. Jim has again showed his true colours here.

Now I have an avid interest in the Ferrari prototypes that MF designed and I am extremely inquisitive about them. This inquisitiveness has lead us to the revelation from MF that some other outfit has modified the chassis of Mr Glickenhaus to bolt the chassis to the engine. MF has effectively said that he recognises that he modified the front end of the chassis slightly to identify it as the 1967 24 Hours of Daytona winner. Just because I have asked MF what he recognises on the front end of the chassis does not mean that I have double standards and questioning MF's veracity. MF hasn't said what it is that he recognises. Please forgive me for wanting to know what it is that he recognises. I really would like to know.

I am also aware that MF hasn't actually physically inspected Jim's chassis. He told me he saw the car a long time ago in the United States but to my knowledge he didn't look under the bodywork to inspect the frame. His document of the 23rd of February states that his expertise is based on documentation that's been made available to date. Again, just because I have asked what documentation he has seen does not mean that I am questioning MF's veracity. He sent me a copy of the 0846 barchetta page which contains a lot of misinformation. I also know how much provable BS has been written about Jim's chassis. You only have to look at the Wikipedia page to see this and please don't get me started on Jim's 0846 pdf. Because of this I would like to know what else he has seen for him to draw his conclusions. That I have a questioning nature does not mean I have questionable honesty and integrity.

 

You following Jim over to other forums when he stopped posting here, in an blatant attempt to troll him did that TBF.

 

Steve. Thanks for the response.

I think the admission that based upon the standard of proof you've offered, (i.e. MF's recollection and expertise), that at least part of Jim's chassis won Daytona in 1967, means that you are being consistent, and I think that's a good thing for your rep and the forum. Albeit that you are inquisitive to know more of why MF has conclusded that, you are not questioning MF's expert opinion that at least part of this chassis is from the car Jim believes it is.

Based upon your standard of proof (i.e. MFs recollection) you appear to be right about the rear of the chassis and Jim has merit to some claim regarding the front of the chassis. Giving a little, as you have, I think establishes some credibilty on your position.

Having spent the bulk of my career in very high stakes litigation, battling contested facts, diving into deep forensic analysis with experts, I always find it the best business strategy to be as objective as possible about my position, never to fall to in love with my position, or have too much pride in my argument, that it prevents me from being able reassess my risk of being wrong. I also believe that it's best not to unnecessarily antigonize a significant opponent and ride on merit on the high road. In that vein, I can humbly make a suggestion that you should refrain from calling Jim a 'liar' in a public forum. Offering some free advice, that's generally not a good idea. You might want to consider withdrawing that comment. Even in the spirit of good will.

 

Right here in your own post you say MF recognized the front frame mods as his, and that it is in fact the car that won Daytona in 67, formerly 0846. That is it, end of story, by your own hand.

Give it a rest.

Perry

 

I understand. It just seems to be a he said she said at this point. It probably won't end given the stakes and players. It seems badgering MF is a little excessive at this point. It would be nice for him to explain what mods on the front he did or oversaw. But, would that put an end to it? would it become black and white at some point?

Perry

 

If i may ...

One day, the car will be sold. If not by the current owner, then perhaps by the heirs.

When the car is offered for sale (perhaps in the distant, or not-so-distant, future), the owner(s) at that time will want to "argue-up" the value of the asset, and the prospective buyer(s) will want to "argue-down" the value of the asset.

In my opinion, the information that has been provided ... and continues to be provided ... in this thread will prove to be very valuable when that day arrives.

 

Thanks Rob. I fear I am one of the armchairs, but am interested in the story. As I do not have a Ferrari, I do admire them. They are just an object in the grand scheme of things and that is my perspective. I appreciate the insight and love the Ferrari discussions.

Perry

 

Bob,what you say here is right on the spot. Congratulations! I have entered this conflict ocasionally over the years. None comes close to David Piper when it comes to the P series Ferraris as well as many other superb race cars over the many decades. He is as unique they come, controversial to some. but certainly one of the great independents..One can disagree with him on occasion but few have done more single handily over the many years to to advance the cause of European motor racing. His unique reputation one to be equalled by only a special few. tonga's crew

 

From a market value perspective, I don't think there is a lot of doubt as to how it would be priced. It's a bitsa, and it will be priced that way-- considerably less than a "clean" P3 or P4, and more than a David Piper replica (although to be clear, even purely as a David Piper replica, it would still be worth a lot of money).

-- An armchair, and proud of it!

 

I would not be surprised if Jim has an iron clad stipulation in his will, that 0846 (and perhaps his whole collection) NEVER be sold. I believe he has said as much. He doesn't need the money. If his heirs ever want to part with 0846 for some reason (taxes?) then his will probably stipulates exactly where it will go. Most likely donated to a museum I would think.

 

Perhaps. But the future is hard to predict, as time and times change. I guess what i'm saying is this ... it's hard to make a definitive case that the true market value of a (highly publicized) asset *doesn't* need to be established.

Further ... i would also add that the value of other P3, P4 cars ... including replicas ... could arguably be impacted by the information in this thread.

So my vote is : let the debate rage on!

 

I can't help but to think of the number of times similar sentiments were expressed in the early 90s. Speculation was that nearly every GTO, etc. would disappear into a trust or museum...never to exchange hands again and rarely to be seen by anyone but ticket holders.

Never say never. **** happens/things change. Actions speak louder than words...and most importantly: life is what happens while we are busy making other plans.

 

My first Ferrari was a 355. About a year into ownership, I had a burn through on an exhaust, and needed a header replacement. Ferrari of Atlanta told me that the factory original parts were severely deficient in these two categories, and recommended "factory recommended" replacement parts. I used them and installed a Tubi exhaust. I also had to replace one of the side rocker panels, and had it fabricated at a local repair shop in Atlanta. My Ferrari was therefore, made of pieces and bitsa, but it nevertheless a Ferrari.

I corresponded with Napolis, and he told me that I was free to post the letter on F-Chat, but said he had not visited here in a while. He said he had not posted it here, but was glad to share it. By the time I had posted it, it was already on here--so it was pretty widespread as soon at Jim made it public.