The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

With respects, Erik - that is total B/S, and you know it !
As a 'replica' (obviously being post-1967), it would have been much more difficult to register the car for road use in the States. That's why David Piper supplied Jim with the 'documentation' for the car that he did (stating the it had '1967 origins', etc.) - This was done at Jim's specific behest !

 

Ferrari is auctioning off one of last year's F1 cars in a few weeks. That car has run with a variety of wings, gearboxes and engines.

Is it still the same car if they sell it with a fresh engine, fresh gearbox, and a simple aero package?

Nobody is claiming that there aren't "stories" or "issues" with this car.

 

No, Erik - they just keep referring to it as '0846' - taking it as a 'given'.
For 'stories' read what you like ....

 

My father owns an old MG.... to protect it better he fitted a new modern oilfilter on it... so now it's no orginal MG??? Is that what you're saying?

 

Mr G. has always maintained that he has the "Remains of" all that is left of the Ferrari car that ran at Le Mans and was "0846". the different welds, the tweaked chasis, fire damage, how would a "replica" made after all these events had happened, have all theese things in exactly the way they are accepted to have happened?

the chasis is a P3 with the "/4" modifications which can clearly been seen and touched today. you can see, touch and taste this, right now, 2005.
Mr Piper's car(s) were to have been made to P4 blueprints as supplied by Mr Ferrari. why would there be ANY P3 specific parts to these chasis if they were made LATER to P4 specs, and how would it have the different welds, repairs and damage consistent with what "0846" is known to have gone through?

i really could care less if the car is the real thing or not. by that, i mean i am so happy to read an experience what others here have and enjoy. my "real" 3x8's are nothing compared to a vintage V12. the bits that remain are a stunning , tangible car, no matter what its heritage.

no way a chasis made after the fact could possibly have all this "history" of use , abuse , repair and damage.

whatever it is, its a damn fine car, with a carb Ferrari V12 in it, that i hope to see and hear in person one day.

best to all.

 

I don´t get the fuss.

The auction-catalogue clearly describes the car as being a "David Piper-replica". Mr Piper knew what went to auction and the people at the auction knew what they were offering. There´s no suggestion whatsoever as to this particular car having bits and pieces of #0846 inside.

Mr G. bought such a "David Piper-replica", at least that was what he thought he was buying and Piper thought that that was what he was selling. Later on, the car turned out to have some factual specifics which can only be explained if you accept that some components of this car were used in #0846 at some time in history.

Surely mr Piper never have the car intentional such subtle characteristics just to make it look like the car had risen from the remains of #0846, otherwise he would´ve sold it as such, no?

Can the car in it´s current form be accepted as being #0846? That is probably open for debate. Much if it has to do with the question what bits and pieces constitute the factual and legal identity of the car. Who is to have the final word on that? Well, it would only seem fair to grant it to Ferrari Spa. and they have apperently acknowledged that the car which is in Mr G´s possession today, must be qualified as being #0846. Thus Cavallino is clearly wrong when they state that #0846 is being listed as destroyed.

 

Paul
Any engine and combination of parts built into a car that are over 25 years old are fully legal to import into and register in the US.
That is fact.

You are calling me a liar. When I bought the car I absolutely thought it was a replica chassis exactly as described in the COA and bill of sale.

You are accusing David of criminal fraud. (Certifying something as true that he knew not to be)

Many of the details that convinced me that my car's chassis is not a replica but in fact the remains of 0846's chassis were very subtle. It did take a while and lots of research to realize exactly what they mean.

Doug did write the auction description in 1987. Years later he read my research and wrote this:
"Regarding the latter entity I remain personally intensely suspicious about the owner's current claims for it, perhaps 5% from simple prejudice (because anybody who parades as a badge his preference for running such cars on the public road - like a wild bird in a cage - twangs my personal "what a tosser" chord, as I made clear) - but I spare a couple of per cent for the possibility (and I put it no stronger than that) that Jim Glickenhaus's declared beliefs and conclusions are based upon sustainable evidence....unless he, or someone working on the car, has indulged in some pretty serious wilful falsification (which I also made clear). "

Once again none of this is new. My document is very specific as to exactly what I believe my car to be. Nathan may feel it's not enough. He's entitled to his opinion. I and other's feel it is enough. We're entitled to ours.

Paul you're entitled to have any opinion you want but you are not entitled to call me a liar, accuse David of having committed Criminal fraud and defame both of us. I take this very seriously and have already warned you to stop this childish behavior. I am very close to dealing with this in a very serious way.

 

Tina
I think you are being facetious - you know that a new oil filter will not change the car.
But if your dad changed the engine and put on a fibre-glass body would it still be an original MG? I don't think so!
Is it so hard to just accept the facts?
Nathan

 

I have followed this debate for a while and one thing's always puzzled me. Why doesn't Piper clarify his postion and then this matter can be laid to rest?

 

I wouldn´t be too eager to admit that I sold #0846 as if it were a replica either

 

Yes, he did, indeed, Jim. I phoned him, this morning, specifically to confirm that it was him, rather than just a 'ghost writer' for Christie's. In a subsequent email to me, Doug wrote:

(The following would be perfectly acceptable to me, should you need it):

"Doug Nye tells me he wrote that 1987 auction description for the Christie's motor car department as part of his first commission from them in 5-6 years, since his involvement with their BRM Collection Sale at London's Motorfair and as the foundation of what has proved to be ongoing involvement in the auction world.

"He says he was "absolutely paranoid" at that time about getting the description absolutely truthful and accurate since it was a sales description under all the consumer laws applying in the UK and EU, and both he and the department could have been liable had any part of it become culpable misdescription. Consequently Doug compiled the catalogue entry text from information not merely provided by David Piper as the vendor, but double-checked at every stage by them both. There were three reputations to protect there, and Doug's responsibility was secondly to Christie's, and firstly...to himself."

 

May I remind you, Jim, that this latest ‘war of words’ was initiated by your childish remark:

“I am sad to say Paul that based on thorough investigation and recollection by Nino Vaccarella my P 3/4 will once and for all be ineligible to join the Replica P 4 Club” (in the second paragraph of Post #4).

 

Jim, if I remember correctly you wrote that there were to be some Ferrari representatives at Sicily to inspect your car. Also I think Marcel Massini was there too? If so, what did Marcel and/or the Ferrari representatives conclude about your car?

Ciao, Peter

p.s. emotions seem to be getting in the way of a fair debate (which is perfectly natural for a debate). Sorry to read about accusations and threats of legal action. This shouldn't need to be nessecary.

 

Jim
We're still waiting. What EXACTLY did he say?
Nathan

 

Let me start with saying that I am just an interested bystander, for certain I do not want to get involved in the heat of this discussion. But since I like these great cars, I would like to see this clarified.

To me the technical evidence as brought forward by Napolis looks convincing and certainly these things can be verified by just examining the car. On the other hand, the story that David Piper sold a replica also is very convincing. As I understand it this is also not denied by Napolis.

For me the crucial point is the part that David Piper sold a "replica" which during restauration work later turned out to be (parts of) #0846. As I understand correctly, David had this "replica" build using Ferrari spare parts - meaning starting with a bare chassis. Why David - a known expert in this matter - at that point did not recognise the true nature of the chassis escapes me.

But, as already pointed out by others, there is one man who can shed more light on this:

Personnaly I would like to hear David's comments as well. The following remark

only makes sense when nobody is aware is his "mistake". Since this discussion here only a few thousend people know about it...

 

seriously, Paul, with your open line of communication w/ Mr. Piper why don't you do something to advance the scholarship of the matter instead of offering essentially the same stream of innuendo since Mr. Glickenhaus' document came out last year?

Why not ask Mr. Piper; (1) to explain the chassis lengthening if he built it from scratch from P4 drawings, (2) to explain the repositioning of the motor mounts if he built it from P4 drawings, and (3) his thoughts on the repaired fire damage at the right rear - if he built the whole car and was the only owner until Mr. Glickenhaus, then presumably the fire occurred during his ownership?

Instead of simply casting stones at Mr. G's Sherlock Holmes approach - eliminating possibilities based on the evidence - you seem to be in a unique position by virtue of your relationship with Mr. Piper to do a great deal to either confirm or debunk what I believe are pretty convincing theories backed by physical evidence.

Enquiring minds want to know.

 

Some people can understand the difference between a childish remark and a sharp joke.

As for why Piper might be laying low: - tax.

(and if anybody from the Inland Revenue reads this forum; I didn't say that, right?)

Paul M

 

Jim,

I should have named this thread "Can 'O Worms, part 2", sorry. I was simply (ha!) letting people know that 0846 was mentioned in Cavallino and that the editor/publisher had included a note that was, IMO, unecessary and inflammatory. The first note was enough. The author of the post was simply trying to ascertain facts before building an accurate scale model.
All of this controversy brings up a point that these cars have an evolutionary history from the time they were raced and modified and raced and modified etc., until they were discarded by the factory, resurrected by privateers, raced some more, well, you get the picture. Then comes the time when the cars are no longer just outdated race cars, but art objects, worth millions. If one were to hold a car show for Ferraris that stated that only original unrestored cars were eligible, how many do you think there would be? A dozen? How many GTO's are "original, unrestored examples, one or two?
This whole idea that for a car to be "authentic" the chassis must have the chassis id plate is a bit silly. After all, the Factory wasn't above swapping id plates and serial numbers when it suited them, so why all the fuss over a car that has been rebuilt using parts (including, IMO, the original chassis), but simply lacks an id plate? Excuse me while I slip into my Nomex underware!

 

Bryan.
I would love to get David on this board, and get him to make a statement.
Two problems:
1) He's an old racing car driver, first and foremost - and really just not that interested in what goes on in internet forums, and he certainly doesn't want to start posting on them ! He isn't exactly very PC literate - Yes he will read emails; can download simple attachments and double-click on URL links that I send him. Occassionally he actually replies to my emails.
His email address can be found quite easily by searching the internet, as can his phone # - Try this for starters: http://www.racecar.co.uk/isp/
2) So the easiest solution is to phone him. I've spent hours on the phone with him over the last few months. His powers of recollection are AMAZING ! He will ramble 'off topic' (but staying very much on the subject of 60's and 70's sports-racers) occasionally, but that's another one of the benefits. The other slight problem is that his wife, Liz, does not like David discussing what is 'effectively their private business' with strangers on the phone (hardly surprisingly) - though she herself is also very knowledgeable about David's cars.
It's no use me phoning David and then getting on the keyboard and posting "and 'Pipes' said this ....", because no-one on this forum is going to believe it, coming from me.
So all I can suggest, Brian, is that you call the man yourself .... Sorry

 

And of course if he painstakingly "counterfeited" 0846 over a period of years in the early seventies why did he:

1. Not mention it when he first became aware of my belief that my chassis was the substantial remains of 0846 LONG BEFORE I published specific reasons as to what I found buried under years of paint, grime, and epoxy.


2. Signed a witnessed, notarized statement that my chassis was built to 1967 330 Ferrari P4 chassis blueprints given to him by Enzo Ferrari?

Nathan
Why you persist in asking the same question: "When?" remains beyond me. I have already answered that question.

Paul
Calling me a liar and accusing David of committing criminal fraud remains unacceptable.

 

I am too humble to join this debate but have a question for Paul S since it is not 100% clear to me: Paul S, do you agree that the Glickenhaus P4 is build on the repaired remains of chassis #0846 or is that the point you are doubting, saying that it is build on a complete replica chassis?
Maybe a stupid question, if this is what the whole debate is about...
"Piloti", do you recognise my avatar

 

David
If it was simply a matter of lacking an id plate there wouldn't be all this fuss. If you think that is the only question over this car then go and read the rest of this thread, and others on the subject.
Perhaps you'd like to buy my Rolex? (see post #59)
Nathan

 

Nathan
FYI First Publisher Note in Cavillino # 147.

*Publisher note: Readers should know that there is presently a great deal of controversy over the current car that carries the s/n 0846. This 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 sn 1046 (sic) was, and other "P" cars were at the time they were racing.

 

Jim
Sorry. Just impatience. We (I? - although I'm sure there are others) want to hear the details.
Nathan