All true. Bill's comment that the 1C on this car is too perfect and looks like it was done by Stan is absurd. Firstly Stan's is 01C and the one on this chassis is 1C. Secondly anyone with any powers of observation can easily see that this is NOT true. Compare the chassis stamping 1C to the one Stan made THEY ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. Bill's statement that the chassis doesn't contain any vestigial shock mounts is also disputed by other's who have inspected this car A LOT MORE CLOSELY than Bill has. Tom S' statement that the person who claims to have forged the chassis stamps 01C on the Wilbanks is sticking by his story remains un refuted and Bill has not posted photo's of the Willbanks car that prove that the Willbanks car "EXACTLY" matches the Colombo Chassis drawings. IMHO anyone who could make the following statement after looking at these two stampings is not seeing things as they are: "There is another number "1C" stamped on the top of the front cross member. The stamping is very small and very perfect. It is in a location that I have never seen a Ferrari chassis stamped before. Like his made up chassis plate, it looks possibly like something Stan added to the car circa 1967-1968." Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Hi Jim, Not sure why this is becoming personal and not trying to upset anyone here, only presenting photos and comments directly on what I saw and observed. The chassis plate on the "10S" car was made circa 1967-68 to facilitate the sale and identity of the car. Ed found it unattached in the door pocket of the car and mounted it himself. It looks like something you would have made at an engraving shop for trophies or something on that line. It looks cute but is really the one thing on the car besides the modern tachometer that looks totally out of place. The number "1C" stamped on the top of the front crossmember is on a welded on piece of polished flat steel between the two main frame rails. It is not stamped on the round stock frame rail sections. Where the number is stamped the area was cleaned, polished, stamped and then carefully painted. It has none of the rest of the crossmember "patina" and besides being of very small font and looking out of place, it is in a location I have never seen a Ferrari Chassis stamp before. I am asked professionally to examine stampings castings and numbers on a frequent basis. After speaking with Ed about this number he was very unsure about it saying only that he was pretty sure it was on the chassis when he got it. No one at the show who looked at it with me thought it looked proper. I asked Ed very carefully if it was ok to take photos and share them and he said it would not be a problem. I would otherwise not have ever shared or posted a photo of it. As for the frame itself, I do not understand how anyone could confuse this frame with one of the early first versions. It has none of the features or mounting brackets or drilled front and rear pick-up point holes or the rear sway bar assembly points. It is a late 1948 version frame at the earliest but probably more likely one built by Gilco in 1949 or 1950. As for Tom's friend who claims to have stamped chassis 010I to 1C or 01C... I have remained silent but obviously this now requires comment. When I purchased 010I, I did not purchase 01C or 1C. All of my pre-purchase checking on the car in the UK and the physical inspection of the car and documents told me I was purchasing 010I and nothing more. I spoke in detail with Sir Anthony who was both a good client and in this case had personal and valued information on the car. It was only after purchasing the car that in short order, Douge Nye, Godfrey Eaton and Sig. Rogliatti from Ferrari contacted me to inform me that the car I purchased use the original frame from 1C. The information was simply factual to them. Eaton and Rogliatti simply wanted me to examine, measure certain things and report my findings. Later Rogliatti and Amedessi invited me to bring the car in 1997 to the Ferrari Factory which I did. They spent two days just prior to the Monaco Grand Prix inspecting and evaluating the car. After the car arrived in the States we examined it. The chassis stamp 010I was easily seen in the "normal" place. After wiping it with some degreaser the surrounding gray frame paint turned dull silver around the chassis stamp. The frame was normal rough hewn or extruded steel but the chassis stamp was on top of what looked like a slug of silver. I called David Seistad in Hawaii for advise and explained what we had found. Using a small number one screw driver, the slug with the stamping was easily pried off. Below it was found in the original depression the numbers 1C or 01C and over-stamped the opposite direction was a very crude "010/I." Photos of the stampings before and after were published in a variety of places as they were shared with anyone who asked for them. I spoke in detail with Sir Anthony who was very surprised as his only information and recollection on the car was that it was simply 010I. It did however coincide and confirm what Nye, Eaton and Ferrari apparently already new before the car was even purchased. Today the as found stampings remain on the car and I saw them a few years ago when Willbanks showed the car at Pebble Beach. I do not know why someone no claims these many years later that they restamped the car for Sir Anthony. I have left a message for him but have not heard back as I would like to hear his comments and see if such a person might still work for him. What seems very strange is that the car was sold to all of its private owner's its entire life as 010I. At what point did someone apparently stamp the car 1C or 01C then re-hide with 010I again and why bother??? When I took the car in 1997 to the Ferrari Factory, there was no Classiche program and little interest in the older cars except to a few individuals. Rogliatti explained in a simple factual way that their records showed 1C and 2C were scrapped and had there frames used over again in 010I and 020I. My involvement with 01C/010I ended shortly thereafter. I am aware however that when Willbanks agreed to the restoration and certification of the car at Ferrari he did so with no promises on what they would find. When they had the car completely stripped it satisfied them completely that the frame was that of 1C. I am sorry if "10S" is not what everyone was hoping it would be. My thoughts and comments on it are my own and no one else is to blame. The same goes for 01C/010I. My regards to all, Bill Noon
Bill The only thing people care about here is what 1C/10S is and what it is not. The same thing that people care about here as to what 01C/010I is and what it is not. The 1C stamping you photographed is but one of two stampings on this chassis that read 1C. You seem to have missed the other one. Of course the Nowack chassis plate proves nothing EXCEPT that it clearly reads 01C and the two stampings on the chassis clearly read 1C and the 1C stampings were made by different stamps than Stan's 01C stamping. I happen to agree with Manny's post about the 1C stamping looking genuine. I have been told from a source I believe to be very credible that there is vestigial evidence of previous shock mounts. I've asked for photo's and if I receive them I will post them. I'm glad you're trying to get to the bottom of the person who still claims to have forged the 01C chassis stamping on 010I. Perhaps Tom S. can comment. I still await a photograph that proves that 01C/010I's chassis "Exactly" matches the Colombo chassis drawings as you have stated it does. Cheers
Is this Bamfords Shop? Why is this photo titled as it is? Is this the Willbanks chassis? If it is does it "exactly" match the Colombo chassis drawing? Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Negatives - resized [both barely displayed under 244.1 kb limit] - saved as .png [lossless - to maintain integrity compared to faster loading, but very lossy .jpg] In *this* layman's eyes; Neither "1" looks the same. "0" is "0" "C" is C" - not partial "0" Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Nor should they as the thought is that this chassis is stamped both 1C and 10S at different times and may have been two different cars as some believe 01C and 010I are and were. The point that I think is absolutely true is that the 1C is not stamped with the same stamp that Stan used to make the chassis plate that reads "01C". Best! Could this car have originally been an F1 chassis 1C and later Ferrari reused/restamped the chassis to build 10S? Could the cross brace X been added at that time? What is known about 10S? What is known about 1C?
Until I here back from Sir Anthony or one of his people, I really did not feel I had much further to add on this but with regards to Ed's car (10S), Stan's made up chassis plate used a drastically different size set of stampings (much larger) than the added "1C" stamp on the polished flat stock cross-member. As for the color photo of the bare chassis, I have never seen it before and do not recognize it. Sir Anthony did a partial restoration on 010I in 1970-1971. When I purchased the car, his assistant forwarded me only a single black and white photo of the car finished just prior to the car going to Jackman in 1974-1975. It still makes me question why someone would bother to stamp the car nearly 40 years ago "1C" only to hide it again. As I mentioned before until Ferrari and some independent historians got involved a dozen or so years ago, this car was always sold from moment to everyone including the current owner as 010/I. Its identity as 01C/010I is based on the chassis being re-used over again in the construction of 010/I etc...as recorded and repeatedly confirmed by Ferrari's documents and personal inspections and now restoration of the car. So as for the photo, I would tend to think it is not a period photo of 010/I but could be wrong as there is little else in the photo to help identify what, when and where. Warm regards, Bill Noon
"Stan's made up chassis plate used a drastically different size set of stampings (much larger) than the added "1C" stamp on the polished flat stock cross-member." Stan made that chassis plate when the Motto body was fitted to 002C and Stan was trying to sell 002C as the first Ferrari before he removed the Motto body from 002C. That plate was NEVER affixed to the chassis of 1C/10S it was affixed to the Motto body which was at the time attached to 002C. Stan removed the Motto body and sold it with the chassis plate he made stuffed into the door pocket. Ed found Stan's chassis plate and remounted it. Stan never owned this car (1C/10S) nor did he affix 002C's body to this car nor did he control this car at any time nor did he stamp 1C on this chassis as I've said in TWO places on this chassis. As for the photo I've posted. Is it 01C/010I's chassis or a chassis with the exact construction of 01C/010I? Best
For years a lot of Experts thought 1C/10S was 031S which it is not nor has ever been. Ed bought this car in 1968. The Motto body was already fitted. Stan's chassis plate was in the door pocket. He raced the car for years in the SCCA. He took it to a few concours where people told him he didn't deserve to own it because it wasn't pristinely restored. He did not re stamp any part of it. He discovered one of the 1C stamps years ago, not the one Bill found and photographed. He did not know about the 10S stamp until Bill discovered it. He only went to this concourse because a friend of his was putting it on and asked him to. The car is NOT for sale. Bill is not a Ferrari Historian. He rebuilt the motor himself and raced the car for years. He has no idea why people thought this car was 031S. In the process of racing this car for years he has come across vestigial shock mounts which he will photograph. What is 031S? Did it ever exist? What is the history of 10S? What is the history of 1C? One of the two 1C stampings on this car remained undiscovered for 40 years until Bill discovered it. The 10S stamping remained undiscovered for 40 years until Bill Discovered it. Many people are throwing BIG money at this car. Once again it is not for sale. I have NO involvement in this car. I am simply trying to answer interesting questions. Best 2 All
Since there are comments about vestigial traces on the chassis and other items about the componentry I have a question: Has the body been removed so that there has been clear unhindered access to look at everything? Has a component-by-component inventory been done so all the build codes can be evaluated? Earlier in this thread are are a few components mentioned with the build codes but not item by item. Are there any components that would not have originally had build codes on them or, as in the case of the rear axle, the items have been replaced with a non-Ferrari parts so the codes are long lost. Jeff
As I understand it no. The owner saw no reason to inspect the car as he bought an old Ferrari and simply wanted to race it which he did. In the course of working on it he noticed one stamp 1C and the vestigial shock mounts but as you can see the car is covered in grease and was used as a race car. I know Bill didn't find the steering rack # but it's being looked for. Best
You should know the history of your own car better, in 1968 the Motto body was still fitted to 002C. Check "Prancing Horse" No. XXVIII from 1970, you will find Stan's sales advertisement for this body.
Who is the current owner, and how many owners has the car had? And, technicaly what year is the car? Pardon the ignorance. _J
I will check on that but I think I Ed told me he bought the car in 68 and the body was attached. Even if he's wrong about the date he purchased the car I'm not sure that that matters. He definitely said the Motto body was attached when he bought the car. The Motto body isn't the issue. The chassis is. You still think it's 031S? What do you think about the 10S stamping? You think it's forged? You think the 1C stamps are forged? If so by whom and why? I can see the 1C stamps being important but how could the 10S stamping vs 031S be important? Remember that was not uncovered until last weekend. Was there a car 1C? Is it's history known? Is there a car 10S? Is it's history known? What's up with 031S? Could this be an F1 chassis to which the cross brace was added later? Is the photo I posted a photo of 01C/010I's chassis at Bamfords? Why do later chassis seem to have the center brace?
The current owner has owned the car for over 40 years. I'll ask what the prior ownership history as he knows it was.
All this and more on the next episode! Jim, from what you are saying and the thread has shown is that this car has many different and curious stampings. Could this really be a mix-match car? In that case, what happened to the original? The thought that the 10S stamping is in fact real is a very exciting one. It hints that there is more to the Ferrari history than we know. _J
I'd say not Bamfords shop, based on the stickers on the snap-on box, bottles and such in the photo i'd guess it was a US shop in the mid/late 1990s. This photo's from pg 10 of "Ferrari, Fifty Years on the Track" by Starkey, Renwick & Olczyk. It's flanked by a photo of the engine compartment and on the following page it's shown as 01C/010I, so yes, it is the Willbanks car.
I scanned the 4 page pamphlet I have that was passed out when 002C was shown at a show in the Haptons around 1984/85. I cannot upload these to F-Chat as the file size is too large and I am not finding the controls on my computer to resize them. If someone else who is better equiped to handle this conversion will let me know I will gladly e-mail them so they can be posted by someone that knows what they are doing. Jeff
A few quick commnts: 1. In post 175, the picture seems to show that the cross brace through the middle of the X has a horizontal seam running the entire length that is welded periodically along it's length. 2. In post 200 Manny shows pictures of the various 0s of early cars. To my eye, the 10S cars stampings seem to show the 0 anc the C bowing out at the middle more than on the other cars, which seem to have relatively straight sided 0s. To my eye they are not from the same die set as the stampings on the other cars. However, to me, all the chassis stampings shown by Bill Noon on the 10S appear to be from the same die set. 3. Whatever the car tuns out to be, I love it - much better than all of the super shiny cars. If it ever comes up for sale, I vote that Manny buys it and parks it next to his 052 . Regards, Art S. PS. My vote for thread of the month!
I keep getting dragged back into this: I was given permission to post this. It is was taken from Prancing Horse No. 164: "Editor in 1983 or maybe 1984, Ed Williman, a VSCCA member, came to Pittsburgh for the vintage races. I accompanied him to the University of Pittsburgh parking garage and helped unload his car. I asked Ed, What is this? and he answered that it was the third Ferrari ever madenumber 3C. He listed it as a 125, and, for several years, it was listed with his name as well as an Alfa in the VSCCA member directory. From my reading about Ferraris, I understand there were four 125 cars built (1.5-liter displacement), and they were subsequently bored out and designated as 166s. How did it get to New Jersey where Ed found it? Ed said the engine and chassis were separated and a small block Chevy V-8 was going to be installed. He bought both and put them back together. Dick Jevon¬ Penn-Jersey RegionPittsburgh, Penn More to follow.... Regards, Bill Noon
Figured out how to do the compression so it will work here. These are from a pamphlet that was handed out when 002C was shown at an event in the Hamptons around 1984 or 85. This was the same weekend that the FCA had a track event at Bridgehampton. On the last page of the pamphlet is a listing of credits to people involved. Jeff Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
