© 2020 MOTORSPORT NETWORK. All rights reserved.
Sign up to receive latest updates for Ferrari News, Threads, and Classifieds
Discussion in 'Vintage (thru 365 GTC4)' started by Townshend, Aug 7, 2006.
IN many years of researching early Ferraris I have never found a photo of this car in the MM.
Not allowed? Who's not allowing you to post? Last I looked the Bill of Rights still allowed anyone to post anything that is true.
Once again I have never seen any credible evidence that Stan's 03C was anything but a mistake on his part.
With the interior picture, we can guess that the car was like that...
Image Unavailable, Please Login
I was sure posting "03C" on my website would turn into polemic.
As I can't show the proof of what I'm saying, let's end this discussion...
You seem to be stating that you DO HAVE PROOF. Is this correct?
Can you then state why you cannot publish it?
Do you think I would have been enough stupid to put "03C" on my site if I wasn't sure ??
I'm sorry to say that,
but I cannot believe to those misterious proofs.
When can we expect the launch of 03C reproduction?
I'm sorry guys but I don't understand the big problem with 03C.
The fact that the first 3 cars were 1C, 2C , 3C has been known since 1966. Nowak says that after his purchase of 004C he received a lot of help from the Ferrari factory - quote (Prancing Horse #V - Jan 1966) "they have been most cooperative in supplying new facts and in verifying others obtained from contemporary reports in Auto Italiana, Inter Auto and Motor Italia". He further writes, "Three Type 125 Competiziones were constructed as follows: No. 1C, No. 2C and No. 3C".
Now I know poor old Stan has been ridiculed for this statement, but what reason would he have to be correct about 01C, 02C but invent 03C?
Further we know that 01C, 02C were re-numbered before they were sold, so why not 03C?
Can anyone prove that 002C was NOT originally 03C?
We all know how "big" their interest was in their own history in those days - about zero.
About Italian motor press:
Either I have the period articles, or I some friends checked their corresponding archive for me - nothing which proves "3C" or "03C".
About renumbering 002(C):
Jim knows his care quite well, and there are also various photos showing the stamped serial in detail. No signs at all for renumbering.
I am ready to discuss the possibilty of any 3C or 03C, under the condition that facts and sources are put on table, but not simply on the fact that good old Stanley - god bless him - told us so 44 years ago. And I'm also not ready to start a discussion on basis "I know, but not ready/allowed to disclose details".
What about the fact that Ferrari told me, in an email only last year, that the first 3 cars were 01C,02C,03C. I suppose that isn't fact either?
What's the big problem with 03C anyway? It doesn't alter what 002C is, or what it was.
I think you are TOTALLY wrong on this. I know of many owners who got lots of information from Ferrari about their cars, and found Ferrari very helpful with original information and copies of documents. Moreso than today.
Maybe I haven't understood Nowak article on Cavallino#1 (1978), but I think he said 2C (born as Piacenza roadster and changed into a 159SC) became 002C and 3C was the second (Touring) full-width roadster (Pescara'47?).
That article is full of errors, so It's not a good source, but I think it represent Nowak's theory.
So, if Aardy says 03C became 002(C) I think he doesn't match Nowak research...
With what body? Maybe Piacenza one to join "010I" and the official replica? Or the 125S competizione replica I'm waiting for...
The old magazines can say how many cars raced in that year, but chassis number of race cars didn't appeard on that literature.
Then it's easy: 3 chassis > 1,2,3 and a C for Competizione: and you have your s/n...
Surely not Jim... ;-)
You're quite correct, the old magazines did not give chassis numbers, but you have totally ignored the fact that Ferrari have said they were 01C,02C,03C.
Are you part of the Classiche evaluation group? If not, do you know to what extent those people have general access to the factory files to research such questions as this without having a car under evaluation?
Stan who was a friend, was totally wrong about 002C. There was never a car stamped 002C. There are no factory records that refer to 002C. 002 is very clearly stamped on the car I own. It's engine has very clear 159 stampings. It's Certificate of Origin issued by Ferrari (Interestingly Certificate of Origin # 003) very clearly states that this car is 002. It's bill of sale, issued by Ferrari, very clearly states that this car is 002. There are no 03C stampings anywhere on this car. There is no "bondo" mysteriously covering another stamping that is "original" except for the guy in the UK who said he made them in the 70ies.
If they indeed have proof about 03C, why not disclosing this to the public? And why did no historian who had been allowed to search the Maranello archive over the last decades find something? My opinion about Ferrari Classiche is not the very best since they built the 125S replica on a Spyder Corsa frame...
They also asked me some years ago whether they can use some of "my" photos for their website, and had been highly surprised when I told them that they are from their archive anyway.
Based on this I wouldn't be surprised if they went the easy way - Nowak in the 60's got this information from Maranello, so it must be true.
The problem with 03C? Quite simple, I refuse to accept - from whomoever - the laconic statement "there was a 03C" without that facts or at least seriously backed theories are put on table.
And you are absolutely right!
As an aside we plan to have 002 in our Garage at the 24 Hours of Nurburgring with 0846 and P 4/5 Competizione for anyone who want's to take a close look.
I have nothing official to do with Classiche.
I don't know what access other people have, just my self. I have been privileged to be shown the extensive archives that Ferrari have.
I know that Jess is/was a part of the official group. Further suspect that Keith may be too.
As I predicted, the thread turned into controversy.
That reminds me the day when I gave the ID of a car in which a well-know pilot crashed in an italian race in 50s. The highly respected historian to whom I exposed this theory stated that it was 100% bull**** because he was sure the pilot crashed with another car. I remember in particular of the extraordinary moment when he asked ironically to show to him a picture of the crashed car.
Problem : I now have proofs of what I was saying and Im sure our historian still think he was right.
That also reminds me the chance we had of having the great historian Antoine Prunet on FerrariChat. After some dubious polemics in the same style of what we can read in this thread, Mister Prunet didnt post anymore. What a tremendous loss.
Yet another example: the article on the 166 Inter in the Cavallino #178.
If I listened to the few members who killed the author of this article, everything was good to throw away.
Problem: I have pictures for all the races of each 166 Inter, all the documents necessary for the identification of each car and I could see for myself how much the attacks I read were unjustified.
And of course, I'm sure there are still members here who believe that the 166 Inter of Nuvolari-Scapinelli in the 1948 Mille Miglia was 010I or that 018I frame was never completed, because all this is not published in their good old books or in their favorite websites.
What are the arguments for saying that 002 was not born as 03C :
- 03C appears nowhere on the car?
Sure, when you dont want to find something, obviously you can watch hours the 002 stamp without findind something.
- Certificate of origin only talking about 002 and not "03C" ?
Even a newbie knows that a certificate of origin is sometimes like a second birth for a car. I mean, once the certificate of origin issued for a sale to a private owner, all was made to erase the previous life and identity of a car.
By the way, what was the date of the certificate ?? Before of after the race at Modena in september 1947 ? Of course AFTER as it was issued in december 1947 once the car was renumbered 002 in the time of sale to Gabriele Besana.
Documents proving that 03C was renumbered 002 exist and I see no reason to post in this thread. Is it a problem of ego for you to know there are documents you dont own ??
But after all, what's the point of this discussion ? 002 was never renumbered 03C in late 1947 because its 2010 owner says its not true and because all the people trying to make things forward are just liars...