The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread | Page 319 | FerrariChat

The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Discussion in 'Vintage (thru 365 GTC4)' started by El Wayne, Nov 1, 2003.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. ginge82

    ginge82 Formula 3

    Jul 23, 2012
    1,361
    Europe
    Full Name:
    Art Corvelay
    Now THAT is hilarious!
     
  2. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    Er, strangely from you:
    Reference: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143154309-post3086.html
    Pete
     
  3. tongascrew

    tongascrew F1 Rookie

    Jan 3, 2006
    2,989
    tewksbury
    Full Name:
    george burgess
    There is a vast unwritten David Piper story.I don"t know when or if it will ever be told.He has always had a single minded dedication to his most unique and wide variety of specific endeavors.Enzo Ferrari saw something there when he turned over so much of the remains of the P series effort to him. Details of that meeting I guess will probably never be told which just adds to one of the great Ferrari mysteries.The outcome of that meeting is legendary which, for the moment, is what we get and the mystery of it is probably a good thing. Anyone who looks at life through a David Piper type lens will always be controversial but isn't that what keeps us on the edge of our seats. tonga'screw
     
  4. Vincent Vangool

    Vincent Vangool Formula 3

    Oct 6, 2007
    1,249
    Zanskar, Kargil district, Ladakh, India
    Full Name:
    Vincent Vangool
    #7954 Vincent Vangool, May 18, 2016
    Last edited: May 18, 2016
    So should we paint blonde hair on the Mona Lisa if we can get more money for it?

    Nothing wrong with profit but what you are advocating is profit without conscience, or with any respect towards history. It shows your true colors, money over passion.

    Should we kill all the GTE's to make GTO's? I'm sure there is profit in that.

    Laughable.
     
  5. rob lay

    rob lay Administrator
    Staff Member Admin Miami 2018 Owner Social Subscribed

    Dec 1, 2000
    63,553
    Southlake, TX
    Full Name:
    Rob Lay
    warning no personal attacks.
     
  6. tilomagnet

    tilomagnet Formula Junior

    Sep 26, 2010
    315
    Jeez, the same over and over again. Off topic and missing the point as usual.
     
  7. Vincent Vangool

    Vincent Vangool Formula 3

    Oct 6, 2007
    1,249
    Zanskar, Kargil district, Ladakh, India
    Full Name:
    Vincent Vangool
    #7957 Vincent Vangool, May 18, 2016
    Last edited: May 18, 2016
    How is this missing the point?

    This is in direct response to Paul 500's and Miura's statements.


    Is not the ENTIRE point of both the 0858 threads and the 0846 threads about the preservation of Ferrari History? I'll take it even one step further isn't the whole Vintage section about the preservation of Ferrari history, let alone Classiche, FCA Etc.

    How is discussing the preservation of Ferrari history off topic? I am pointing out that there is no double standard, that in one case History was preserved and in the other it was destroyed.

    It is entirely what these discussions are about.
     
  8. readplays

    readplays F1 Rookie

    Aug 22, 2008
    2,592
    New York City
    Full Name:
    Dave Powers
    ...

     
  9. PAUL500

    PAUL500 F1 Rookie

    Jun 23, 2013
    3,136
  10. PAUL500

    PAUL500 F1 Rookie

    Jun 23, 2013
    3,136
    #7960 PAUL500, May 18, 2016
    Last edited: May 18, 2016
    If the Mona Lisa was originally a blonde before being overpainted as a brunette then yes, why not, you are the one harping on about originality and preservation.
     
  11. Vincent Vangool

    Vincent Vangool Formula 3

    Oct 6, 2007
    1,249
    Zanskar, Kargil district, Ladakh, India
    Full Name:
    Vincent Vangool
    Why not?

    Because it is not the work of Michelangelo, it is the work of another artist at that point. If the work of original artist survived, even if it was not how the painting was first done, but was later changed by the artist, it is the work that survived and thus IS the work of the artist. Having someone else paint it is just recreating history. It is not the actual history.

    In other words you are not preserving history, you are recreating it.

    In Instances where say something has been destroyed you have to do the best you can to preserve what you can and recreate what you cannot preserve.

    This is clearly not the case here as what had been preserved was destroyed and replaced with a recreation.
     
  12. superleggera

    superleggera Karting

    Nov 9, 2003
    114
    Dry Heat, AZ
    historical note: The Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo da Vinci (at least originally!)
     
  13. PAUL500

    PAUL500 F1 Rookie

    Jun 23, 2013
    3,136
    Ha classic, but which version!
     
  14. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    Paul, everybody even my wife, who pretty much hates cars, could see that the body was very very wrong.

    The person who purchased 0858 paid the money because the Can Am body had already been removed and therefore they could "not be the naughty person who ruined a piece of history" and make themselves a P4.

    IMO Talacrest would have sold the car just as well minus their body. If it was done right I'm sure 0858 would still be wearing it ... again IMO
    Pete
     
  15. PAUL500

    PAUL500 F1 Rookie

    Jun 23, 2013
    3,136
    So on the basis of your theory then Talacrest/David Piper "destroyed" 0858 and now the new owner has done the best he can with what remained, and made it a P4 once more, the same thing you claim in relation to 0846, Ferrari destroyed it, someone tacked a few of its tubes onto a new chassis, sold it to David Piper who sold it to Jim who " discovered it" and turned it into the car you cherish today.

    So stop moaning about the past life of 0858 and appreciate what it is today!
     
  16. PAUL500

    PAUL500 F1 Rookie

    Jun 23, 2013
    3,136
    Its all pretty irrelevant now anyway, as the car no longer wears the Talacrest body!
     
  17. Vincent Vangool

    Vincent Vangool Formula 3

    Oct 6, 2007
    1,249
    Zanskar, Kargil district, Ladakh, India
    Full Name:
    Vincent Vangool
    #7967 Vincent Vangool, May 18, 2016
    Last edited: May 18, 2016
    Dumb mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. And appreciate the intended comedy of you poking fun at what I (originally)(historically) said.

    Dumb mistake but the point still stands.

    As in the version done by the real artist is the one that preserves history.

    Am I wrong?

    No. You are wrong as the car did survive through time and Talacrest butchered it as I originally stated, and not just once but twice. 1st time being when they destroyed the Can Am version and the second time being their far miss of an attempt on recreating a P4 body.

    I am talking about what Talacrest did as that is what your point originally was, how well Talacrest did in recreating the P4. I am not talking about the current owners attempt at correcting their mistakes.

    The difference between the two is huge and if you can't see that, oh well. One was not complete and made complete, the other was a complete survivor and was butchered for profit.

    And don't tell me what to do. I appreciate the history of the actual car, not what it has become.
     
  18. miurasv

    miurasv F1 World Champ

    Nov 19, 2008
    10,619
    Cardiff, UK
    Full Name:
    Steven Robertson
    #7968 miurasv, May 18, 2016
    Last edited: May 18, 2016
    As Vincent is obsessed with preserving Ferrari history it must be stated that as far as Ferrari and Ing. Mauro Forghieri are concerned the history of 0846 ended in the scrap yard in 1967. It is no more. 0846 is dead. Nobody can bring it back to life. Nobody can take the number 0846 for any replica P4 they may have built. Not even Mr James Glickenhaus.

    If Tom Meade actually had used part of the front, percentage unknown, of the scrapped chassis to make a new chassis he didn't do it with the intention of claiming it to be the 1967 24 Hours of Daytona winner. If it had been used it should not have been, as Ferrari have stated. If someone later comes along and claims the chassis to be 0846 and the 1967 Daytona winner then this is actually perverting the course of Ferrari history, NOT preserving it.

    All the above is irrelevant anyway as the car has nothing of 0846 in it.

    For those that may have missed or have chosen to ignore it, after looking at the pictures of the chassis, Ing. Mauro Forghieri has stated that the Glickenhaus chassis is not the one he took to Daytona for testing. It is therefore not the 1967 24 Hours of Daytona winner. He has stated that the rear of the chassis has been made new and with details (not discussed here on FerrariChat before) that would not have escaped the chassis builders of the real P4s. It is at the front of the chassis that has even greater differences to a genuine P4. He refers to the Glickenhaus car as a false P4.
     
  19. nerofer

    nerofer F1 World Champ

    Mar 26, 2011
    12,082
    FRANCE
    Now That he is going in your direction again, he is again the "ultimate witness"; laughable.
    He is still a 80 years old man, a genious who has done so many Great cars in his life That his memory may not be at its best on everything, as it has been patently proved on This case.
    Take his observations with due reserve, they do not prove anything.
    Rgds
     
  20. greg246

    greg246 Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Jun 2, 2004
    26,598
    #7970 greg246, May 19, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  21. miurasv

    miurasv F1 World Champ

    Nov 19, 2008
    10,619
    Cardiff, UK
    Full Name:
    Steven Robertson
    Ing. Forghieri has reminded me in his communications that he is 81 years old and his memory is not always the best. That would be normal for anyone's recollections of 50 years ago. That I had questions for him did not mean that I disputed the fact that he is the "ultimate witness" as the head of the team that designed the car. However, for you to diminish his observations as not proving anything is absolutely pathetic.

    I notice that you did not say anything about his signed letter to Mr Glickenhaus not proving anything. Very telling that.
     
  22. nerofer

    nerofer F1 World Champ

    Mar 26, 2011
    12,082
    FRANCE
    As said by others, if There is one person who was in an akward position after That letter, it was You and your silence was indeed telling. As for myself, I put all statements from Forghieri at the same level.
    Rgds
     
  23. miurasv

    miurasv F1 World Champ

    Nov 19, 2008
    10,619
    Cardiff, UK
    Full Name:
    Steven Robertson
    #7973 miurasv, May 19, 2016
    Last edited: May 19, 2016
    You put all statements by MF at the same level but you only challenge/diminish the worth of his observations when I have something to say. Yes, OK.
     
  24. nerofer

    nerofer F1 World Champ

    Mar 26, 2011
    12,082
    FRANCE
    That is not true; what I challenge is your absence of logic and elegance, or grace, when his first letter said the car was indeed 0846. And then, your obstination to have him reverse his statement because it was not suiting your purpose. I have said a long time ago That I consider your methodology flawed, and This has been amply demonstrated.
    As for the car itself, I am of the opinion That the "smoking gun" Will never be found. All information from Forghieri, whatever he states, is no proof in one way or the other.
    Rgds
     
  25. miurasv

    miurasv F1 World Champ

    Nov 19, 2008
    10,619
    Cardiff, UK
    Full Name:
    Steven Robertson
    You have your facts wrong. MF has never said the car was 0846. You are obviously not paying attention. The number 0846 has been deleted by "mother" Ferrari and nobody can use this number. Even if the car did contain a portion of the front of the chassis, which it doesn't, MF considered the car a replica due to it having no Ferrari number.

    MF reversing his statement has nothing to do with my obstination but due to him actually seeing the pictures of the chassis, whereas previously he had not, which has allowed him to see details enabling him to come to conclusions and say what he has said.

    We have statements from MF, the head designer of the car, that you dismiss as no proof. You are very disrespectful. Who may I ask would you consider a statement from that you would consider as proof?
     

Share This Page