The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Then don't claim that Piper built the frame when you have no actual factual information to back that claim up.

Problem solved.

Funny how you make the narrative what you want But don't back it up when it is not convenient. Hmmmmm....

 

I have nothing but respect for what they do and their knowledge but on this car I feel they are working off of opinion also.

 

The initial burden of proof lies with Jim Glickenhaus which has never arrived.

A man purchases a car. At the time of purchase, this car is represented to him to be a replica, built by the seller upon a replica chassis. In fact, this same car has been offered for public sale in the past and has always been represented to be a replica built upon a replica chassis.

This man later claims that the car he has purchased is NOT a replica, but is actually a long-lost, incredibly valuable racing legend.

The burden of proof in this case clearly lies with the man claiming his car to be the long-lost, incredibly valuable racing legend, and NOT with those who say that the facts fail to support his claims. After all, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.

So far, every shred of evidence the man has produced in support of his claim has been refuted. Of course, there will be those who choose to believe in the fantasy despite a lack of any supporting evidence, but they do so based on their faith and not the facts.

 

When you make the claim that Piper built this car from scratch that burden of proof falls on you.

So where is it?

Or is this just your own opinion?

 

I would be happy to but I'm not sure I understand where the disagreement lies.

Jim bought a car from David Piper which turned out to be something other than advertised.

0202A also turned out to be something than advertised.

The difference being Tom Shaughnessy knew what he was buying. Jim did not know but later discovered.

The similarity being the sellers were not clear about what they had for sale

No Sir. Absolutely not.
The point I was trying to make seems not to have been clear so I have restated it above in this post.

 

I have had direct discussions with the head of the IAC/PFA about this car. This discussion was held because the possessor of this car had made acceptance of the car for judging a condition of attendance. Since the event operated using the IAC/PFA standards and judges I chased this subject. The answer was that even if the frame did turn out to be 0846 the car is an assemblage of parts that did not now each other in period. At best this is a bitsa which lacks continuity of provenance.

I cannot speak for Marcel on this. On the other hand I can speak of a first hand conversation with Jess Pourret. For those that are not familiar with Jess he is a Ferrari historian. Author of THE book on the 250 GT Competition. Also a paid outside consultant of Ferrari Classiche. For those in the know, Jess Pourret is an unquestionable expert. The owner of the car in question knew I would be seeing Jess at an event and very much wanted me to pass along the pdf document with the desire of having Jess pass favorable judgement. That is not what happened. Jess knew the car and the story. It is absolutely not 0846. This information was subsequently communicated to the owner.

So, that is my first hand information.

Jeff

 

I have read the thread. The question is not if Piper built the car from parts. The question is whether the chassis was built by Piper from scratch utilizing all new material.

Although people may agree Piper built the car from scratch that is not is what is being discussed.

What is being discussed is the original building of the chassis.

Miura claims the chassis was indeed built by Piper from scratch utilizing none of the remains of chassis 0846.

Therefore the burden of proof falls on him to prove this, if he can't prove this then this is just his opinion and should be stated as such.

 

Does this mean he does not consider the car to be 0846 due to he feels it is a bitsa? Or because he is certain that the frame has no remains of 0846?

I think we can all agree that this discussion is not if the car is a bitsa. I believe this discussions main argument is whether or not this chassis was built with some of the remanents of the original Ferrari built 0846 chassis.

 

You clearly do not grasp multiple points.

1. We have here someone that has gone to great lengths to have this "thing" recognized by the ranking world experts as 0846 instead of the David Piper creation. Forget the public pronouncements, they do not match has transpired away from public view.

2. The burden is not upon Steve to disprove that this is the remnants of 0846 frame. The burden is clearly upon the one that wants recognition by the people that really count, not the peanut gallery. Some here seem to so want to believe that this is 0846 that they would put forward the possibility that aliens used a time machine to grab this from the scrap heap as a logical argument of coulda, woulda be a possibility to consider.

3. You are not one of the maybe 10 people in the world that has enough standing to question Jess and his access to all the factory records. If you do not understand the reputation of Jess then start doing your research then come back far humbler when you wish to challenge him.

4. What has been put forward by the IAC/PFA, again something where you are in the peanut gallery watching, is that the remnants of a frame without continuity of a car is not a car that is 0846. Without actual continuity as an assembly there is no provenance.

5. What Steve, contrary to the dreams of the fan boys, has been doing is shooting down the logic that has been used to create the some of authenticity of what has become a false storyline. It may be a very neat car that many of us would be proud to call our own but that does not make it more than a David Piper creation.

 

Fantastic. Point 4 should end the debate forever.


I can't believe I've been following this since 2003...

 

Good post.

But I must say the car is a bit more then a "Piper creation" it's about as close as it could get to the real thing.

Vincent, I'm not sure why you are not even open to a chance that Jim's car could be not what he claims it to be. Steve has produced some very valid questions, yet seems to always get the run around, and bashed because of it. Hardly ever a direct answer to his hard questions.

Maybe that's why he has adopted an aggressive writing style because he is constantly being bashed without and good rebuttal to his questions.

 

It does end the debate as to whether the Council recognizes Jim's car as 0846. Based on what Jeff is saying, they don't.

But the debate in this thread is whether or not the chassis JG bought from Pipes contains the remains of 0846.

 

I may be silly, but I'm heading back to the beginning of this thread and re reading it.

 

I would be fairly sure the reason Steve gets bashed would be because he has chosen to attack rather than question the car that we are all debating. All of the absolute claims to what it is and isn't are very difficult to prove so using language such as "All claims have been refuted" is rather brutal. Further, a large number of posters in the vintage section are rather in awe of Jim G due to his ownership of various vintage Ferrari's and want to see him remain here posting rather than chased away by a zealot.

MiuraSV may very well have a good point and his questions may need to be answered by authorities before anything about the car could be considered to be proven. But now posted to those questions have to be asked again and again, I would rather they simply remain unanswered until they indeed are. Whether they are answered or not will be up to Jim G and this thread needs another 1000 posts debating it backwards and forwards like a fish needs a bicycle.

If Jim simply claims he believes the car contains the remains of #0846 then everything else becomes immaterial unless there is another car with more material of #0846 that has an equal claim to the title. Yes or No?

Of the experts, Marcel has been quoted by Jim as saying a chassis matching this one was seen by him and was existing, possibly in the ownership of DP in period (didn't and possibly can't say it was this chassis FWIW). DP has no reason to state anything.

 

Just an aside (I won't participate in the discussion about the car itself).

The team that designed the P4, according to several sources, was:

Chief designer, overall responsability: Mauro Forghieri

Chassis designers: Malloli and Mike Parkes
Engine: Franco Rocchi
Bench test: Giancarlo Bussi
Gearbox: Walter Salvarini
Aerodynamics: Giacomo Caliri and Stefano Jacoponi
Additional ressource on the whole project: Giovanni Marelli.

Rgds

 

I think enough very knowledgeable people have re entered the debate in the last page or so with detailed, first hand information regarding this car to possibly end it for now and have the thread closed?

Would it not make sense to halt it for now, then as and when new evidence emerges this be presented to the mods and if valid have the thread reopened so that it can be added? and the new info debated?

 

When Jim put his pdf together some 10 years ago (!) he put together what he had found at that time. Since then he has restored 0854, 002c, built P4/5, maintained J6 and the Lola, bought the Dino and the Modulo AND buit and raced P4/5C and the SCGs, and more besides.

So he probably hasn't had time to update the pdf, taking out what has been altered by people who have gone back on what they said ....... ;-)

Steve keeps saying 'somebody should do this' or 'somebody must do that'.........WRONG. Nobody has to do anything they don't want to............but that doesn't mean their position is necessarily weaker. What Steve's way of putting things DOES do is annoy.

On the question of Huet, Pourret or Massini: I understand there is a 'situation' where a clique of owners of high-profile vintage Ferrari racing and sports cars to which Jim does not belong, who have indicated to FCA and Cavallino that if Jim's cars are featured theirs, will not be available - if true, this might well influence what is said publicly, either one way or the other.

I would refer folks to my earlier post where I pointed out that Marcel, the biggest hater of a fake there is, has posted his own photo of Jim's car labelled by him '0846', and has been photographed by others sitting happily in that car. More than that he may not feel able to do....draw your own conclusions.

Many things said by many authoritative people in articles, books and online in the past about this car have been proved to be mistaken by subsequent revelation of facts; so my mind is still open, only the balance of probabilities from PHYSICAL evidence leans one way.

Paul M

 

Absolutely correct also note that #0846 has been shown at many non FCA events such as the Quail, Amelia Island and the Greenwich concours, all top tier events and likely to pick cars for the enjoyment of all rather than the very few that read this thread and ask never-ending questions.

 

I love Napolis' passion for cars, and believe he is an asset to this board.

However, I try to treat him as any other poster here--I read his posts and judge him by what he says and does. No idol worship here.

On the subject of 0846, I treat it very clinically. Napolis has presented mountains of evidence--direct evidence, not circumstantial. Those questioning the evidence have not raised a modicum of doubt, primarily because they do not take on directly the evidence--the use tangential evidence.

If this were a fight, it would have been stopped a long time ago. Napolis' evidence and his presentation of it are so overwhelming as to make any "emotional" opposition to be futile. If his detractors want to present contrary evidence, so be it.

 

Well said

Members can calculate a "boredom index" for each thread by calculating the ratio of the number of views per thread with some predictable results.

Not surprisingly, this thread now ranks as the most boring thread ever created in the Vintage Section, with a boredom index of only 25.5 views per thread posted.

Even the long running sage of 0384AM, that some believe is well past its sell by date, is five times more popular than this one with an index of 136.5.

Maybe if we eliminate some of the contributors and their repetitive points we can get the index up to that of the early days or at least treble figures

K

PS: I am a great fan of Jim and his car what ever it is !

 

Not sure if you are serious honestly.

Again I dont think JG has any "detractors". As has been said so many times...extraordinary claims need to be backed by extraordinory proof. Im sure everyone would love to hear that 0846 has indeed survived. But some just choose to ignore any alarming signs that point to the contrary.

 

I have the phone number.......

 

The "mountain of evidence" has been shown to contain some dubious (at best) claims. It sometimes comes across as throwing anything and everything to see what sticks.

Jim has found the time to update the .pdf with Josh Lange's version of Tom Meade's "deathbed confession" ...another bit of dubious evidence that is convenient in some ways, but contradicts other bits of convenient evidence. One must realize that the .pdf is a fairly biased document with one goal...to prove that the chassis is 0846. It is not an unbiased presentation of evidence with the intention of letting one come to their own conclusion.

Jim has been fond of the term "Occam's Razor" but the reality is that the simple answer is that David Piper built some replica frames and sold one to Jim. Anything else requires twists and turns and stretches that stray from the simple. This still leaves wide open the possibility that it IS 0846, but just because one wants it to be the simple explanation does not make it so.

I don't believe that there is any "emotional opposition"...quite the contrary, I feel that there are some very reasoned arguments given that minimize or negate the evidence presented by Jim.

The analogy of a fight is interesting...lots of emotion. I prefer to look at this as a civil legal case where we are interested in factual material and how it tips the scales one way or the other.