250 LM at Auction - s/n 6045

I too hope the whatever 6045 does well.

Just curious were you presented with the actual in Italian metallurgical test results conducted and certified by Classiche or merely the claims of the vendors?

According to Freshman who currently feels that the attempt to put the burned out remains of the two cars together into a Classiche certified newly created replica of the original and sell the convoluted story for millions to someone who actually buys the story is comically interesting to say the least and that he sold his car for less than it cost him to build it in the first place years ago.

Freshman also noted to me that he personally provided DK with the original contact and introduction to the owner of his version of the car in 2011/12 while DK was perpetrating this high $ exercise in order to enable them to purchase it (He has kept documentary proof of that fact). Said he has no reason to lie nor axe to grind but that he kept the original receipts, photos and shipping documentation for the tubing he personally purchased in Italy along with much other documentation. He also stated he owned the 6023/6313 (According to Barchetta. Com Ferrari chassis number History) car and made full engineering drawings from it that he used when built his version of 6045. He also made mention that when bought the 6045 engine he used in his replica it appeared to him that the original engine stamping pad area was suspicious and seemed to have been milled down enough to expose the very top of the /slash line of No. Interno number between the Interno # 14 and LM designation stamp number into the upper pad field area and that the 6045 number calligraphy was off kilter enough that only the original build sheet will confirm if 14/LM is the correct Interno number for 6045 or not. Perhaps Marcel will have the records and will chime in.

Seems like it is going to be a very entertaining evening.

 

100+ Just sayin. Interesting if the "THEN OWNER" photos do turn out to have come from Gary"Gray Bar Hotel" Snell.

Statue at centre of lawsuit, possibly by Rodin, crumbles in Toronto warehouse | Toronto Star


50 F.3d 16: Gary Snell, Petitioner-appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, Respondent-appellee :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

 

The “THEN OWNER” was an Italian who owns a Ferrari Main dealership as I recall…. Could it be Girogio Schon? Looking at the history it must be. The pictures were taken by him just before the chassis went to be restored and crucially outside his villa in Italy and later provided by him. so I think we can say NOT provided by Snell or Kellog

Like I said the lecture and presentation was fascinating, and the documentation is very conclusive.

Reading down to “babci”, wasn’t Marcel Massini present for the original Metallurgy tests? I believe there is only one company in the UK who carries out these tests on cars, it is the same company who work for the Classiche department, I am sure Ferrari would have re-carried these tests out once the car was at the factory… To me it seems unlikely that the steel could have been anywhere near correct in the replica built by Freshman otherwise Classiche would not have certified 6045 or destroyed the replica. No matter where the steel came from for the replica built by freshman, I think the major points are that the metallurgy was wrong (except the small tube bearing the chassis tag) for the freshman replica and certainly not the correct, and rare, type of steel that would be contained within a genuine Ferrari chassis; AND the metallurgy in 6045 must have been correct and hence this was a major part in the car being certified.

I know all too well how difficult it can be to have a car certified and it is clear to me that this car and the owners have jumped through every difficult and costly Classiche hoop to ensure that today now there is just one car with all the right bits and it has been stamped with Classiche approval. Classiche criteria is very strict and as such the car must have met this… I commend all those involved for straightening out a troubled car and giving it the opportunity to live on without any more “smoke”! (sorry for the pun!)

 

Moses:

"wasn't Marcell Massini present for the original Metallurgical test???? You reply is just another unanswered question. Well was he or not? What part of the frame was tested?

"I am sure Ferarri WOULD have re-carried out these tests once the car was at the factory"
The word would means it is only your opinion of what may have occurred.am sure Ferrari would have re-carried these tests out once the car was at the factory"
Did you ever see any evidence of such a test by the factory and if so what part of the car was it carried out on ?

Did the presentation vendor make such a statement or show you any proof of such a test?

"AND the metallurgy in 6045 MUST have been correct and hence this was a major part in the car being certified."

Again did you ever see any evidence of such a test? Again the word would means it is only your opinion of what may have occurred. Did the presentation vendor make such a statement or show you any proof of such a test by Ferrari?

"Freshman otherwise Classiche would not have certified 6045 or destroyed the replica"
Did you confirm with Classiche what their actual reason for destroying the replica was? Were they requested, paid or otherwise induced by the vendors to do so? Our is this merely your subjective opinion?

IMHO since the fire was hot enough to melt a lot of the body work and steel velocity stacks of the engine it was likely hot enough to lose enough temper in the chassis (and/or disfigure the original alloy Ferrari ID plate that has never turned up) for it to be unsafe and/or not restorable and thus initially caused the car to be parted out and have had part of the chassis to be cut off (according to Moses 10% or more) and that whatever parts that may have been left over that were used in the reconstruction of the replica are enough to warrant a sale price any where near an original real car. Still is and always will be real or not story car. Guess we all will just have to wait and see the drama play out. Good luck to the vendors.

 

another LM with undisputed origin but severely smashed more than once was sold few years ago at roughly 50% of the going rate of a good one.
so we can assume and see whether this will be the case for this one, with going rate somewhere around 14musd . or may be wont sell at all...

 

When the Classiche-inspector came and checked the new repro chassis to accuracy and leaks of the chassis oil tubes, he had to be advised that he is checking the wrong system. However, does Classiche provide any relevant information about period originality of certain cars? Or should originality of certain cars be checked independently from any Classiche blessing especially when Classiche itself restored it? How can a commissioned and well payed restorer himself certify the car’s accuracy and originality? Are such circumstances strict criterias and a neutral, objective process? And how to deal with works replicas and the fact that these creations are new cars with a new and non period chassis and other repro components? Is all this not highly relevant for any potential buyer or a concours admittance?

 

It isn’t often that I post on this forum as there do seem to be too many experts! So this is my, somewhat educated, opinion – make no mistake!

I attended a very interesting seminar. I know Marcel Massini (who was there) is very familiar with this cars history. He is very supportive of the car so perhaps if you are interested in purchasing the car it is best ask him the finer detail questions.

I am pretty sure my statements are accurate from my memory of what was discussed and shown to me. Obviously you have not seen any of the documentation so perhaps a visit to the guys at RM in August will help ease your mind. Or maybe contact DK now?

We all know that classiche criteria is very strict, the car has been certified after a very long process. The car clearly passed all the required tests and meets the given criteria. How many LM’s have certification? Less than 5? Who better to rubber stamp a car than the original manufacturer? I understand if people don’t like classiche when their cars that do not meet the criteria or they have had an unsuccessful attempt to obtain it. Let us not forget Ferrari did not restore this car, they were presented with a restored car; and they certified it albeit with a strip down for their tests and criteria.

It is matching numbers and certified, and that is the only real and recognised certification that one can obtain for such a car. And as mentioned it is a jolly tough process.

As I see it, you can either look at this car for what it is, a matching numbers 250 LM in concours winning condition and correct to the specification it was supplied. Classiche Certified and with a detailed history for all to see. Or you can become hang-up on events that happened years ago? Frankly if you take this opinion, don’t bid above the level you are comfortable with, I’m sure someone else will take over bidding for you! That is the beauty of the auction arena, the price realised will be REAL! Something tells me it will be higher than the last LM.

It would be hard to find a completely trauma free and available matching numbers LM today…
Truthfully knowing what I know about this car, were I in the position to, I would buy it!

 

+1

 

"I am pretty sure my statements are accurate from my memory of what was discussed and shown to me. Obviously you have not seen any of the documentation so perhaps a visit to the guys at RM in August will help ease your mind"

Once again: "Pretty sure my statements are accurate." Pretty Sure? Vague statement. Yes or No? My guess is you have doubts.

"Obviously you have not seen any of the documentation" Do you know if Igs did or not or simply trying to put Igs down?

"Or maybe contact DK now?" Oh I guess the marketing vendors story would be totally truthful, unbiased and have no interest in influencing the eventual outcome of the auction or sale of the subject car? Still have not received your reply of my question to you of your witness to any metallurgical tests of either the Freshman or claimed original chassis conducted at or by Classiche themselves.

"Who better to rubber stamp a car than the original manufacturer?" I guess Classiche are never wrong or mistaken? IMHO many of the real experts who post here (Dyke Ridgely, Tom Shaughnessy, Terra, Marcel himself & countless others etc.) would take exception to your statement.

"Something tells me it will be higher than the last LM." Really brings more? Why pay more for a no race history, new bodied, bitsa, convoluted story, factory certified replica than the last public sale of a real, (6017) original bodied, matching numbers, no story, good race history (8th place overall and 1st in class 24 Hours Daytona) LM which sold all in at $14,300.00? I don't think so. In the Over/Under contest I'll take the Under. Any other takers out there?

 

Thank you, very interesting! Could you tell us more about the seminar you attented? What was the subject and purpose and who was the organiser? Details would be much appreciated.

And yes, any car is what it is and this is the open question here. For sure, the car looks wonderful and is beautifully built. But who built it and in what year? And who made the numbers match?

And finally: Do you know what kind of LM-database Classiche is using for their criterias?

 

I think you meant to write 6107.

 

FWIW, I have that VERY EXACT above-described car quietly available.

 

Terra many thanks. Your absolutely correct. Momentary accidental numerical dyslexia.

 

Just read the RM online description. Looks like it does not confirm any Metallurgical testing of the Freshman chassis was conducted at/or by Classiche. My guess is: Done by the vendor DK and that DK directed it in the UK at their facility and of course had no conflict of interest in the outcome. Wonder if the chassis of the "original", ("The lightweight aluminum body had simply melted onto the frame of the car" catalogue quote), heat tempered removed, cut off tubed chassis, Vaccari repaired (My Bet: new chassis) car was Metallurgical tested by and at Classiche and if it were, are those test results (and if so in what language:Italian or English?) included in the "Certification Book"? Catalogue Discrpition -"The 6045 number had been stamped on a front anti-roll bar mount in order to identify the frame at the time of import to Italy". Seems unusual that a chassis number stamp conveniently appeared on the anti-roll bar mount during the importation in Italy, then the number turns up later in the catalogue description as being on the steering rack mount?(Benefit of the doubt charity answer: Catalogue typo). New question:Who stamped it. Italian customs? Any documentation on that? What does the calligraphy of the stamping look like and are the numbers in Metric dimensions or US-UK sizes etc. Chassis number stamping on the engine block in the catalogue photo of it looks odd as Freshman noted to me and stated in my earlier post. Love the mystery. Still going for the low ball number in the guess the Hammer (Should it make one even though I doubt if it will No Sale or won't make reserve whatever that may be) contest.

 

New chassis, new body and old (period? or even original?) remains - especially chassis - allegedly destroyed.

 

It pleases me though that somebody did the right thing by this car and buy both and make one car again. Hats off to that person.

It's all about continuous history and as both were bought together there is no problem, this car whether 75% new or not is 6045. Many other important cars have had major components replaced/made, we just don't know ...
Pete

 

I am leaving my hat on. All done for economically mercenary reasons.

"It's all about continuous history and as both were bought together there is no problem, this car whether 75% new or not is 6045."

So was George Washington's axe.

 

True but we are talking about man made machines so this happens. It doesn't mean it is ignored, just affects value. Obviously if the history of this car worries a potential buyer they will move on to another, or only bid so high.

Once the replica was made it compromised this car forever ...
Pete

 

But such a recent creation is even with any Classiche blessing simply no period product ...

 

Surely the current car has the best they could do of surviving components, surely?

Sometimes chassis' just have to be replaced for the car to be safe. It is disappointing, and maybe even sad, but we want this car to perform as a 250LM should don't we?

The replica built with the original engine was NOT 6045 and could never be and the car that Ferrari supplied the 250P engine too was the closest to 6045 out of the two. Surely this new car has the original engine and many other original components?

BTW: I was hoping to win Lotto and purchase both these cars and do exactly what has happened. I was going to film the crushing/destruction of the replica and share it on this site as making that replica was just a sad and wrong tale. IMO if you own a particular serial number engine, etc. in an historic car you should help it end up in the right place without wanting to make enormous profits but yes without taking a loss either. Note: I might have got the wrong end of the story but that is how I understood it, engine never went back to right car because owner of said engine wanted a small fortune and so out of spite build a replica.

Again it will always be a storied car. Note the Ferrari 250GTO that was crashed in the GTO reunion received a whole new front ... why aren't you complaining about that? Surely the damaged front could have been carefully hammered back right?? I imagine too that that GTO had some modern chassis repairs also ... but might be wrong.
Pete

 

How can you identify such a jam of components? And yes, if original components had to be repaired today, not the replacement with newly made pieces and the destruction of the remaining originals but preservation should be the adequate solution.

 

Why complaining about the damaged body of 3445GT: it was Drogo rebodied already in 1964 and in the later 70-ies fitted with a new Series 1 GTO body.

 

Why not preserve and continue the car's history with the before used material, that contains and created history over three decades itself?

 

+1 and quite true

 

Again surely they used all the period components off both cars they could. You guys are making sweeping assumptions that they didn't.
Pete