212 body

Just about the time they cottoned on to its profitability

 

I'll spend my money and time trying to preserve and if possible correct the old cars I own. If your idea of fun is pushing endangered species to extinction, we have little common ground. But you won't be alone.


Posted here in August, 2006, by Marcel Massini, this is a better answer than I could ever give:


Automobile collecting is changing its fundamental nature from that of a hobby to that of an antiquarian activity, focused on distinctions relating to make, model, condition, originality, provenance, etc. and is rapidly approaching the arena of connoisseurship. The single biggest variable causing valuation differences among identical cars is object quality. Quality, in turn, may be broken into two elements: originality and condition. Of these two elements, much use has been made of condition criteria while relatively less has been made of objective criteria for originality. That such is so is ironic, as IT IS HISTORICAL CONTEXT WHICH IS THE ONLY BASIS FOR THE SIGNIFICANCE AND VALUE OF A COLLECTIBLE CAR. Were this not true, modern reproductions would command the same value as authentic objects. Indeed, collectible objects, as well as fine art, are relics from their period of origination that have traveled through time to the present, importing with them the zeitgeist, the regional flavor and the technical and production ethos of their creators. Therefore, it is axiomatic that aging, wear and tear and other natural deterioration is the visible evidence of that journey through time and becomes the defining property of authenticity. Indeed, every dent and blemish would tell a story were we able to read it.

 

Since 1953 it has been up to Pininfarina's decision really. Everytime Ferrari sold out a new bare chassis to anyone else, it had to receive Pininfarina's approval. If you look at it:

Boano/Ellena: an approved sub-contractor for a limited period of time
Scaglietti: an approved sub-contractor
Zagato: handful of racing cars approved
Bertone: Two 250GTs and 308 GT/4 Dino approved by PF
Fantuzzi: an approved sub-contractor for racing cars
Drogo: Never, not one car ever built upon a new chassis.
Nembo: Never, not one car ever built upon a new chassis.

Based on this I can think that Ferrari and Pininfarina were irritated when the "carrozzeria non gratas" were working on used chassis frames. There are even some notes that factory was not willing to supply spare parts for Meade and other people working on such bastardos.

Summasummaarum: they did mind indeed!

Best wishes, Kare

 

shame really - I am only asking the question - you personalise it?
Your welcome to do what you like with your own cars

The Massini text rationalises the modern value basis of old cars which wasnt the question I asked unless you are suggesting that the only reason we care about which body is on which car is about money!

Unfortunately the trend to put Barchetta style bodies on original coupes blows a hole in Massinis argument as it would appear to triple the value!

 

Kare,

so Ferrari did care who bodied the cars through an approval process post '53?

Given that this thread is about 212 - largely pre 53 - are you suggesting that the ethos changed 53 ish?

 

Don't know about ethos but by 1952 Pinin Farina had reached the point where it acting like the young of a cuckoo started pushing other players out of the game IMO permanently damaging the design culture of Italian automobiles. Contract with Ferrari may have been one of the most critical points.

Best wishes, Kare

 

I hadn't heard this before. Did PF get veto over the Bertone 250SWB? and the 308GT4?

 

Although Pinin Farina was an important coach builder in early 1950 Vignale and Touring were the first tear suppliers (so 1990.....) and designer (Michelotti) from Vignale worked a long time for Ferrari (I think the last one from Vignale was a 330 somewhere in 1968). I dont think he was under control of PF.

ciao
Oscar

 

looks like in those early years Ferrari didnt mind what body went on to a chassis - 0165 was sold only as a rolling chassis (1951 Earls Court show) - customers would obviously have been able to choose and negotiate the coachbuilder - in 0165 case as a completely separate exercise - and so, as to judging the rights and wrongs of the case of rebodying a car, if Ferrari didnt care why do we ?

Obviously this topic evokes a lot of emotion but still not seen a compelling answer to this question

 

First, my apologies for personalizing.

I would never own a replica or fake, from something like a cut Daytona to one of the many Porsche Speedster kit cars.

I own one of the PF 212s, and am spending a lot of my time researching its history, and a lot of money restoring the car as properly as possible. I love the cars.

I think the real dificulty for me is that I simply can't imagine why anyone would want to destroy an old Ferrari to make a fake. The 212 discussed in this thread was a beautiful car and now, in my eyes, it is nothing. Siilarly, to me, the transformed Abbott is worthless. Nothing. Clearly others - and I'd imagine, the market - disagree.

It's an old dispute.

 

We share this opinion and I sympathise entirely!

I was trying to stir a fair and objective debate - clearly there are circumstances where originality is destroyed such as crashes - and then there is the wanton destruction of originality which I too find apalling. To cut and shut an original chassis to make a barchetta is more heinous to me than to replace a smashed body. Because of this breadth of circumstance where do you draw the line? You could argue that if you have an original coupe but want the enjoyment of a roadster what harm is there in changing the body if originality can be restored easily. Obviously in this case the ability to restore originality has been damaged by the separation of ownership of the body, but in addition, that process of destruction started when the original engine was sold off.


if you restore a car sympathetically you use as much original material and workmanship as possible but you do have to replace old unsafe parts - seems to me it is a question of degree

 

As an aside if one reads auction catalogues today there are more and more of these type of cars coming to market. Ferrari's aren't the only ones as RR/Bentley and many other makes of cars have been modified, some in period some recently. Full disclosure is very important and Ferrari Chat has been a proud part of that. The auction catalogue description is interesting and in the end the market decides what something is or isn't worth. Personally I wouldn't have made this conversion or have bought this car but once a bell has been rung it becomes more complex. Buying this conversion and restoring it's original body at this point isn't something that would make sense economically.

One final thing. Taking any of this personally will not lead to happiness...

 

Think that is the nail on the head - Honesty - 'it is what it is' - no misrepresentation!

Some people will disagree and hate it and some wont mind!

 

I totally agree. I will never be able to own a 250 California so I built one.For those in the know there is no way of confusing it with the real thing. There are some nice period pieces on the car but that's as far as it goes. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

I'd hope that there aren't any so small minded as to begrudge a man his right to spend his money on a replica anything. The issue is when something more valuable is unnecessarily destroyed in the process.
I don't know the back story of your car so nothing personal is intended.

 

I remember reading an interview, where Nuccio Bertone, said that Ferrari made very clear that Pininfarina's approval must be received before Bertone can take delivery of a rolling 250GT-chassis. Don't know the details about the Dino but isn't it quite obvious that it would never have materialized, had Pininfarina objected. Best wishes, Kare

 

While at the time of the SWB PF may have had a say I think that the 308 was given to Bertone expressly to reduce Ferrari's dependence on the house of Farina.
Times change.

 

I don't think so. In that case we would have more independent designers. Maybe allowing Bertone to design it was the key to their building capacity. Production numbers went up so it is possible it was tought to keep up. Best wishes, Kare

 

Maybe someone who knows will speak up

 

It really bugs me that Ferrari attracts so many people who are living on the limit of their budgets and have to think about the economy. I think these people should go out and find themselves cars that they can afford! Best wishes, Kare

 

Why aren't all independent houses offering their designs for Ferrari? That's because Ferrari is in Pininfarina's pocket and there is no sense offering designs to another design house, even if Ferrari would urgently need fresh designs having gone down the slope for as long as I can remember. Best wishes, Kare

 

I think the point here is that buying this project at todays prices and restoring the PF Coupe will mean losing several hundred thousand dollars which is a hell of a donation to originality whether you can afford it or not!

 

PF is having trouble staying solvent these days. They're not calling any shots at Ferrari.

 

The seats are from a long neglected 250GT 2+2. The ashtray from a 1960s Alfa, the rear view mirror from a 60+year old Rolls Royce, the period twist spring hood latches are repros from a dealer in Holland, the polished round shift knob is a repro, the Italian script gages are repros,the rear fender lights repros of the originals, the front hood logo ia a round Ferrari emblym that came out of a 1960s cereal box and the "California Spyder" chrome script on the trunk lid. is from some custom shop in California.Finally the Ferrari fly yellow paint is an exact copy of the real thing available from Paint World in Stamford Conn. To the trained eye this car would never pass as the real thing but is just great to wake up to and take out on the road. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

I hope you'll appreciate my humor if I now refer to you as Dr. Frankenstein

If it brings joy and no one's harmed who needs more?

Another man's opinion.