Chassis 1C/10S Updated Information

Although the pictured frame layout with fishmouth-welded X-section and underslung at the rear seems to have been the standard one for the 166/212 Inter road cars, it was not the only one. E.g. #007S has also the Spyder Corsa frame as #10S, with bended tubes X-section and arched over the rear axle. I'm not the specialist for the road cars, but I believe that - besides #005S which is proven - there are also cars - especially early ones - with fishmouth-welded X but arched rear section. The same btw can be determined for the 166/195 MM, not all cars had the lightwweight bolted- or welded-in centerbrace, others like e.g. #0026M and #0052M have the fishmouth-welded X as shown on the picture above.

We have the consider the period situation at Ferrari. They had been far away from a real serial production, each car more or less was unique. They also had been in the process of continuing development on basis "try and error". One also has to take into consideration that different wheelbases, body styles (weight), and last but not least the intented use by first owner had influence on the frame/chassis layout. Take #007S as example, David in his article wrote that this was a works car, used for racing and testing, so a light-weight Spyder Corsa frame was rather logical.

There is a fair chance that some of the Spyder Corsa LWB frames had been surplus at Maranello. In early 1948, after his return to Ferrari, Colombo changed the design and created the SWB version, with bolted in center brace and underslung rear frame. At least 2 cars had been built, thus possibly LWB frames had been left over. We also know that the series was cut short by the introduction of the MM, major components like engines, gear boxes, and differentials had been made already with numbers up to #022I, which then had been used as spares or components for other types (example engine 022I in #0002M, rear axle 018I as spare in #012I). So it is very likely that also a bunch of frames already supplied by GILCO had been surplus.

However, even if so, and even if #031S was indeed one of the rare birds built upon a SC frame, there is still no logical explanation for the "1" and "10S" stampings. Although the background may be a rather simple one, like "Hey, Luigi, no stamps on the front member anymore, they have to be on the left side rail!", "Oh ****, I punched the "1" already!", "Hmm, well, but shut your mouth and don't tell the boss."
Okay, I agree, but why 10S and not 031S....

 

Stan and others were always looking for the "First Ferrari". When he sold 002 (c) he sold it as "The First Ferrari" and got a preminum because it "was". At some point David Castellano was shown "1" "10S" and told IT was the the "The First Ferrari". He took a photo very similar,if not the one, in David S.'s article against the wall in the driveway. David C. thought something was hinkey and so posted. A lot of people were chasing the "First Ferrari" a lot of people were guessing at the numbers. Stan thought: "1C" "2C" "3C". Some thought the "First Ferrari" had been restamped and used on a later car. Kare points out that the chassis plate could have been on the body. "1" and "10S" aren't Ferrari Chassis numbers. That is Fact.

DM thinks this car is "031S". Michael points out that this chassis's construction could be "031S". David S's article states this car is "031S".

Once again John:

When your father bought this car how was it described to him on the bill of sale?
What vin # did he use to road register the car?
What chassis # did he use in the car's log book when he raced it?

 

Fabio: "What were you thinking when stamping 10S to the frame?"
Luigi: "We did 9S and 11S earlier remember, I noticed 10S was missing so I thought..."
Fabio: "You stupid or what?"
Luigi: "What do we do now?"
Fabio: "I'll call Ferrari and ask."
---
Fabio: "They say the third frame was supposed to become 13S, but now that we are already building 21S, they decided to assign a new number... This one is going to be 31S."
Luigi: "I'll go and make a new stamp!"
Fabio: "Wait, wait wait! They said there's no need to restamp the frame!"
Luigi: "Why is that?"
Fabio: "They'll put up a shiny data plate into the engine compartment and after that nobody's ever going to have another look at the frame stampings."
Luigi: "Ok then, let's go and have lunch instead."
Fabio: "OK, let's just do that."

 

I think the photo in David's article showing 031S is very important.

It clearly shows the wheels that were on 031S. It clearly shows 031S's original body (now mounted to 007S). 031S's engine and gear box came out of that car/chassis (DM) and are now with Bob Lee. 031S's original body came off that chassis and are now with 007S. The wheels on "1" "10S" are the same as the ones that were on "031S".

 

http://www.coachbuild.com/index.php?option=com_gallery2&Itemid=50&g2_itemId=38467

 

It's interesting to see these two pictures together. It has always been my humble opinion that the cross bracing on 1 C/10S is not original eather to the original build or to any work done eather by Gilco or Ferrari. The cross bracing on 1C/10S looks like a solid piece of metal. The cross bracing on the 166 chassis picture appears to be the same oval tubing of the bent X bracing.. I assume the factory would not not build and sell 031 as new with solid steel cross bracing if for no other reason that weight seemed to be a primary consideration. I still side with the theory that 1C/10S could be from the remains of 001. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

George there is no early Ferrari Chassis "001". There is no evidence of accident damage on this chassis as there would likely be on 001S. In addition if this were the remains of 001S why was 031S's body on it and 031S's engine and gearbox in it? Why would DM a renowned Ferrari Historian who saw this car in the day and wound up owing 031S's engine and gearbox believe that this chassis is 031S? Why would David S after research write an article that it is 031S, an article that was never refuted by anyone so far as I know?

 

If I remember correctly in the beginning of the discussion John excluded that there is any connection between his father's car and #031S. Now he admits "If indeed the chassis of 1/10S IS that of 031S (and it may well prove to be the case)". This should remind the distinguished community here that this is no contest for the "earliest Ferrari", but simply an attempt to identify a highly interesting early car. No less - no more.

For me David Seielstad's article is a masterpiece of historical research, despite some uncertainties or possibly even mistakes. The "Georgia track" as example is based on good old Stan Nowak's article from 1978 "The First 100 Cars", so even if unlikely a serious historian has to mention it.
Hagstrom sold the chassis of 031S around 1970, Nowak the Motto body around the same time, and shortly thereafter both are united in the hands of Ed Williman. David missed the intermediary (short) ownership by Henry Desormeau, understandable for a research carried out decades later.
It seems that the "Howard or Howarth Gilmore" part was a rumour only, obviously David didn't knew that the car is still owned by the Williman family. But frankly spoken - who of us even knew about the car's existence until it popped up 1 1/2 years ago?

For me the identity as 031S is at least proven until Walter Hagstrom. But when the car lost its body - to which for sure the factory ID plate was fixed - it lost also its identity as such due to the fact that the frame was not stamped accordingly. Unproven at this moment is the sale from Hagstrom to Desormeau, but I consider it as very likely. If not - what happened to the chassis of 031S, and where did Desormeau get the chassis 10S from? Or in other words - what is the chance that a Ferrari chassis disappears at exactly the same time when another one pops up, both with same wheelbase and same (relatively rare) wheels?

What me still puzzles is Nowak's history of #031S as published in 1978:
"Delivered new on June 9, 1949 this is a fast back coupe by Stabilimenti Farina. No early history is known. It was spotted in Colorado over 10 years ago and eventually made it's way to New York. It was sold at least 5 years ago to a gentleman in Georgia. The engine and gearbox are owned by Dick Merritt.".

Contrary to this John told us that Nowak aggressively sought to buy the 1C/10S chassis from his father on more than one occasion in the 70's. Was Nowak creating smoke screens around the car? What was so interesting for him? For sure not the body, he sold it earlier because he had no use for it. The engine? 212 from the early 50's, not really rare. Nowak knew very well how a Spyder Corsa frame looked like, and if I understand it correct at that time the only visible frame stamping was "1C". Most probably Nowak was aware that this was 031S, as he wrote "...made it's way to New York". This is also backed by the Nowak letter from 1987 quoted by Bill Noon, saying "RE: Ed William [sic] - Years ago I removed the Motto spyder body from 002C and sold it to a man in upstate New York. William bought it from him and put it on an old chassis he had - probably a 166 Inter with an odd chassis number. I don't know what he claims he has but it isn't 002C and it isn't 0002M. You might tell him I will be there to carefully inspect his car!!"
How does that fit to his various earlier attempts to buy the car? I don't think that Stanley knew exactly what Williman had, but for sure he was convinced it was something special. Which does of course not mean he was right...

 

Sorry, my mistake. It should be 001S. I'll get back to you on the rest after reviewing my files. tongascrew

 

Stan wasn't right. He was chasing a Ghost "1C". There was no "1C". There was no "2C". There was no "3C". 002C wasn't 002C it was 002 and it wasn't the First Ferrari built, it was the third, although as Marcel points out it was and is the oldest Continually existing Ferrari in Existence. The first Ferrari was "01C". The second was "02C". The third was and is "002". It's also interesting to note that Ferrari Classiche (Marcel from the current owner of "01C/010I") has NOT Certified "01C/010I". As far as I know Ferrari Classiche has not certified "02C/?" either. Stan was a friend but he did blow a lot of smoke in his quest for the "First Ferrari".

 

More smoke:

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20080205/FREE/707040967

NOTE THE CHASSIS NUMBER

Where did Autoweek get that #?????

http://www.classiccar.co.nz/news/ferrari-01c-on-show

 

It was in the Press Release, carried by PR Newswire:

Question is, who put that together or supplied the writer with the chassis number.

>8^)
ER

 

A very good question. Also note the description of where the car was found.


"Ferrari chassis No. 01C will be making its first public appearance in 20 years--and its first ever in the western United States--according to event organizer Paul Merrigan, himself a first-prize winner at the 1998 Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance.

According to Merrigan, Ferrari 01C was the first of three Ferrari single-seat Formula One race cars built in Maranello in March 1947. The first two cars, 01C and 02C competed for the first time in a race at Piacenza on May 11. Franco Cortese drove 01C and, after leading the race, retired with a broken fuel pump. The next race at Caracalla Baths, with the car fitted with four fuel pumps (two mechanical, two electrical with the car only really needing one!), Cortese was once again aboard to give Ferrari its first race win.

The car was rebodied in 1948 and sold to a doctor in New York who was not aware that his car had been used for racing. A legal battle ensued to recover his $8,000 purchase price. Eventually the car was raced in sports-car events on the East Coast for several years and then disappeared. The present owner, who wishes to remain anonymous, found the car in a warehouse in 1968"

 

Unfortunately the Autoweek article is not signed, so the author misses the chance to get honoured with the "B...S... of the Year" award!

With this Merrigan press release the topic started 1 1/2 or 2 years ago, there's no need to repeat it at the current stage of discussion.

 

Given the press release statement:

"The car was rebodied in 1948 and sold to a doctor in New York who was not aware that his car had been used for racing. A legal battle ensued to recover his $8,000 purchase price. Eventually the car was raced in sports-car events on the East Coast for several years and then disappeared. The present owner, who wishes to remain anonymous, found the car in a warehouse in 1968"

Given the very definitive statement above made by someone to whom wrote the press release -- obviously someone knows the "history" of this car:

A) what was it rebodied to in 1948? Obviously it was in this form when it came to the USA with the new coachwork -- only later was the Motto coachwork installed.

B) Who raced it (drivers/owner) and in what events was it raced in the Eastern USA in its rebodied form? (obviously in pre-Motto coachwork) This type of history is verifiable with a few phonecalls and e-mails. It should be easy to identify any Ferrari with pre-Motto coachwork installed at the time as used on this chassis in photographs from events of the era on the East Coast. Anyone?

 

There is a reason as the source of it is VERY important. The press release claimed this car was "01C" "The First Ferrari" and that "01C" was appearing at this Concours. The car that appeared at this Concours was of course "1C/10S" not "01 C."

Who at that time, was stating that it was "01C" "The First Ferrari". Merrigan? It seems so but based on what or who's representation that it was?

 

I suspect this "history" was part of the History of another car...

http://www.barchetta.cc/english/all.ferraris/Detail/002C.166.Spyder.Corsa.htm

 

OK, here we go. [0131S] 1994 original Farina body to New Zealand with engine and chassis from 007. Engine and chassis of 031S owned by Williman from 1975, but maybe not. Did Hagstrom sell 013S to Williman or not?. The origins of 031S go back to the spring of 1949. The rolling chassis was completed June 9,1949 and sent to Stablimente Farina. Dec.31,1949 sold to Luccianno Moste. This was over two years after the 44klg chassis were delivered by GILCO. Until the original 031S chassis is located we may never know if it is similar in any way to 1C/10S.[1C/10S] I am only dealing with the center section of this chassis which appears to have outside oval tubes and an X bracing of the same tubes similar to the GILCO designe for the July 1947 44klg chassis. These were recommended by GILCO being created from 89mmx3mm stock and shaped to an oval of 92mmx55mmx1.5mm Unlike the two original GILCO chassis weighing 56klg[01C &02C] the 44klg chasses were created at Enzo"s requerst to be lighter. To accomplish this these lighter tubes were used and the X section used bent tubes unlike the fish mouthed welded tubes and no cross bracing. It is unclear how many 44klg chassis were delivered. Colombo[GILCO} several decades later remembers one. Others say there had to be at least three considering Enzo's insistance on the lighter weight. As far as we know only the 44klg chassis were delivered in 1947. So what cars received the 44klg chassis? [002C] We know from the pictures from nice Mr G that this has a 44klg chassis which was completed in Sept 1947. [001S] Completed in November 1947 and should have had a 44klg chassis. This car was written off in the early 1950s with no info on the remains. [01C/010I] Here we have a problem. O1C was built with one of the two original 56klg, rebuilt by the factory in 1947/48 as sold new as 010I. In 1949 the car came to England and was written up in The Motor and Autocar magazines along with cutaway drawings. These drawings clearly show a 44klg type chassis. Why???. In conclusion as the cross bracing on 1C/10S does not appear to be original GILCO but the X tubong does appear to be GILCO we can consider the possibility that at least the cent of this chassis could be 44klg GILCO. As 031 wasn't built for another two years we can also assume that its chassis was more like the 55klg designe. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

George

Once again until this chassis is completely stripped,forensically examined and weighed this is all a guess.

John

Who provided the information that this car was "01C" "The First Ferrari" to the press release that became the Autoweek article and Concours Press release?

Did you and or your Dad think this information was correct? If so why?

What chassis number was listed on the bill of sale to your Dad?

What chassis number did your Dad use to road register this car?

Where did this car being "01C" come from? The only stamps are "1" and "10S" neither of which are Ferrari Chassis numbers.

When I read the press release and this thread began I thought someone (you) believed this was "01C" 's original chassis and thus whatever "01C/010I" was it wasn't built on the remains of "01C". As I told you if your car was "01C" I thought it would be so stamped on the same place that 002 is stamped on my car. "01C" turned out not to be stamped there. "1" is stamped there. I really think if you really want to know what this chassis is you have to strip it completely down. Personally I now think this car is and always was "031S" and that that stamp was on the chassis plate affixed to 031S's body that is mounted on 007S.

 

First, you're absolutely right about the need to strip and check to progress this.

(Jim, you're forgetting the car is also stamped '1C'.)

The sifting of the circumstantial and physical evidence so far is quite entertaining however, so here are my thoughts so far:

The 031S conjecture is supported by the fact that 031S is known to have been sold as a drivetrain-less chassis not long before the body is known to have been sold, and also in the same geographical area as 1C/10S was bought with the body re-united to the chassis so stamped.

This seems quite compelling on it's own. Remember however that this area (and the USA in general) were more or less the world centre of interest in early Ferraris at the time so there was also a fair chance of other cars and parts being in the area.
Also there was a Hagstrom-Willimann (I think it has two 'n's ?) connection via 0250MM and who knows if Hagstrom didn't mention the car to Ed (can Ed remember this?) if indeed Hagstrom was the man who ended up with 031S from the NY police (are there records still??)
So Desormeau could have got the 002 body and got creative with a set of 1C stamps to make up his idea of the first Ferrari - this could have been more in the line of fun/vanity than outright fraud at the time as values were so low. Either way it seems he sold this car (whatever it is) as 1C which is the number Ed used from the word go (I believe) and no-one took too much notice or made too much fuss at the time.

Another point in favour is that 031S disappeared around the right time. This is quite compelling as it had by then been 'rescued' and was surely not going to get lost again.

On the other hand, if this IS the chassis of 031S there are some problems to explain:

031S was produced in the middle of an established production run, some time after Ferrari needed to monkey about recycling old parts to survive their cash flow difficulties.

1.Why would it have used an early style chassis (style of the centre x-brace tubes, and - just as unusual - the dip in the front cross member for the starter handle)? None of the other odd number 3 digit +S cars are reported as such. THIS TO ME IS THE MOST TELLING POINT AGAINST IT BEING 031S.

If Ferrari had been so hard up earlier that they had to use everything available to keep afloat then all the old chassis would have been used years before 031S was produced.

2. Why was 031S not stamped as such? (Of course it could have been stamped 031S and then ground off later by Desormeau or another party - future examination should show any evidence of grinding).

There is a photo of the chassis stamp of 029S on the barchetta listing, so the story about them not being stamped at this time seems implausible to me, unless this has been faked. Any comments from the stamp experts?
I am going to try to get access to examine 029S via Kidston who is selling it at the moment. This could be quite interesting as a comparison for when 1C/10S is examined (hopefully in the spring)

3. It would be quite a coincidence for 031S (of all cars) to have been stripped down (presumably whilst still in Italy) and then fitted with (a) the early recycled 125 brakes (b) the steering box stamped 'M02' in the correct font which appears to pre-date the box in Jim's 002, and now to be at the centre of all this. Possible but slim..

Whilst I'm having fun speculating, how about this (but I'm not at all serious):
013S may not have been produced (several sources). It's engine is in 005S as I recall. If the boys had made a cock-up and gone 009S, 010S, 011S, "sh*t they should be all odd numbers shouldn't they?, better use 010S as 013S and then go to 015S, 017S etc"....

ED - Can't we prevail on your SENSE OF CURIOSITY to get this full strip down done? There really is no other way....

Will

 

Will

In the day people were chasing "The First Ferrari" and willing to pay a premium for it. Stan got a premium for selling 002 as "The First Ferrari" and as a percentage of overall purchase price the premium was not insubstantial.

The Press release clearly states "01C" not "1C" and lists the History of "01C" and "02C". When the press release was released everyone knew that Stan's "1C" "2C" and "3C" were total fiction. I think you're right and:

" Desormeau could have got the 002 body and got creative with a set of 1C stamps to make up his idea of the first Ferrari"

I think David Castellano's posts support this.

I also think that bolt on parts prove nothing as they could have been bolted on at any time
especially if you're correct about Desormeau trying to fake the "First Ferrari".

I also think that John's statement that there's no evidence of other stamps or grinding off is silly,until this chassis is forensically examined.

If you're correct about Desormeau there very well may be evidence of grinding and fake stamping.

The photo showing 031S with "1" "10S"'s wheels is compelling to me.

I think the fact that DM who was there on the day and took 031S's engine out of this chassis believes that this chassis is 031S is compelling.

David's article which was written years ago, never refuted so far as I know but totally disregarded by the press release and the Concours Promoter, is compelling.

John

Did you and your Dad see David's article?


No one has answered where the Press Release got the information that this car was "The First Ferrari" "01C". The Press release did not state that this car was "1C" as it's stamps did.

Cheers

 

As far as I know DM did not remove the engine. He bought the engine and gearbox removed by somebody else at the time when Buick-engine was installed. Best wishes, Kare

 

Do you know who that was and why was that done? Was the engine still running or "scrap"?

None-the-less DM was there on the day and still believes today that this is 031S.


Keeping all of this in mind do you think this is "01C" as stated in the press release or 031S
as believed by DM and David S. or something else altogether? 001S? A non Ferrari?

I now think it's 031S.

Cheers

 

First of all: I earlier said that the Colorado car would not have been 031/S, but I have changed my mind. It now appears that when body of 031/S was sold to NZ, the dashboard was modified for another set of instruments, so the dash is different now than it used to be.

DM photographed 031/S in Aspen, CO/USA in or around 1954. It was using 1954 Colorado dealer plates, so it must have been when in Murray's hands. Ten year later the car resurfaced for sale in Colorado on Buick power (1964) and soon after in Virginia. It seems that this initiated DM to go to Colorado for the engine, where it had been removed and stored (my note says DM bought damaged engine and gearbox in Colorado in 1965). I don't think it was a scrap engine, but had problems that could not or were not worth to be fixed at the time. DN says in his article that gearbox was broken and a head gasket blown. I think that might have enough to reason an engine swap. Don't know who swapped the engine, may have been Murray or one of the people who owned after him.

Must have been something like 10 years ago I first heard the story (from DS) and have ever since believed the Williman car is most likely based on 031S. Have tried to recheck this and some other details in search for what else it could be, but I'm still empty handed. As I believe several early Inters to have been built upon a chassis with those specs (bended tubes/arching rear of chassis) I still think this is the most likely scenario.

I also think that if Stabilimenti Farina preferred working on early style frames, Ferrari may have sent leftover early style frames their way on purpose. I believe switching over from one type chassis to another may not always have been easy for a coachbuilder, so I would also think that Ferrari might even on Buick power ordered a few more early style frames for St. Farina's production. It would be interesting to know what other Farinas have - and also to compare to Touring production of the same period.

I have nothing to say about the press release. Not exactly something I would qualify as realiable source material.

Best wishes, Kare

 

Interesting. By Scrapped I meant no longer functioning. I think you're also correct for the reason that this frame has some older characteristics.

Best and Happy New Year!