The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

What you describe is not a bitsa. There is a clear continuity in your case.

 

Well, it is only a matter of degree. As far as I know, Napolis' car was recreated with original Ferrari parts, and its body panels were cast on the original forms. Tires, brakes, struts, engine, drivetrain, gears, interiors -- all were genuine Ferrari P car parts.

 

If Jim would sell, just IF, the value is only what someone else is willing to pay, and what the seller will accept, no more no less. Now, that person may have a narrow definition of the car and what it is, or a more liberal one. It is still phenomenal.

Perry

 

That is one way to look at it but "continuity" is likely a better imposition of a standard. Is there a sequence to the items as they were changed and replaced so that there remained a "whole" along the way.

 

This is well said, (there probably IS no "end") and to Steve:

This is why you cannot "demand to see" the proof, between Jim, and Ferrari.
You are not a principal, in the discussion.

As John H III points out, at some point, your continued efforts started yielding diminished returns.

No matter what Ferrari says about the VIN, from their archives, the proof is the car's continued unfettered travels around the world. It's invited back to Italy this year!

 

So, is it invited back to Italy based solely on the content of the letter of the 14th of March, 2016? Also, do you think it will then leave Italy and be coming back to the US based on the content of the letter of the 23rd of February, 2016?

 

It's invited to Sicily, based upon THEIR belief, in "what it is"......

It ships based upon it's current New York State title work.

 

But the letter of 23rd of February, 2016 says it cannot be legally designated SN 0846 which is what it's current New York State title work says it is. "It must be concluded that, for all legal purposes, SN #0846 has ceased to exist."

 

You are mixing up the title and registration (current and in good standing) with Ferrari's legal position.

There's legal paths here in Texas for "home built cars" to achieve legitimate road registration.

Mr. G's position is not quite THAT one, but there are so many hoops to jump, to get a pre 1980 VIN number recognized.

I had to do much the same, for my three Ferraris with FIVE digit VINs.
You end up in a long discussion with a License Plate Tax Office supervisor, and a Police inspection is required.

No idea what he did in NY.

 

We heard that some folks think any car built on any remnants of 0846 cannot (should not?) be called 0846. Their words are a matter of opinion, not law.

 

Yes, I read about the 1967 hoops that David Piper jumped through to help Mr Glickenhaus get the car road registered in the US in the 0846 pdf and in this thread.

 

At least we are onto "what to call it" and seemingly past "is it built in part on the remnants of 0846".

Thinking about the legal question, I'd guess that the last legal owner of 0846 would have some say in any legal fight over someone now calling a car 0846.

 

The implications of your line of questioning in this post could be extremely broad, and potentially explosive, would you mind fleshing out the question of why it could be invited in but possibly not returning from Italy.

I am personally aware of some implications that you hint of, that other posters in this forum will possibly be unaware of........ But will allow you to post in further depth if you want?

 

The 0846 plate affixed to the car and its legality within the US and Italy has been discussed here already. Forgheri wrote what he believes to be true, however the fact that Ferrari has not publically disputed the claim - instead they seem to encourage it by featuring the car & it's owner on the owner's website they have control of - so that's that concerning the legality of #0846. Since the Italian authorities have not seized and destroyed the car as it entered the country in Glickenhaus' ownership in the not so distant past - as they have been known to do with proven replicas officially disputed/denounced by the trademark holder - the legal aspect of this discussion is one of the few that can be called black and white. Those who can dispute it - legally speaking - have not, therefore it is what it is. This is old news.

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/135851136-post104.html
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Actually, I think there is a good chance there is even more confusion here than you have outlined.

The MF letter dated February 23rd appears to further clarify the statements made in the MF letter dated March 14th, and does so in both Italian and English to alleviate any misunderstandings from translation or language familiarity.

The writing of this "second" letter appears to have been prompted by the questioning MF received from Steve following the release of the March 14th letter and it was shared here by Steve on March 23rd with this post:

My reply that day seems to have gone unnoticed, but I'll copy it here since Steve continues to quote these dates and emphasize their importance as they were written:

So am I the only person who believes that the letter dated February 23rd was an error and should instead have been dated March 23rd? That chain of events certainly makes a lot more sense to this casual observer.

>8^)
ER

 

There is no dispute over ownership whatever its called, so I do not see any issues with Jims car going anywhere in the world. Ferrari scrapped the original, sold off/gave away that scrap and separately sold off any spares that were removed prior to scrapping. They are not making any ownership claims to any of the contents of Jims car, they are just saying the car they built and gave the designation 0846 no longer exists.

I imagine it's been registered as a Piper/P4 in NY as that's what it was imported as and under those documents it can travel abroad unfettered.

There are no other cars claiming to be 0846 and essentially you can allocate whatever VIN you like to a car, as long as no other car in that region/country is also registered with the same VIN then it's not an issue.

There are examples of cars around the world with the same VIN, AC Cobras etc but as they are all registered in different countries it has not been an issue, so far anyway.

As others have mentioned multi cars built from different parts of the same original car have been reunited in the past, the original parts then forming one car, and the remains being used to produce a replica, a D type is one of those known examples.

 

In the "Clarity" email that MF sent me last week it contained the letter of the 14th March, 2016 signed by James M. Glickenhaus as well as Ing. Forghieri's. This letter also has JG's address in the top right corner which is the correct place for the author/writer of a letter, not the recipient. MF's address should be in the top right. JG has published this letter everywhere without his signature, whereas MF's copy clearly has JG's signature on it.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Hi to all.
You cannot say: "This car is the one who wins this race in this year"
Even if you repaint the car it is no more physically the same.
You must say:"This car is the one who wins this race in this year..repainted!"
There are very few unrepainted Ferraris, so figure how many parts are changed througth years: engines, bolts, wheels, tyres and so on!
The fact is that to day we have cars with some parts that "some time ago" was in the car that wins a race....A percentage of them only.
So, as you say, often for gain money, they built two or more cars with parts of a winner.
The millions one would pay for those cars as "winners" are not a "story" for Ferraris fans, but for "billionaires" who collect and sold them without remorse!
Those winners of to day are a Dream, a way to Remember for Ferraris fans who look in the past years and fill their eyes with this Red, those glorious race numbers: 23, 14, 6,11 ......
As Dreamers we look tho those gosths with melancholy and excitement but we cannot touch their body thinking "this is that car.."
They run often on Avon tyres; even the very special #5893 rest in a Museum with another back body, not that of the '65 LM winner.....
I think J.G. is a dreamer too and all those words are unnecessary.
He rebuilt a Dream and show it running on the Daytona banks..we go to the old times; Bandini,"pure" race cars, Ford & Ferrari battle....thanks!
For that concerning the money go to speack in auction or barchetta site(quite inaccurate). Leave us with ours dreams; we don't care of bolts and nuts!
We don't have the money to buy them, we have only the Emotions they give us!
All the best,
Alessandro

ps sorry for my bad english

 

Seriously? Sorry, back to grade school for you. The layout of the letter, with the address of the recipient at the top and the signature at the bottom aligned to the right, is perfectly acceptable as a regular, standard letter format. There are multiple acceptable layouts, not just one!

 

Not vehicle ownership - trademark ownership.

A car that is not an original Ferrari (legally it is the chassis that matters) with a Ferrari badge on its nose is a fake Ferrari in the eyes of the law, and in the interests of trademark protection would be seized and destroyed by the Italian government, if Ferrari chose to denounce it as such. It does not seem to be the case.

Read the case of the Beligian recreation of the Sharknose F1 car, and their considerable fear of taking the car to Italy after it was completed, for this very reason. There was a happy ending to that one, too, IIRC.

 

Not acceptable at the school I went to I'm afraid.

 

I can see the letter dated February 23rd being a part of Forgheri's ongoing communications with Jim Glickenhaus which culminated in the final letter which was the only one Jim posted. In that sense it would fit the narrative in a chronological manner. When miurasv posted the February letter it was left in a manner that may seem as if that document was written after the letter signed by MF and dated sometime in March. IMO this chain of events is more likely than an accidental switch in months.

In the interest of clarity, it would probably be better if the entire chain of communications between Jim and Forgheri were posted, as that might give us a clearer path as to how, in the end (chronologically speaking), Forgheri seems to be convinced about the chassis being the real deal - something he not only signed, but also apparently declared in front of the Historic Targa Florio organizers. I can understand there are many reasons why it wasn't - mainly because IMO the final word by MF is quite clear, both conceptually and chronologically.

 

Perhaps you might consider that the narrow bounds taught at your school might not actually be universal? How about date formats, do you only recognize the one you were taught or do you tolerate that there are in fact multiple acceptable year/month/date formats in use globally?

Any chance you might consider that Italian business correspondence format standards taught in the 1940s might be different than your British 1980s instruction? Or will you still insist that the letter's authenticity is suspect because you personally aren't familiar with that letter format?