News

David Piper restores the Talacrest P4

Discussion in 'Vintage (thru 365 GTC4)' started by Streetrod, Sep 6, 2012.

  1. judge4re

    judge4re F1 World Champ

    Apr 26, 2003
    13,234
    Never home
    Full Name:
    Dr. Dumb Ass
    That is what happens when provenance is perceived as value add...
     
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. Bryanp

    Bryanp F1 Rookie
    Silver Subscribed

    Aug 13, 2002
    3,731
    Santa Fe, NM
    are you implying that it is an invalid or suspect perception? I love you like a brother, but I will always pay more for a car that has "Fangio sat here" provenance than mere "Erik sat here" (although Mrs. judge might beg to differ . . .)
     
  4. tongascrew

    tongascrew F1 Rookie

    Jan 3, 2006
    2,989
    tewksbury
    Full Name:
    george burgess
    The car described here is not what I would call a replica but a modified reproduction. I suppose it's all about how you define these two terms. If these "modified reproductions" are to be raced in historic events they should have a class of there own in order to compete. tongascrew
     
  5. judge4re

    judge4re F1 World Champ

    Apr 26, 2003
    13,234
    Never home
    Full Name:
    Dr. Dumb Ass
    Is that rational?
     
  6. solofast

    solofast Formula 3

    Oct 8, 2007
    1,773
    Indianapolis
    It is properly described as a restoration. It is not a "modified reproduction", that term absolutely does not apply.

    The reproduction connotation describes something that is newly made and was not originally made by the Ferrari factory, or not made in period. The chassis, the engine and the transmission, and much of the rest of the car originated in the Ferrari factory in 1967, and cannot be described as reproductions. Some aspects of the car are not original, or consistent with the way the car as it was when it originally raced as a P4, but they are most certainly not reproductions.

    What it will be is Ferrari chassis 0858, restored as a P4. The chassis will be restored to the configuration that it originally was raced in 1967. It will not have it's original bodywork. It's engine will not be in it's original configuration, but the engine (whatever engine number it is) was originally built for one of these cars as is the transmission, suspension and numerous other original pieces.

    You may not agree with the configuration that the car is being restored to, but it is properly called a restoration.

    The bodywork is not going to be original, and I think the car would be worth a lot more, and be a lot more original, if it had been made by Allegretti, but in no case can the finished product be called a replica or a reproduction because it does not have original bodywork. Lots of old racing cars don't have their original bodies. Jim's 002 doesn't either, but I don't see anyone saying it is a reproduction since it doesn't have panels beaten in Italy in 1947. It is correctly described as a restoration, as will be 0858.
     
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. Bryanp

    Bryanp F1 Rookie
    Silver Subscribed

    Aug 13, 2002
    3,731
    Santa Fe, NM
    Absolutely, whether referring to generic "provenance " (the chronology of ownership or location of a historical object) or the enhanced "Fangio sat here" provenance that we were getting into w/ the issue of replica comp cars. The reason why these cars are so sought after is primarily because of (1) the threshold provenance matter - they were actually made by Ferrari - and (2) because of their enhanced provenance - they won the races that they did, or they were driven by the famous drivers of the day. The fact that they are also ******* beautiful, well-engineerd (for their time) or other such issues are secondary. Scarcity clearly comes into play, but scarcity also drives the logical tendency to differentiate and establish a pecking order amongst the scarce - the cars that actually raced and won and those that didn't.

    If provenance were not not important, then a facsimile would be equal in value to the real thing. The market and even the existence of this very forum disproves that. The fact that certain people risk criminal sanction to make/sell replicas with fraudulent provenance also underscores the fact that a desirable item with provenance has more value than the same item without it. You asked if it is "rational" which would require proving that the phenomena of supply and demand is rational, and I do not think that is necessary.
     
  9. boxerman

    boxerman F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    May 27, 2004
    12,806
    CT
    Full Name:
    Sean
    There is a vast difference when a car has a period as raced body that is torn off, as opposed to a chassis devoid of body that has replica bits added. In the first instance a period piece with true provenance is,to put it kindly, being cut up and lost to make a half replica. In the second instances pieces which are irretrievably lost/destroyed are replaced with replica pieces to create a pastiche whic has "acceptable" provenance, allowing a dead piece to come alive again.

    One is a crime against good taste a destruction of part of the provenance and an affront to any concept of really valuing these machines for something other than $$$
     
  10. boxerman

    boxerman F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    May 27, 2004
    12,806
    CT
    Full Name:
    Sean
    Value is a term far more vast than $$value,
     
  11. tongascrew

    tongascrew F1 Rookie

    Jan 3, 2006
    2,989
    tewksbury
    Full Name:
    george burgess
    I guess I was not clear in my comments. I was referring to the PSK thread #0298 and the plan outlined in "Steps 1,2,3,4,5. The D Type described and any other cars like it I think should be in a class of their own. On the other hand the specifics you describe above are certainly most realistic for a "restoration" You are absolutely correct that it would be nice if any historic car could be restored using all its original parts. This is really not possible particularly with any car with a competition history of any signiificance. As you probably know I was quite involved in the discusions around the subject of the new categories in F Chat for rebodies,reproductions and restorations.I didn't get exactly what I had in mind but the new categories are basicly fine. Again my apologies for not being clear in my previous comments. tongascrew
     
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    I still think the 250LM is better looking. In coupe form these prototypes look the best but in spider form they are too heavy in the roll bar area IMO.

    Opinions though ...
    Pete
     
  14. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Honorary Owner

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus
    #312 Napolis, May 10, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  15. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    Interesting rear wheel position in the arch ... ?
    Pete
     
  16. BigTex

    BigTex Seven Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed Owner

    Dec 6, 2002
    74,136
    Houston, Texas
    Full Name:
    Bubba
    As history is wiped away.......

    I'll admit I really don't see the point, the Can Am was "one of one"...and a pretty interesting car. IMO.
     
  17. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Honorary Owner

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus
    For one thing.

    Top of side windows.

    Slot vents in sill in front of rear wheel.

    I could go on but taking the last original 350 Cam Am existant, chopping off part of it's original chassis and fitting it with a replica "P4" body still seems sad to me.

    Not getting the details exactly right is another thing.
     
  18. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Honorary Owner

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus
    #316 Napolis, May 10, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  19. solofast

    solofast Formula 3

    Oct 8, 2007
    1,773
    Indianapolis
    +1

    I also see that the rear fender lines aren't right, with the fender area above the wheel opening being rounded in the replica bodywork, and it extends upward flatter before it rolls off to the fender crown on the original bodywork. The windshield looks high also, which makes the car looking like it is sagging in the middle.

    Considering the value of the car and the access to David's bodywork pieces to computer scan (as they apparently did based on some of their earlier pictures), there's no reason that, parked side by side with an original, you should able to tell the difference. This is "unfortunate"...
     
  20. readplays

    readplays Formula 3

    Aug 22, 2008
    1,769
    New York City
    Full Name:
    Dave Powers
    All for a few bags of gold.
    I'd just as soon move this one to replicas at this point.
    Sad.
     
  21. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    So many replicas get that side window angle wrong. Should be parallel to the ground.
    Pete
     
  22. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Honorary Owner

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus
    Note the erroneous alloy side window header on the Piper replica body vs the original which didn't have one.
     
  23. polds

    polds Rookie

    Aug 17, 2005
    37
    #321 polds, May 10, 2013
    Last edited: May 10, 2013

    I'm torn regarding this whole issue. I can understand Jim's angle. But he has two utter stunners parked up so a decision in his camp to retain this car as it left the factory would be as simple as eating pie.

    But now we're down to the nitty gritty. WTF are these dudes doing? If this was a kosher Canaletto that was being resurrected after being overpainted in the past by lord knows who then it would be front page news. As in its murder!

    How hard is it to get these details 110% correct? Using an English wheel is one thing but the slots on the sills are light years out. They are making this thing into a joke. The devil is in the detail big time here. The Can Am is not a pretty thing compared to its 1st incarnation.

    The bottom line is filthy lucre and the pursuit of it. The P4 is one of (if not) the best looking cars of all time.

    I would have given it to Classiche and got them to do it by throwing copious amount of money at them. They built the F**ker so I'm sure they can revert it correctly. Even if they don't and never will recognise it at what it was originally.

    Jim's like me. Everything HAS to be correct as humanly possible. Watching this multi million pound car being reverted is like watching one flew over the cuckoos nest!

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aItpjF5vXc[/ame]
     
  24. Ferrari 360 CS

    Ferrari 360 CS F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Dec 4, 2004
    6,170
    Cape Town,SA
    Full Name:
    Jacques
    +1
     
  25. macca

    macca Formula Junior

    Dec 3, 2003
    677
    I think 0856 has one, but it's painted black so it's not conspicuous.

    The photos of the Talacrest car are all taken from close-up, so distort the appearance of the body due to the wide angle lens. When it's finished and painted the final judgement can be made.

    But they shouldn't have done it at all........

    Paul M
     
  26. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Honorary Owner

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus
    #324 Napolis, May 11, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    0856 doesn't have one either.

    Agree with your last sentence.

    Best!
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  27. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Honorary Owner

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus
    Ditto.
     

Share This Page