330 GTC 9939 on BaT

Numero Interno

Hmmm...

 

That is OK.

Marcel Massini

 

Part of the homework is to have a look at the 330 GTC in the 22 January 2011 RM auction in Scottsdale/AZ, Lot #305, which at the time used the ID of 10199...........

Marcel Massini

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The service invoice for when the car was submitted for Classiche certification clearly shows the vehicle ID was entered as 10199, but then is crossed out with a hand entry of 9939. Hmmm!

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I've done the homework assignment. Per the 2011 RM auction:


RM Auctions Arizona 1/20/2011: LOT: 305 Estimate: $220,000-$250,000 US Chassis No. 10199 AUCTION RESULTS: Lot was Sold at a price of $195,250

The 330 GTC offered here, chassis 10199, was originally equipped with optional air conditioning and finished in Evening Blue. In June 1967, it was delivered new through official Ferrari dealer M.G. Crepaldi to the first owner, who was a resident of Milan, Italy. On September 10, 1968, it was serviced and maintained at the Ferrari Factory in Modena, with the odometer showing 20,252 kilometers (12,584 miles). In 1971, 10199 was exported from Italy to the United States.

Its second American owner was Ralph Kent Cooke, who was the eldest son of Jack Kent Cooke, the famed Canadian media mogul who achieved his greatest and most enduring fame as the builder of the Los Angeles Forum and as the owner of the Los Angeles Kings, the Los Angeles Lakers and eventually, the Super Bowl-winning Washington Redskins. From 1961, Ralph Kent Cooke worked as an advertising and broadcasting executive and became an accomplished racing driver who went on to two Le Mans starts and drove such IMSA-spec racers as the Porsche 935, Lola T-600 and T-610 with the likes of Brian Redman, David Hobbs and other notables during the late 1970s and the early 1980s.

In 1978, Ralph Kent Cooke sold 10199 to Sarah Boyers, who owned it until 1992, the same year it was acquired by Conner Mallott of Spokane, Washington, a noted private collector. At that time, the car was finished in silver with black leather upholstery and red carpets and advertised in very good running order with a strong engine and a recently rebuilt gearbox.

At some point, the 330 GTC was refinished in black, and the original engine block was replaced with a new unit. In June 2008, Neil Jaffe, a resident of Marina Del Rey, California, acquired 10199. In 2009, the current owner purchased it and treated it to a major service, before placing it in a climate-controlled garage in Florida.

The 330 GTC has only been driven about 100 miles since being purchased, and the owner is currently reducing the size of his collection. Showing about 100,000 kilometers (62,000 miles) today, 10199 is complete with original tools, an emergency window-winder handle, and a reproduction owner’s manual. Honestly presented, this very fine 330 GTC is a great example of one of Ferrari’s best-performing grand touring cars from the late 1960s.

 

24 October 2007 is the date of the first application (certification).
8 June 2016 is the date of the actual certification.
More than 8 years in between, go figure.
The ID tag today is a reproduction by Classiche.
And more....

Marcel Massini

 

Now that's not shady...

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

So which serial number is correct? 10199 or 9939?

If 9939 is in fact the correct and verified serial number, that doesn't seem like a huge deal. It makes the history a bit "interesting" and probably pushes the price down a bit, but not much. If 9939 is in fact an incorrect number, that does seem like a huge deal.

 

Is my understanding right that you consider cars with theft history just "a bit interesting"? Understatement?
There is more than one GTC out there that has ID problems.
Every owner who is aware of such problems is well advised to solve all issues, with the help of Ferrari Classiche in Maranello and all authorities needed, of course.

If you have the choice between two virtually identical/very similar GTC's, one with quite "an interesting history " (to put it mildly, as you say) and the other super clean with zero issues or potential question marks, which one would you choose? Both same color, both Classiche certified. Which one?

As for the price "probably being pushed down a bit", how much would that be? Just 5 Grand or rather 20 percent less? Quite a difference, I say.

Disclaimer: I have no horse in this race. Zero, nada. Not at all. I only offer my private personal opinion.

Marcel Massini

 

I guess my answer to that is that, if the numbers are clarified and are now verified to be correct, and the story understood, then I am more concerned about the condition of the car itself. So I might pay slightly more for a no-stories car, but perhaps less than for a no stories but poor condition car.

On the other hand, if the numbers are in question and might not be valid, then that is a big red flag, and I probably wouldn't touch it at any price.

 

It's virtually certain that the car sold by RM in 2011 as 10199 and the car offered on BaT as 9939 are one and the same. Photos from RM show incorrect fuel lines at the fuel filter and an incorrect voltage regulator (?) mounted on the firewall next to the fuel filter. They also show a chrome fire extinguisher on the passenger side of the cockpit and placement of the pininfarina nameplate from the "radio delete" panel on the center console above the radio. These identical features can be seen in the BaT photos. It's not likely that these similarities are by chance.

Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

Photos from RM show that both the data plate and chassis frame member are stamped with 10199, whereas BaT photos show 9939 stamped in both places, presumably by the Classiche Department. So which car is it? We know that 10199 had its engine replaced. Did it receive the engine from 9939? And would that mean that Classiche washed away the identity of the remainder of 10199 in favor of that of the engine it had? What became of the original chassis of 9939? And, of course, this raises the oft debated question of what is the true provenance of a Ferrari - that of the chassis or that of the engine?

 

Chassis as per international convention.

 

Telaio forever. Speaking of which...

 

I see what you did there, Dale.

 

Thank you very much, George, for your excellent homework.
Maybe now people being to realize how important it is to do it prior to any purchase.
It certainly is NOT about badmouthing a specific car. It is simple due diligence. After all we speak here about US$ 500/600/700 Grand. A ton of money, even if for some this might be just lunch money.
The ID tag with 10199 on it (post 28) is fake, a poor repro done years ago, and not by the factory. It is now gone.
It is so super important to always have a continuous, un-interrupted chronological history from day one to today to be sure that all is good and clear.

Marcel Massini

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Actual chassis number stamping on frame, front right.
Compare metal plate, stamping and fonts, and also especially the welding seam.
Current pic of 9939. Clearly the entire plate is new and has been welded in later (after another one had been cut out).

Marcel Massini

Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

A GTC using "10199" was last seen on 23 March 2018 with Mr. D. of Lumellogno (Novara), Italy.

And re my post #40 (two hours earlier):
Word correction:
....Maybe now people BEGIN to realize.........
Apologies for my typo or auto correction.

Marcel Massini

 

Just to be clear, you are saying 9911 is an example how it should look, right?

 

9911 and 9869 for sure, yes.

Marcel Massini

 

whew!!! You had me worried for a second.

 

Why?
No worries please.
9911 has no theft history at all. Just be happy and enjoy.

Photo 1 in post #41 shows the NEW plate 9939, done recently, not 1967. And welded in recently with a super heavy thick welding seam not normally seen on a 330 GTC.
That's why I said compare that photo with the others I posted further below.

Marcel Massini

 

So it appears all but certain that what is now certified to be 9939 actually has the chassis from 10199. From the RM auction of 10199, a photo enlargement of the chassis plate:

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

No, it is not that easy.
The car currently for sale on BaT with S/N 9939 has body number C0274 (stamped on top of pedal box) and that is the correct stamping with the correct fonts and it is the correct body number for 9939 (per factory records). Photo below.

Chassis number 10199 has body number C0315 (per factory records) stamped on the top of the pedal box but I have been unable to verify and photograph that.

When a car was stolen, thieves often changed/overstamped/restamped the chassis number, the ID tag, sometimes also the engine number but almost never the internal engine block number and also not the often hidden body number (simply because they had no idea that such a number exists as well, somewhere on the car, and it would have required much more effort to change an ID quickly). A body number can be very helpful to find out the true original identity of car.

I therefore believe that the car currently on BaT is the real (first and original) 9939 which after the November 1969 problem in Brescia used for decades the identity of 10199. Even at the 2011 RM Scottsdale auction (when in fact it was 9939). Only recently this car was brought back to its original identity 9939. However, this required several new stampings on various components, new tags, etc. But the early history in Italy should not be simply wiped out and made forgotten. This is what some people try to do........... It is a bit like a tattoo that remains forever. All this is part of the history of that particular car. And it is good to know, extremely important to research and do the due diligence, the more you know about a particular car the better it is. We talk about old cars here, GTC's are now more or less 55 years old (some fchatters are not even half that old!) and lots of things have happened during this long period, good and bad, but former problems such as a crash, fire, theft, etc. should not be wiped out, left out, made forgotten or hidden. Full disclosure is always best. Always.

Just my 0.2 cents. Others may have a different opinion.

Marcel Massini

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

One last (?) question: The 2011 RM auction description states, for what was then thought to be 10199, that "the original engine block was replaced with a new unit." The Classiche certificate states that the engine was not replaced. Does that imply that the original 9939 engine was in the car in 2011 (having been in it since the car was built) and that the then owner and RM believed the engine was non-original because of the S/N discrepancy? Or had the engine in fact been replaced at some point and Classiche decided to let that slide?

 

I am guessing they thought it was a non-original engine because it should have “matched” to 9939, but didn’t. But in fact it was original after all due to the impersonation of 10199. Guess of course and I’m curious to see Marcel’s response. This has been fascinating to watch, as someone just getting into a potential classic Ferrari purchase down the road.