Suggest you take a leaf out of your own book, Carbon .... and the name is SKETT, by the way. But if you wanna play 'name-calling', I can think of some pretty good 'word-plays' on McCoy .... P.S. Somebody sent me a couple of old issues of Ferrari Market Letter. Not impressed. Threw them in the trash ....
Go right ahead there, champ... Take your best shot, have a blast with it... LOL...! That really hurts me... i'm sorry that The Great Paul Skett wasn't impressed by The Ferrari Market Letter... i really hope Gerald never reads your statement... He's far too busy to fall on the floor and laugh his ass off... Try harder next time, Skeet... Take care.
Horsefly: Sorry your bugged by it, but . . . I didnt hear anyone rattling legal sabers when someone was expressing opinions or questioning facts. There is a big difference between questioning the validity of a particular car, and someone's suggested knowledge of facts which could point to fraud and the swtiching of property after a sale. My suggestion is that people should be careful of: 1) stating things they know are not true, and/or 2) disclosing thier knowledge or participation in fraud. If proved true or false, such statments can be of interest (and easily discovered on computers, links and the web) whether they are back channel or up front and center. This is a world different from the discussion of opinions, which I've quite enjoyed.
Er, I don't think so, Art - not by a long way - although some people undoubtably must be wishing that it was ....
Ahhh... much better. I was worried that everyone lost interest due to the James Dean 550 discussion. Now all is normal with F-chat vintage again! Everyone have a good weekend and stay one step ahead of the lawyers! Art S.
There appear to be a couple of other non-original things there too, Jim . Although the steering wheel appears to have acquired quite a nice patina, it is not an original P4 steering wheel. As I stated previously in post #391 of the #0846 Poll thread and earlier in post #3 of the Vintage Steering Wheels thread, the correct type should be a Momo Monza with a 4-bolt fixing, rather than the later Momo Prototipo wheel with the six-bolt fixing. Having said that, take a look at the steering wheel in the photo of #0846, mentioned below looks like someone drilled an extra set of mounting holes ! Also your cockpit ventilation facia nozzle vent is non-orginal. The correct item, if memory serves me well, is from a Renault 8 Gordini I think Max did offer to sell you a spare one, a while back. Theres a good shot of an original vent shown in the open cockpit of #0846 at Le Mans in 67 in the very bottom photo of the Big Discovery Wayne P4 doors thread (amongst other places). The one currently fitted to your dash panel looks more like a slightly modified Mk1 Ford Escort facia vent. But then I could be wrong . Lastly, what is that in the bottom of the photo, in your post #52 on the previous page - bolted to the central chassis tube, Jim ? It looks, to me, like possibly some sort of brake balance adjustment valve. I dont think they had that sort of thing on the P3s in 66 or the P4s in 67. Is this some other modification you have made, or is it, possibly, a little David Piper tweak ?
That's O.K. Callum - apology accepted. Great post, by the way. Shame you had to spoil it by adding this: That's what Internet message boards are intended for - FREE SPEECH, and expression of (hopefully, well-informed) opinions, though obviously quite a few people on here don't like listening to mine. (They don't HAVE to read them). One day, sooner rather than later, I hope to be accepting a few more (belated) apologies besides yours ....
You too, Art ! Enjoy the U.S. Grand Prix too .... Jim can rest assured that I won't be posting anything 'defamatory or actionable' on Sunday evening (U.K. time). PS - In case any of you might be wondering why my posts and replies are coming in a little slower than usual .... it's because I'm having to 'run them by' my 'learned counsel' first, before posting ! LOL
While I know that all the legal talk has been in jest, I really do hope that this site is not going to force the legal views of American culture on the rest of us NON-Americans, where we simply call BS when we see it and then get on with our lives. In the end we are discussing a car, nothing more, nothing less. A wonderful car to us Ferrari nutters, but to over 99% of the population simply NOTHING, just a bit of metal and rubber put together. Strange as it seems people, like my wife, worry about trivial things like their children and security in the world and where the future is heading ... Lets keep our feet on the ground and accept some people think differently ... and in the end that is what makes living interesting ... yep PEOPLE that we meet and laugh with or about I really do not think comments on this site are every really going to affect any value of anything ... after all we do not have to provide proof of our experience on the subject matter before we spout away. Thus comments on this site have NO credibility other than an interesting discussion. Well that is how I see it anyway Pete's opinion ps: For some on this site, the comment about my wife, etc. is an attempt in humor
I think its funny you would mention about "stating things they know are not true" when in you first post #344 you said the " a genuine body is a significant factor in determining a genuine car". Well that satement is wrong. Its been well established that the cahssis is the car. No offense but you should follow your own advice. Here is my suggestion to you. Read through previous posts on the subject before you post or you might be guilty of "speading more bull**** again. Ed
Firstly, as I m sure you realise, I didnt apologise to you for anything other than making an example of you in my analogy, but in case you didnt understand I will expand the statement to its full extent it should read Sorry to say this Paul, but the following analogy is what I perceive your behaviour to be akin too. Now as to whether or not that spoiled my post, maybe it spoiled it for you, others might disagree. Personally I thought it made my point quite succinctly and didnt spoil anything unless of course you think the whole discussion about the provenance of #0846 spoils any thread. Free speech is one thing, but you stoop to personal insults like this, which only demeans yourself not those you aim them at, and more importantly does nothing to further your argument whatsoever. I doubt that day will come, I have read all the threads here and elsewhere about the subject and so far I have yet to see you state why you believe that Jims car is not #0846. Youve implied, hinted, inferred and made obtuse references to knowing something others dont, but you have yet to say why its not #0846. IMHO the time has long since past for you to put up or STFU. Of course you wont do that, as it would mean that people could actually debate the points rationally and your arguments may be countered. We couldnt have a debate based on facts now could we? That would be too much of a commonsense thing to do! You wonder why people arent flocking to your cause, Ill tell you in that blunt forthright way us Kiwis are well known for Your smarmy, know it all attitude sucks That's not an insult BTW just my opinion. FWIW I havent made up my mind one way or another, Im not an expert on P3/P4s so I will wait until all the facts, documentation and claims are published before I decide. Until that point in time this discussion will just go round in circles, unless of course any parties with relevant information care to add something new to the discussion.
Bravo fellow Kiwi, say it like you see it . The world would be so much simplier if we all actually said what we believed instead of trying to appease everybody and thus hiding our true feelings. Gee and no conspiracy theories anymore ... Pete
Someone could ask Piper for more info. He will certainly be at the Festival of Speed and Revival meeting. There is one party who could give a real statement about 0846: Ferrari Spa (But Piper knows more and Ferrari can not know all details after it was sold) Just wait and see.
Model builder: Not exactly sure where you are coming from, but my comments regarding "significant parts" and my comments about fraud are entirely different. I'm not sure you understood. To take them one at a time: Whether a car is genuine or not is a factor of many things. While experts in the collector/classic car buisness will not agree on everything, there are certain things that are generally agreed upon as important in deciding whether you have a fake, a replica, a bitsa, or an actual serial number upon which you can claim ownership of provinence. Mr. Model Builder, your declairation that the "chassis is the car" is nice, but not tidy, and if I may say so, a somewhat "half-baked" conclusionary statment. Yes, most experts will view the original chassis as the most important part of the equation. I'm not going to get into an incomenserable sophisitc debate with you, but I'm sure you will agree that an original chassis with a fiero motor and body, is not the Ferrari that may have won Lemans or Sebring. There are other parts to the equation. Whether a car has the chassis or not is not the end of the analysis. If that were the case we would not have the often case in the Ferrari world were several people claim to have the same car. The analysis is much more complicated, and often not agreed upon. But what I did say in my post was that a thing is the sum of its parts. Most experts agree that the chassis, the engine, the drive train, the suspension, and yes to a lesser extent, the body are all factors, with some weighted more than others. Sometimes the original body is not important At other times it may be more important. My point was in Jim's case, whether you look upon a genuine P4 body, or a fake body is important. In some cases the original body is more important than others. Like most things, it depends. There are examples where the orginal body means almost nothing to the providence of a car. Take, 2819, a SEFAC hot rod SWB. It was originally delivered to one of the greatest long distance drivers of all time. He took it to 2nd in the Tour de France, in one of the best battles in that races' history. After purchase by Count Volpi, the car was transformed into a GTO killer, created by Bizzarini and the team that built the GTO for Ferrari. We now know this car as the Breadvan, and the Breadvan has raced its entire life with its strange body, and has the claim to very significant races. Now the orignial body of 2819 was taken off of 2819, and placed on another crashed SWB. Certainly, the owner of the Breadvan does not need or want that original body. Nor is the provinence of the Breadvan affected by its existance or not. (in fact it is my opinion that if the Breadvan was transformed back into an original SWB, the value and providence would be adversley affected.) On the other hand, take a guy who is trying to piece together a SEFAC hot rod. He has all of the orignial parts of such a car. An original and extremly rare SEFAC engine (one of the 30 or so built), he has the original suspension, the drive train, and ferrari has built him the original wheels. While purchasing these spares, lets say, there exists an original alluminum SWB body, which he purchases. You'd agree that body is worth a pretty penny to that guy, would you not? It would be worth more to that person that to say me, would it not? In the case of this Bitsa car, it is pretty darn important when the questioning starts and stops. To ground ourselves in reality, a SEFAC recently sold for an amount well over 1.5M. It does not have the orignal engine, but that engine which mates to the car is for sale. Can you guess whether its more valuable to me or the ower of the original car? Does it matter to someone reconstructing a P4 whether the body he bought was an original P4 or a fake? (while I proclaimed it was not the most significant factor) am I wrong for suggesting it is significant? The answer should be clear. But all of this above in my post is opinion. Even though it may comport with many expert opinions, someone can not get in trouble for expressing opinion, on this side of the pond or the other. My advise, if you read it, is to encourage the expression of opinion. I think I said I've enjoyed it. There is a big distinction between expressing an opinion, and slander. And there is a difference between slander and the disclosure of fraud. And the definitions do not change whether we are speaking the King's english or a have a Brookland diolect. This brings me to your other comments. I'm not sure whether you understood my comments. By indicating my opinions regarding the siginficance of a real body, I'm not knowingly spreading false information in a malicious way. For one thing, I cannot be more long winded about why I believe I was correct. My comments were of a general and simple nature: it is imprudent to either steal, or knowingly and maliciously lie about something. I thought that this should be common sense on either side of the pond, but if you prefer, take it as a free legal advice, or ignore it.
P4Replica, Before you slag off other peoples' websites, I gather you are the creator of the P4 Replica site......................which has been "under construction" for a year or maybe more. http://www.p4replica.com/ If you were to cut-and-paste some of what you've posted here onto your site, you would have achieved something positive, instead of needle, needle, needle all the time. And thanks for the tips about 'Auto Passion'; but since I am enthusiastic about the history of all motor racing, not just one make - let alone be obsessive about one model - I may be a little too busy or indeed may spend my budget on other things. Maybe my copy of Prunet has faded somewhat, but there isn't much blue visible on the Filipinetti car; the pictures on this thread make it clear, thanks. Paul M
It has been established in court on several occasions that the chassis is what makes a car genuine. What makes a car "original" of "factory original" or "race original" is another story. These words have very clear definitions. You like to use big words and thats fine, but you need to use the correct words when discussing these issues. The terms I used have very clear cut definitions but unfortunately people (even myself sometimes) will mix them up. You are confusing genuine with original condition. No P4 is original. They were no longer original after there first race in the 60's. But they remained genuine. Only one can be genuine of each example. But they might not all be original. In fact all might no longer be original. I hope you cab see the differences. People in the Ferrari word and Corvette world or any segment of the hobby where money is involved will claim to have a certain car. But the car is the chassis. Someone may own the original body but that is not the car. Its similar to what constitutes a firearm. The receiver is the gun, not the barrell, not the trigger. Its whatever the manufacterer defines as the receiver. But when it comes to cars, all cars, the chassis is the car in a court of law (at least in the USA) as its come up on many occasions, simply because more than one person claimed to own the same valuable vehicle. It happened with a very famous Yenko raced Corvette. One person owned the chassis the other owned the body. The owner of the car was ruled in court to be the person who possessed the chassis. The owner of the chassis will not have a original car, but have THE original or genuine article. The is a very sublte but very important difference. The 166MM Ferrari that won LM in 49 was contested in court. The chassis is the car. This is not a matter of opinion, its fact based in law. And if there has been a case that a person legally owns a car WITHOUT owning the chassis, I never heard of it. All of this has been covered a dozens of times. The slander crap, edfimation of character or actual theft, who cares. Everyone talks big but I'll place my bet that nothing will ever happen legally. And if it does nothing will come out of it. I see this stuff all the time. I think more than an email on a forum is going to be needed even for an indictment. I couldn't care less about that stuff. I only car about the cars Ed
Model builder: You still seem to be somewhat confused about my comments. As for your summary "its clear," and "its the law", and your summary of the cases you've cited, again seem, (if I may repeat myself) your conclusions are "half-baked". You've cited two cases, one regarding a Yanko and a 166 MM that won LeMans. If the cases involve one guy with the chassis, the drive train, the suspension, the engine, but a reconstructed body, and anther guy with just the body, then I think the conclusion that the former has ownership of the provinence of the actual car, would be an easy one. Such a citation misses the point of my original post by a mile. My point was that an original body to a P4 would be a significant factor in determining whether someone built a real P4 or a replica. I'm reminded of a saying by my old law professoer: he used to say that most arguements are like two ships passing in the night. He was right! While not relevant to my point, my guess is that if you are citing actual cases, the conclusion and the facts are a tad more complicated than you've summarized. I can tell you I've run into few areas of the law and even fewer cases where the facts and arguments of a case can be summaried in a clause. I have run into fewer cases tried to a court were the facts are clear and uncontested. So I'm a tad curious as to the accuracy of the simple summaries that you've cited. Do you have the names of those cases, the citations? I would find it interesting to read them. If you can give me a little more information about them I will summarize them for the board. I think they would be very interesting. In any any case, I cannot imagine anyone subscribing to the black and white principle that a chassis plate alone makes a car, and no other part is significant. If you believe this, its your opinion, but your in the great minority. As for you guesses, and your dismissal of my suggestions about what may consitute civil liability, slander and fraud, let me just say I've chosen my comments carefully and defined them narrowly.
and his name is "modelbuilder", not "Shah of Iran Miura SV Owner" LOL Man this board has some bad a$$ members, such as yourself and JG, and the great unwashed masses don't even realize they are walking into a rotating prop! ** Mesmerizing, but painful to watch. **With apologies to the surviving family members of previous Conseco counsel, may he rest in peace.
Speaking of original P4 Ferrari bodies and the original subject of 0846: What year was the current body of 0846 manufactured? I believe that it has been referred to as "NOS". Does that mean that the body was made by Ferrari authorized body makers around 1967?
Whoa, there, Macca ! I was not slagging off anybodys website. IF YOU READ WHAT I WROTE, you would have seen that I said Somebody sent me a couple of old issues of Ferrari Market Letter. Not impressed. Threw them in the trash ..... That statement has nothing to do with the website. I received those (unsolicited) copies of F.M.L., simply because they were used as packaging material around an eBay item that I had purchased from a U.S. seller. I have no idea how old they were, but from the stapled yellow paper cover and the poor quality B&W photocopies inside, I guess they were pretty old issues. They certainly didnt look very professional to me, and like I said . My only criticism of their website was their use of a small photo of a Norwood P4 replica on the header bar, at the top of the home page (in the June issue), as opposed to a real P4. I thought I would use it to have a little 'dig' at Carbon, knowing that he probably wasnt responsible for it, as he continually has digs at me. It worked, though he took it the wrong way, and threw his toys out of the pram. Seems he can dish it out, but cannot take it himself. Yes, guilty as charged. That under construction page has been up there a L-O-N-G time. In fact, it is SO out of date. You see that sentence: The registrar currently holds the details of some 30 plus P4 replicas, worldwide, and their owners. That should now read 80. Believe it or not, though, even in its current form, that one little under construction page still generates so much interest, and I get emails through it almost every day. I have literally hundreds of photos and masses data to upload the various sections to complete it, at some point. There are a few issues, such as security concerns, that some owners have correctly raised, which still need to be addressed and somehow resolved. I guess if I had wasted less time on here, posting stuff that some people dont bother to read properly, it could easily have been finished by now. But everything worthwhile that has been posted on FerrariChat, by me, and others, relating to Ferrari P4's and P4 replicas, is locked away for future use either on or off the website. In fact, really the only thing still to be completed is the final chapter of the History of P4 replicas section - on the construction of the ultimate P4 replica. Again (and I really am getting tired of repeating this) but if you had read what I had written Issues #130 and #133 cover the P3; P4 and 412P's. Alternatively, I have ALL the pages from these three articles scanned (in hi-resolution) if you want to drop me a friendly email sometime .... there was no financial outlay involved ! I was offering to email you high resolution scans of all 25 pages, for free. I really dont know why I bother sometimes ! Terrible having to admit youre wrong, occasionally, too - isnt it Paul ? Or that maybe you do need glasses . ______________________ The truth is out there .
Best I can come up with so far, Carbon, is: NOT the real McCoy More of a Carbon copy ! LOL Somewhat apt in the circumstances but not very original, huh ? ______________________ The truth is out there .
So, since I don't have 10hours of time to read this entire thread has anything been resolved or is everyone more confused?
I for one am getting close to asking Jim to destroy the bloody car so we can move on. For God's sake everybody please wait for the official outcome and stop turning FerrariChat into LegalBoringChat. Pete ps: Jim ... er, I'm joking please don't destroy the car, but then again if you have reached boiling point, do what you please with it.
