The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

You've got me listening, for one...haha. Oh dear, I should be out pillaging the town, shouldn't I?

 

These were stored correctly and this is something we do every day. Here's one for you. J6 undergoing her 25K major service...
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Andrew,
(sorry for the late response - had to get some sleep.)
I have a problem with the assumption that these people (Ferrari, Forghieri, Piper) must be wrong so that Jim can be right.
e.g. David Piper - it has been stated that he didn't know what he had.
According to the JG documents
1 - DP built the car in 1974
2 - the chassis is significantly different from a P4 chassis
Now let's think about this for a minute. Piper actually owns a P4 (0900 - built on a replica chassis). I find it hard to believe that DP had 0003 for 26yrs, sat next to his P4 (0900), and didn't notice that the chassis looked significantly different to the P4 chassis that he also owned. Even though he took the engine out, did all the regular work necessary to maintain a race car. He didn't notice the chassis was different?
So that's where I'm at today - unless someone changes their story.
Nathan

 

So, by that statement, you seem to be implying that the changes to the chassis occurred after it left Piper's possession. Is this what you mean to say?

If that's the case then, how do you come to believe that it's more plausible that Jim would have performed such modifications, and opened it up to very public scrutiny, than it is to believe that Piper didn't notice what he sold to Jim was not a chassis made from the blueprints he obtained from Ferrari?

BTW it would be helpful to this debate if all the "documents" that people claim to have seen were actually published, not just had their contents inferred by those who wish to use the innuendo to justify their own point of view. At least that way people could make up their own minds. Full and open disclosure is certainly more convincing than snide insinuation.

 

nice . reminds me of bieng at work and going a 72 month inspection on a Gulfstream

 

Nathan

Piper TWICE in writing described the chassis as P4. He was wrong.
Forghieri, even though he did refer to 0846 as a "bastard 330 P3/P4" stated in writing that the dimensions of 0846, such as wheelbase, are the same as the 330 P4 and is 2400mm: "Yes. The database for the P4 was originally the same as the P3." He is wrong as well by 12mm.

12mm. a small, easy to miss, but very significant difference confirmed by physical measurements of my 412P 0854 and LS's 330 P4 0856 and Ferrari's "TECHNICAL DATA SHEET" OF "330 P3/P4"

Nathan every question you've asked has been answered in the 0846 papers years ago.
Those are my answers. No matter how many times you ask them they remain "asked and answered". More importantly the assumptions I've made about 0846's chassis can be, and have been, verified by independent forensic investigation.

 

From Day 1 Jim has bent over backwards to share his passions with us with full transparency to all the ups and downs, yet all he gets for his troubles is endless crap and thinly-veiled attacks on his intengrity. I don't get it, I really don't.

 

I do not agree. The car is a reconstruction and therefore should not be called 0846, but 0846R or so. The same for some 512S/Ms and other famous Ferrari's or other makes.
There is nothing wrong having a reconstruction, but it is NOT the original car (I agree with Denis Jenkinson quote in Cavallino 147, Massini letter).
In the past there were more persons claiming a chassisnumber: 0720TR, 0818(?), 5149GT(?),5899GT, 6045GT etc etc
Why not putting a "R" behind the number??? Because?
If a car is destroyed/broken up, more people could recreate a car, that is what happened with so many Ferraris. Even "original" papers are made new.
Maybe there are Ferraris with newly official factory issued Certificate of Authencity, BUT are x% or even 100% reconstructions. You can't know everything so your feeling/emotion has to be right when you want to buy a car.
Maybe in the future someone would love to pay 10 million for this "0846" because of the story and it "feels good" while an other thinks 1 million for the parts.

I like this "P3/P4" anyway as A nice car. The whole story will go with it.

 

Jim,

I love your posts and thank you for sharing everything you do with the car. Some people will never see one of these in real life or every get the chance to see in depth what you have done to bring this great car back to life. I really don't see what the fuss is about. It seems we have a lot of experts on vintage F-cars here that are misplaced and doing other things with their careers other than working for Ferrari. All the naysayers better step up and apply at Ferrari since they know so much.

Thanks,
Pat

 

Arlie,

I like you but really, STFU already.

Destroyed can mean many things to many people.

If Ferrari truly thinks that the car is destroyed then please explain the following. If you can't then STFU.

Ferrari added the car to Jim's owners profile and Jim has posted several times about it without issue on the owners site

Ferrari build uprights for his car and noted the SN on the work order

It was entered in the Targa Flora (sp?)

etc etc etc

 

Good points and I do not disagree. I am just not sure referring to a chassis number with an extra little "R" or something really makes any difference. Anyone who was ever interested in buying such a car, or anyone really interested in the history or the car or marque is going to know its a car with a big story anyhow. That is the case today with such cars whether it be 0720TR or 0846.

To those just casually interested or seeing it a car show or such, they are not going to understand nor care about such differences anyhow.



Terry

 

Tom

I really don't disagree that my car, as it exists today, is a reconstructed 0846 utilizing approximately 80+% of 0846's original chassis, delineated original parts of 0846, other original period Ferrari parts, and newly constructed parts such as the 603 uprights that Ferrari S.p.A. recast for me several years ago.

Indeed on page on page 109 of the 0846 papers, my June 14th letter to Cavallino, that's how I describe it:

Dear Cavallino:

Bill Wagenblatt's letter to Mauro Forghieri and Mauro Forghieri's response reprinted in Cavallino 147 is very interesting but as regards Bill's question # 4 Mauro's answer # 4 is incorrect by 12mm.

Question #4 Bill Wagenblatt:
The dimensions, such as wheelbase, are the same as the 330 P4 and is
2400 mm.

Answer # 4 Mauro Forghieri:
Yes. The database for the P4 was originally the same as the P3.

As the "TECHNICAL DATA SHEET" of "330 P3/P4 Chassis n.0846" clearly states the P3 wheelbase of 0846 was 2412mm and was changed in December 1967 to 2400mm when 0846 was converted by Ferrari from a P3 to a P 3/4 the "bastard 330 P3/P4" Mauro referred to in his answer #6.

This is a small but very significant difference that is confirmed by physical measurement of my 412 P 0854 and LS's 330 P4 0856. (Links to the 0846 Papers which go into this in detail and contain the "TECHNICAL DATA SHEET" of "330 P3/P4 Chassis n. 0846" and other reasons why I, and others now believe that the car I own contains substantial portions of the original chassis remains of 0846 are listed at the end of this letter).

I have no quarrel with your “* Publisher note,” except of course, when you refer to 0846 as "s/n 1046” in the latter part of the note.

“* Publisher note: Readers should know that there is presently a great deal of controversy over the current car that carries the s/n 0846. The car is presently under discussion between the owner, the Factory, and a large group of experts. It is not our intention here to enter this controversy. This letter is simply presented as a clarification of what s/n 1046 (sic) was, and other "P" cars were at the time they were racing."

I do take issue with your use of the word "destroyed" in your second Publisher's note, especially if taken to mean that the chassis remains of 0846 no longer exist.
** “Publisher's note: “At the present time, the Factory considers the original
car destroyed”.

In an email dated 6/10/2005 Joanne Marshall of Ferrari S.p.A. wrote:
"We confirm that, as far as our factory records are concerned, the chassis in question (0846) was totally written off in 1967 after the Le Mans incident."

"Written off" does not mean ceasing to exist.


There is not, nor has there been for years, any question that, under the definitions that Ferrari has chosen for their "authentication" process, 0846 as it exists today could not be "authenticated" by Ferrari. As an aside, under those same criteria the Le Mans winning Ford MK-IV J5 couldn't be either as it, unlike my Ford MK-IV J6, no longer has its original chassis plate.

The only question was, and is, if my beliefs, as stated below are correct:

"After Le Mans 1967, Ferrari 330 P 3/4 0846 was returned to the Ferrari
factory where it was deconstructed, investigated and scrapped. Years later, James Glickenhaus acquired remains of 0846, including remains of the original
chassis, and with help from Ferrari S.p.A. who recast suspension uprights,
commissioned Sal Barone, Alberto Pedretti, Bob Wallace and John Hadduk Jr.
to restore 0846 to original specifications."

(My recent acquisition of 412 P 0854 and its original coupe tail and doors
will enable me to restore 0846 to it's original spyder configuration and 0854
back to it original coupe configuration using the spyder tail that is now on
0854 which, by the way, is originally from 0858.)

In a letter dated October 5th, 2004, Umberto Masoni of Ferrari Maserati
Classiche described the research and documentation that is behind my beliefs:

"Subject: Ferrari 330 P3/4 Chassis 0846

Dear Mr. Glickenhaus
We wish to thank you for the extensive documentation that we have received
for competence, from Mr. Montezemolo's office.”

This "extensive documentation" “the 0846 Papers" is posted on a website
copyrighted by Ferrari S.p.A. CLick Owners/ Classiche/Forum.

For those without access to that website click:

http://www.glickenhaus.com/jim/project.pdf_


It's interesting that over many years while some continue to scream fake, no one including Ferrari S.p.A. has refuted the "extensive documentation" behind my belief as to what happened to the chassis remains of 0846 and how they wound up where I believe they did.




Best

 

We keep going around in circles, and yet the first and most important question has never been answered in an ABSOLUTE manner; just how much of an original car must exist to call it real rather than a recreation?

 

Jim,

Sorry to have triggered this discussion with my comment about Paul S. That said, this now feels like a familiar 0846 thread .

Nathan,

Based on the description of the differences between a P4 chassis and a P3/4 chassis, these differences are not glaring. When D. Piper received 003/0846, did he receive it as a bare chassis and build it up or did he receive an assembled car? If he received it assembled, did he ever strip it bare? The reason I ask is that 12mm is about 1/2 an inch which is the adjustment to the chassis not the wheelbase (wheelbase of 0846 as P3/4 was the same as other P4's), this and the other chassis differences would be pretty well hidden or might appear as poor workmanship if not observed in bare form. This could easily explain why D. Piper did not realize he had 0846.

Regarding the chassis history between '67 and '74, who knows, but back then this was a small tight knit community, if Ferrari junked the chassis and a few years later there was an order for a similar chassis, it seems likely it would have been retrieved and 'spruced up' for further use. It would have significantly improved the chassis builder's profit margin.

Anything can be faked, it just seems unlikely. A way to verify if the chassis was in its present form during D. Piper's ownership is to find a picture of one of the areas on the chassis that are different from the P4 blueprints while in Mr. Piper's ownership. Maybe someone took a picture while the car was being worked on? If no pictures exist, this also backs the scenario that Mr. Piper didn't know about the chassis differences.

Tom,

0846 - 0846R, I think you are splitting hairs. Also, based on this, many ground-up restorations should get the same designation.

Regards,

Art S.

 

Man, did you guys see that 1969 Trans Am Ram Air V go for 115K?????

I'd better get the Turtle Wax out.................


*sanding wheels*

Most of the time, the dealer had to drop that motor in...........


*sound of chain fall clanking*

Thanks for the link Mr. G.............

*adding toner to printer*

Ya'll have a good weekend!

 

Art
very good questions - along with many others that I hope to have answered when I go and see David in the next couple of weeks -
Nathan

 

Nathan, you have a PM.

 

And, importantly, what stuff counts for more, or less, than other stuff.

What if you have 100% of the mechanicals, engine, trans, etc, but the body is a complete reconstruction, and the frame has been rebuilt and/or repaired as a result of one or more accidents or race damage.

Is having the original frame and body, of more, less, or the same importance as having the original engine and trasnmission?

I don't know the exact answer to the question, but certainly, if taken as a whole, more than 50% of the component parts of the car are original, I would include any restored part (repaired, not replaced) as being original, then I think that car's owner can lay claim to having the original, not a recreated car.

But, portions of all the major components must be original. Can't be an all new body and frame, with original drivetrain. That's not the original car, that would certainly be a recreation.

BTW, this is strictly a layman's opinion. I have ZERO knowledge of recreations, restorations, etc, other thatn the work we've done on my 30+ yr old Dino.

DAVE

 

Art


"Regarding the chassis history between '67 and '74, who knows, but back then this was a small tight knit community, if Ferrari junked the chassis and a few years later there was an order for a similar chassis, it seems likely it would have been retrieved and 'spruced up' for further use. It would have significantly improved the chassis builder's profit margin."

Bingo. (see page 21, 22, 63-78 0846 papers)

David in writing, twice has already stated, under the penalty of law, exactly what he thought the chassis he sold me was and there is now no question that he was wrong.

As for what happened to 0846's original chassis David has also stated:"Pininfarina used that number for P5." There is no question that he is wrong about that as well.

With the hindsight advantage of my research anyone can remember anything they want but the documents they certified and signed, and the statements they made, on the day are the ones that I feel are much more important.
BTW Doug Nye asked David the same question about the origin of the chassis he sold me about a year ago and Doug told me that David's answer was not satisfactory, nor negated my theory stated in the 0846 Papers. He also related that Liz Piper cut off any further discussion about the origin of the chassis David sold me.

 

Jim,
I tried accessing " The 0846 Papers" on the Glickenaus.com link that you listed, but it comes up bad. I have been wanting to read them for a while now, and was excited to see the link posted. Did you pull it down, or is there another link?

Thanks!
Brian Brown
Patrick Ottis Co.
Berkeley,CA

 

http://www.glickenhaus.com/jim/project.pdf

Maybe just maybe.....this whole 0846 matter could be ended by putting the R behind it. What could REALLY be the problem?

 

It's a good link ........check your browser settings...

Darn, Mr. G., my printer ran out of ink on that one, and Accounting wants to know why I use so much color cartridges!!!!!

BigTex is leaving again for awhile...if you need me, call Valeria's cell phone.

*door slamming, sound of running footsteps*

See ya'll in New Orleans...........

 

Hi
Link is good. It's a huge file. You need adobe. Sometimes AOL can't deal with large files. Try by going directly to internet not through aol. If you still can't download it let me know by pm.

Best

 

Jim,

Thanks for the insight. You don't have to convince me; with the documents you provided in your packet your scenario seems the most likely one. Occam's Razor.

That said, for the non-believers, your comments will be considered hearsay and will continue to not be believed. A photograph of a relevant part of the chassis while under D. Piper's ownership will tie with the certified documents beautifully. However, I doubt such a photograph exists.

Another interesting thought is: did Ferrari photographically, or otherwise, document the damage analysis after LeMans '67? This would be very interesting, however also very unlikely.

You reminded me of an interesting point regarding Mr. Piper’s view of what happened to the 0846 chassis – that it was used on P5. If I recall, that was the prevailing view by many until recently. This view then contradicts the arguments being made that the chassis was ‘destroyed’, rather than the looser definition of ‘scrapped’ which to me means ‘dumped on the scrap heap.’

You mentioned that Doug Nye was not satisfied with Mr. Piper’s explanation of the chassis. If I recall, Mr. Nye had the possibility that your theory was correct at a couple percent. Did Mr. Nye change his opinion of your car after speaking with Mr. Piper?


Nathan,

I look forward to hearing the results of your discussion with Mr. Piper, if you will be at liberty to share them.

Regards,

Art S.

 

Just curious about one reoccuring point: legal saber rattling

If this is not about the MONEY, why so much emphasis on the LAW regarding this entire 0846 issue? Over and over again, veiled legal implications seem to resurface during this entire debate. If it's NOT about the money, then why does legal terminology pop up during every 0846 thread?

How come I can buy a '66 Chevy without any legal hassles yet the 0846 Ferrari transactions and ongoing debate are fraught with legal possibilities.

It sounds to me that somewhere, somehow, it most DEFINATELY is, or will be, about the MONEY.