The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Thanks Michael

Hope you feel better.

Best

 

Gee, someone making a reasonable comment. How novel!

 

no sir, THANK YOU.

i meet Gulfstream owners on a daily basis that have gazzillions of dollars. many people of means dont do the " look what i have " thing to the public, because you never know who may be out there to take what you have.

rare it is to find someone so willing to share so much. money begets power, for sure, but the cleb's and business titans i meet are usually polite, and reserved.

the ones that are truely happy, and down to earth are the best to work with and work for.

0846 may not be 100% of what it once once, but what it is NOW is far greater to the rest of us fans as an example of the time and marque.



i say to the doubters to prove with papers and direct concrete evidence as Jim has or be quiet about the whole thing and let the rest of us enjoy " the remains of " a great race car, and a cool owner.


just my thoughts, and opinion.



time for work......

 

Horsey, it is time to quit beating this dead horse (sic). The simple truth is that your only qualification for commenting about this car is that you have received some private correspondence from people who have an axe to grind. For whatever reason, these voices have chosen not to go public and are using you as a proxy.

Like me, you are not a Ferrari historian.

Like me, you are aware that this car has been the subject of debate by those who are Ferrari historians. Moreover, this debate has been raging back and forth. However, again, for whatever reason, the real historians have chosen not to make their debate public.

Unlike me, you don't know when to shut up. Early on, I came to two conclusions.

The first is that Jim has built a really cool car. I'm not as hung up on history as some. So long as someone is not trying to pull off a fraud, I don't really care whether it was Luigi or Timmy who left that nut in the oil pan. Having seen this car in the flesh, it gets a thumbs up in my book.

My second conclusion is that MY opinion and $3 will not even get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. The ONLY person's opinion that really matters is Jim Glickenhaus. It is his car, and, if he likes it, enuf said.

However, you can count the number of real Ferrari historians on both hands and feet. (I realize that many folks in Arkansas have webbed toes. You'll just have to make do.) If you're looking for a independent opinion, only they qualify. Not me and certainly not you.

My guess is that you are bored and shooting your mouth off helps gets you through the night. That's fine, but could you go to VetteChat or whatever for your therapy? This is getting really, really old.

Dale

 

Thank you Dale. I saw 0846 at Siracusa and it looks just fine to me. Sounded good too, once it got above 5000 and cleared its throat.

 

Dale, thanks for the "web toe" remark. Nothing like flat out insults to add a little character to the debate. As for the debate getting old, NOBODY forces ANYBODY to read or engage in the 0846 debate. LWayne started this thread specifically for the purpose of keeping the debate nicely contained so that nobody would be offended by 0846 comments in any other thread. What more do you want? LWayne established this thread SPECIFICALLY for this debate, and then you whine because people engage IN THE DEBATE. DUH!!! That's what this thread is for. As I always suggest, if anybody does not like what is being written, then DO NOT ENTER INTO THIS DEBATE.

Why does it surprise anybody that some might dare to ask the tough questions? Is this the 0846 PRAISE thread, or the DEBATE thread? One of the main questions that I have repeatedly asked, without an answer, is what does this Alberto Pedretti guy say about the car? His name is mentioned in JG's document as having actually looked at the car before it was purchased. And yesterday, at 2:01pm, JG mentioned his name again regarding the engine, as if that was a confirmation of some sort. Engine specifications and confirmations aside, what does he say about THE CAR ITSELF???

You can't just toss somebody's name into the debate in a matter that would seem to add some validity to the car's originality without actually getting an answer to the question: Is it the original car?

Once again, I must ask those who say they are "tired" of the debate to seek other threads for their enjoyment. I personally find the debate fascinating, as do MANY others who have sent PMs to me directly. If any particular person is "tired" of the debate, may I suggest a long nap under a cool tree during this hot summer weather.

 

Horsey, the only person who has anything new to bring to this discussion is Jim Glickenhaus. Everybody else in the peanut gallery has had their say. Some have put in their two cents publicly. The rest prefer to hide behind the curtain. Until these "experts" are willing to expose their beliefs to the light of day, like Jim Glickenhaus has, they will remain mere "nattering nabobs of negativism."

I don't know if you are a Grateful Dead fan, but you may wish to listen to the lyrics of the "New Speedway Boogie." [Words by Robert Hunter; music by Jerry Garcia. Copyright Ice Nine Publishing]

Please don't dominate the rap Jack
if you got nothing new to say
If you please don't back up the track
This train got to run today

Dale

 

There's an article in this week's AutoWeek that some of you may find interesting re: accident damage and proving chassis identity, against the sworn statement of the person who wound up selling the chassis remains of a very important burnt race car which he swore he didn't sell and the Auction House that made a big mistake believing the wrong person instead of scientific process and the story the real chassis told. Interestingly one of the people involved is an old friend of David's, someone Marcel spoke of in connection with 0846, someone who the burnt chassis remains of it now seems more than one famous race car let slip through his shop...

PS. The chassis plate? Long gone.

 

Jim is this the article on the GT40 that will be in Autoweek?

 

Yes 1040.

 

Just curious about something. This debate has raged on for 75 pages and several years because the chassis in question had no serial number. If so, which car does this picture show, and what is the number 0846 stamped on the frame tubing? http://www.*************/Pics?viewPic=y&source=carGal&carID=556&pgID=1&pID=5958

Who stamped those numbers, and when were they stamped?

 

I know you claim to have read the 0846 papers but sometimes I have my doubts. Cavallino was able to answer that you should too.

A much more interesting question is what car is this and why doesn't it have a chassis plate...

Photo Copyright Marcel Massini
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

412P?,P3?

 

Not 412P

 

That Aluminium panel and ducting (very P series) forward of the rear wheel puts me off it being a 512,but the trumpets look the part..

Oh,the torture!

 

Arlie would have you believe that all that matters is the chassis plate but this one photographed at the Ferrari Factory doesn't have one....

Those who've read the 0846 papers carefully won't be surprised.

 

330P3 on Press Day?

 

0846 on Press Day

 

While I may not be a bonified auto historian, I been under the hood of enough machines and studied enough books to have an opinion of things. Every text book in the world quotes the great pyramid as being Cheops, yet over 100 years ago there was a great debate among the so called experts, and in the end they chose not questioning the good name of the man who found or possibly forged evidence, over real forensic evidence. By the look of things there is less to debate and more hard evidence to support the credibility 0846 being true than there is that the great pyramid is, or ever was Cheops.

If I understand this as I have read it, we have before us a Ferrari P3/4 chassis, or a replica of same, which to the consensus of most everyone knowledgable no one ever made a replica of. Someone was making replica P4 chassis. No one ever made a early P3 replica that we know of. Someone altered this chassis to accept a P4 engine. No one knows of anyone who would have converted a P4 replica into a P3, and then back to a P4. Disregarding all drive train parts from the picture, we are presented with a quandry. The question being, where did this chassis originate? Just because it has no number plate does NOT mean we cant speculate as to its origin.

To further add coal onto the fire, we have the opinion of Ferrari. Ferrari have, more than any other car maker in the world, taken to task anyone who ever tried to make a copy of one of thier cars. They have sued and confiscated the chassis of just about all who have attempted this. Yet they not only have remained unconcerned about this chassis, they have put this chassis in the owners garage on thier website, and listed it along with the number 0846. In my opinion, given this level of authenticity, we have hit a dead end. We have never heard from the people who built Cheops, yet we believe its heritage. Here we have the actual builder of this chassis putting thier arm around thier long lost son and calling him home.

In my opinion this discussion has hit a dead end. The only direction it could possibly go now is for someone to prove its NOT 0846. Perhaps the reason so many supposed experts are remaining quiet and secretive is that they have come to the same conclusion.

 

I'm sorry but there are still countless Ferrari replicas out there. And not only crap Fiero ones but multiple Ferrari chassis based vintage ones that are very hard to tell from the real thing. If Ferrari ever tried to sue and confiscate these replicas they've failed miserably. And I won't even go into the territory of the conversions (spiders, competiziones etc.)

Best, Peter

 

I was impressed with (part of) artvonne's clear post: Clearly Jim G's car has a P3 chassis modified to take a P4 engine. Setting aside ALL other parts and discussions, this one point is extremely relevant.

WHY would there be a P3 modified to take a P4 engine?
1) Ferrari modified P3 0846 to take a P4 engine, so this could be (most of) 0846's chassis
2) Someone else could have modified a real P3 to take a P4 engine, but both of the other P3s (0844 and 0848) are accounted for so this isn't it
3) Someone could have built a replica of a P3 chassis and then modified it for a P4 engine
4) Someone intentionally created a fake copy of 0846 with or without Jim's or David's knowledge

It's not number 2. Number 3 is possible, but seems kind of remote considering that they only had a few years in which to do it before David got ahold of the chassis. Number 4 is always possible in this high-buck world. This leaves numbers 1 and 4 as the only real possibilities, with number 3 as a remote contender.

Do any of the skeptics care to chime in on this line of reasoning?

Ped Xing

 

While that may true this is a bit different. Many years ago Ferrari was presented with the many reasons I felt the car I owned was built on the chassis remains of 0846 and the fact that because of those beliefs I was sending that information on to Governmental authorities and asking those authorities to act and acknowledge that the car I owned was entitled to the Legal Identity: 1967 Ferrari P 3/4 0846. Ferrari was given ample time to protest that submission and the only written communications from Ferrari that I've ever received confirmed that Ferrari had scrapped but not destroyed the chassis remains of 0846. They added that they felt I should not have used those remains to "rebuild or revival" a car which they had written off but also added that these were "glorious pieces".

My car, under the legal identity of 1967 Ferrari P 3/4 0846, has been continuously registered as such for many years with Ferrari's full knowledge and it has also traveled back and forth between the US and Italy twice under that legal identity, passing through both US and Italian Customs, with the full prior knowledge of Ferrari and indeed has resided in Italy under that legal identity for many months with the full knowledge of Ferrari.

The only thing Ferrari has asked me to emphasise when speaking to the Press about my car is that while Ferrari scrapped and disregarded the chassis remains of 0846 they never sold the chassis remains of 0846 to anyone, and I rebuilt (Ferrari's word) the car, something I am in complete agreement with and have always clearly stated.

The Legal aspect of this debate has been over for many years. That is indisputable fact.

 

Stephen, at the end of the day, the skeptics hang their hat on one thing -- David Piper would have never made the mistake of selling a real P3/P4 chassis instead of a replica P4 one.

Jim can post circumstantial evidence until he is blue in the face, but this will have no impact on the skeptics.

I hope no one intreprets this as knock on Mr. Piper. He has done more to keep the faith alive than anyone else in the word, including Enzo Ferrari. However, he chooses to remain silent on this matter.

So there you have it. Jim has made his case, and the skeptics have rejected it based, in large part, on their faith in their hero.

Dale

 

Keep in mind that David has continuously and unequivocally stated and confirmed that the chassis he sold me was built to P4 blueprints and there is no question what so ever that he is wrong and that the chassis he sold me is built to P3 blueprints as confirmed by detailed comparison with 0844 and 0854 both of which have P3 chassis, and is substantially different from the P4 chassis he had built to P4 blueprints or the P 4 chassis of 0856.

Also remember that David's recently re affirming to Nathan that the chassis he sold be was built to P4 blueprints, which it's not, proves that he didn't forge 0846. The photograph he provided Nathan with to post and the photo I posted of the forward chassis engine mounts after I bought the chassis from David prove that I didn't forge 0846 as they are exactly the same in both photos.

Andreas is correct we're endless re plowing the same ground and the time very well may have come to shut the thread. At some point I'll update the 0846 documents with the Le Mans documents I recently acquired and other interesting information and at that time there may be more to discuss.

 

My post wasn't directed at 0846 but was a more general observation. However you do bring an interesting point. If Ferrari weren't in agreement would they sue you and confiscate (sp?) your car? They haven't which says a lot.

This doesn't prove anything beyond any doubt (what evidence will?) but it does make one think.

Best regards, Peter