Hawthorn/Bueb D type is it a replica
Discussion
Hi ,this is a touchy subject, but I`m interested to know what everyone thinks about this car.To be brief, the car has been listed as
"never leaving the factory as an entity,"confirmed by by both Paul Skilliter and Andrew Whyte, yet we see it described as the 55 Le Mans D type so often.The current owner has threatened legalities on anyione who describes it as anything else, which effectively is re-writing history.
A couple of years ago, I saw a V12 E featured in Jaguar Enthusiates Magazine ans being the last V12. The owner had purchased new components from Mike Wilkinson, including a new body tub. He then built the car and gave it a fictious chassis plate,( listing it another digit up from the last recorded V12), then applied to Swansea and got it registered.The mag editor then covered the building and registering the car, which could in the future be passed off as the last E type. Are these criminal acts? , or are owners taking advantage of lax factory records, to create their own piece of History and immense value?.
Or is this small willy syndrome ?
"never leaving the factory as an entity,"confirmed by by both Paul Skilliter and Andrew Whyte, yet we see it described as the 55 Le Mans D type so often.The current owner has threatened legalities on anyione who describes it as anything else, which effectively is re-writing history.
A couple of years ago, I saw a V12 E featured in Jaguar Enthusiates Magazine ans being the last V12. The owner had purchased new components from Mike Wilkinson, including a new body tub. He then built the car and gave it a fictious chassis plate,( listing it another digit up from the last recorded V12), then applied to Swansea and got it registered.The mag editor then covered the building and registering the car, which could in the future be passed off as the last E type. Are these criminal acts? , or are owners taking advantage of lax factory records, to create their own piece of History and immense value?.
Or is this small willy syndrome ?
The history of XKD 505, registered 774 RW, is well known. I have never heard of Nigel Webb, the owner, threatening to sue anyone over this history and I've known Nigel some years now. He is the world's foremost collector of Hawthorn memorabilia, hence his acquisition of this car.
Nigel acquired the car at the Rockingham auction in 2001 for, if memory serves, about £440,000 but it took two sets of solicitors to agree on the programme wording. The final words were:- "a wonderful evocation of the 1955 Le Mans winning D type". The price paid for the car reflected the doubts as to its authenticity.
In the Philip Porter book "Jaguar Sports Racing Cars" on page 167 it states:-
XKD 505. car continued to be used for testing until June 1958; history then vague; it has been stated that parts of this car were used in a rebuild of XKD 601 and there is no record of XKD 505 having been sold; however, the list of Experimental cars states "XKD 505 BRG, sold".Early in the 1980's frame stamped XKD 505 was removed from XKD 504 during a rebuild and sold to the late Bill Lake who had an authentic car built up around this frame with a real monocoque. I would comment myself that the car was built by Lynx in 1982/3.
Be that as it may, the car is accepted to race at Goodwood and Le Mans so it's provenance is good enough for the Earl of March and Patrick Peter. This is a subject that crops up regularly and a simple googling would have revealed most of this information. It is a delicate subject but frankly, and especially since I am in the course of building an FIA papered replica myself, one that is an annoyance rather than helpful. The car races and gives pleasure to thousands and Nigel is a great guy. Let it rest there.
Nigel acquired the car at the Rockingham auction in 2001 for, if memory serves, about £440,000 but it took two sets of solicitors to agree on the programme wording. The final words were:- "a wonderful evocation of the 1955 Le Mans winning D type". The price paid for the car reflected the doubts as to its authenticity.
In the Philip Porter book "Jaguar Sports Racing Cars" on page 167 it states:-
XKD 505. car continued to be used for testing until June 1958; history then vague; it has been stated that parts of this car were used in a rebuild of XKD 601 and there is no record of XKD 505 having been sold; however, the list of Experimental cars states "XKD 505 BRG, sold".Early in the 1980's frame stamped XKD 505 was removed from XKD 504 during a rebuild and sold to the late Bill Lake who had an authentic car built up around this frame with a real monocoque. I would comment myself that the car was built by Lynx in 1982/3.
Be that as it may, the car is accepted to race at Goodwood and Le Mans so it's provenance is good enough for the Earl of March and Patrick Peter. This is a subject that crops up regularly and a simple googling would have revealed most of this information. It is a delicate subject but frankly, and especially since I am in the course of building an FIA papered replica myself, one that is an annoyance rather than helpful. The car races and gives pleasure to thousands and Nigel is a great guy. Let it rest there.
Hi low drag,
I think you are missing the point,but thanks for the response. Let me get this straight. I am completely aware of the lack of history on 505 has. The Bill lake/ Vestey/ Lynx and Niel Corner thing. I am interested in the comments of others too so I am Sorry,but I am not prepared to Leave it.
I thought these forums are here to discuss such matters, and I feel ranks here?
I was at a Jaguar show some years back, played dumb and asked about the car`s history as it was on display. Both John Pearson and John Maris( JDHT) were in attendance to promote the Heritage magazine. This car was presented to me by both parties and to the public, as the Genuine 1955 Le Mans winner.Could you you explain that please?.
Pearson maintained the car( including Corners),he knows the differences in the Lynx tub and the real thing, particulary the gauge of alloy used then and nowadys, without all the other differences long to short nose.It was still presented to me as the real thing.Was this a directive by the owner?
I appreciate your comments on the fact Lynx built this car in the 80s, which is fact.
As your friend is a Hawthorn fan, do you not agree he should have presented it as built in the Spirit of Mikes car? Maybe it would have been better recieved in the first place,without all this fuss. But who am I to even suggest such a comment.
I completely agree that it has given a great deal of entertainment and that the best place for such cars is on the track. Hopefully we will see the C 2 soon aswell. good luck with the project
I think you are missing the point,but thanks for the response. Let me get this straight. I am completely aware of the lack of history on 505 has. The Bill lake/ Vestey/ Lynx and Niel Corner thing. I am interested in the comments of others too so I am Sorry,but I am not prepared to Leave it.
I thought these forums are here to discuss such matters, and I feel ranks here?
I was at a Jaguar show some years back, played dumb and asked about the car`s history as it was on display. Both John Pearson and John Maris( JDHT) were in attendance to promote the Heritage magazine. This car was presented to me by both parties and to the public, as the Genuine 1955 Le Mans winner.Could you you explain that please?.
Pearson maintained the car( including Corners),he knows the differences in the Lynx tub and the real thing, particulary the gauge of alloy used then and nowadys, without all the other differences long to short nose.It was still presented to me as the real thing.Was this a directive by the owner?
I appreciate your comments on the fact Lynx built this car in the 80s, which is fact.
As your friend is a Hawthorn fan, do you not agree he should have presented it as built in the Spirit of Mikes car? Maybe it would have been better recieved in the first place,without all this fuss. But who am I to even suggest such a comment.
I completely agree that it has given a great deal of entertainment and that the best place for such cars is on the track. Hopefully we will see the C 2 soon aswell. good luck with the project
Since you push me into a corner, let us get this straight. The JDHT do not consider it a "real" D type and when the Le Mans Classic required a certificate of provenance all they were prepared to issue in writing was that "XKD 505 was built at Brown's Lane in 1955". No more. The Pearson's maintain Nigel's fleet of cars and Gary races them so they have a vested financial interest. The long/short nose comment I don't get since this was always one of the correct 11 long nose works cars (of which actually 7 real ones exist - search the history of XKD 604 if you want a similar story). On the subject of the body shell I sold to America a few years back a D type tub made by RS Panels that was an exact copy of an existing car and I'd defy you to tell the difference between the original and the new tub except that it was shiny. I examined both and even down to riveted patches and slight modifications it was identical.
Now, I still have one Lynx D and last year had two, long and short nose. People came up to me and when I explained it was a replica they went away with dull eyes - they wanted to believe they had seen a real D type. The secretary of the Lotus club I watched giving my car a good once over and he thought it was genuine since I've detailed it to look so and was amazed to learn it was a Lynx. So, after quite some years, I now let them believe they've seen, touched and at times sat at the wheel of a real 1955 short nose Le Mans D type. They want to spent the rest of their lives recounting the story, and who am I to smash their dream? I don't do it for big headed reasons, just that I've learned that that is what people want to believe, that's all.
No, I don't close ranks and sometimes I am known for my articles being argumentative, which is my nature. I like the truth but sometimes, as above, the truth is what you want to believe. Dreams don't cost much, do they? Nigel spends a fortune on his love of Jaguars and his racing so good luck to him. I don't think that there are any completely original D types anyway, but there are certainly some even dodgier than Nigel's.
Now, I still have one Lynx D and last year had two, long and short nose. People came up to me and when I explained it was a replica they went away with dull eyes - they wanted to believe they had seen a real D type. The secretary of the Lotus club I watched giving my car a good once over and he thought it was genuine since I've detailed it to look so and was amazed to learn it was a Lynx. So, after quite some years, I now let them believe they've seen, touched and at times sat at the wheel of a real 1955 short nose Le Mans D type. They want to spent the rest of their lives recounting the story, and who am I to smash their dream? I don't do it for big headed reasons, just that I've learned that that is what people want to believe, that's all.
No, I don't close ranks and sometimes I am known for my articles being argumentative, which is my nature. I like the truth but sometimes, as above, the truth is what you want to believe. Dreams don't cost much, do they? Nigel spends a fortune on his love of Jaguars and his racing so good luck to him. I don't think that there are any completely original D types anyway, but there are certainly some even dodgier than Nigel's.
Hi Low drag, thanks for the comments on 505.The original tubs used a different thickness alloy, ask Chris at CKL .The body tub on `505` exhibited all the hallmarks of a tub to fit a shortnose car. I don`t even think the owner know`s that, but Pearson does .....
Does this mean though, the more one spends , the greater the fraud has to be?
Sorry but you still hav`nt answered my question, re the portrayal of a kit being the real thing, though I can see you are in a difficult position with you own project especially having a 120C identity, but surely that`s illegal is`n it?
I like discussions, but arguements are a communication breakdown........
Does this mean though, the more one spends , the greater the fraud has to be?
Sorry but you still hav`nt answered my question, re the portrayal of a kit being the real thing, though I can see you are in a difficult position with you own project especially having a 120C identity, but surely that`s illegal is`n it?
I like discussions, but arguements are a communication breakdown........
lowdrag said:
- they wanted to believe they had seen a real D type. The secretary of the Lotus club I watched giving my car a good once over and he thought it was genuine since I've detailed it to look so and was amazed to learn it was a Lynx. So, after quite some years, I now let them believe they've seen, touched and at times sat at the wheel of a real 1955 short nose Le Mans D type.
I like the truth but.................
As you like the truth, you should do everything in your power not to cloud any future provenance accuracy.I like the truth but.................
May I suggest that a trustworthy and authoritative owner telling people that a perfect recreation/replica/copy is in fact the real thing, is not the best way to prevent the spread of possible future argument and confusion.
Hi RW774,
I think you will find that Lowdrag knows Chris very well, they are building his C type body. Whilst I don't know, I would expect they have looked after his Lynx cars.
Reading Lowdrag's posting above I took it that Nigel's car was rebuilt about a frame that was removed from XKD504, but was stamped XKD505. It would be nice to know the history of the frames from their sale by the experimental dept through to their appearance in XKD504. But assuming there is reason to believe the frames in 504 were the ones from 505 then is it not the normal rule that the "original" car is considered to be the one with the original frame? These arguments happen all the time, most race cars had hard lives (the experimental departments ones certainly did!) they get crashed, they get repaired, they got continually modified. I guess few ever stayed that close to the car that left the factory. After accidents and rebuilds different parts often head off in different directions. I recently had the surreal experience of standing between XKD555 and XKSS701, they are the same car, but they are in two bodies - they now have one owner. Talking to Chris back in April he is working on a number of similar projects. The values of these cars have reached a point where owners are prepared to buy out the clones built from the parts of the originals.
You are right, it would be nice to know more of the history of chassis frame. But on this score the law is probably, as usual, an ass. There needs to some part that constitutes "the original car". There have been cases where the law has decided in favour of the car with the right frame over the car with every other bit that left the factory.
With 505 having ended it's life at Jaguar in the experimental dept. it would have almost certainly had a whole succession of major components. Unless there are records of their destruction things weren't usually destroyed.
As to the question about Jaguar D types and Lynxes all I can say is they are different. If someone wants to see a Lynx and believe its a D let them. Of course you would need to get down on your hands and knees to see the difference, or maybe you'd want to put them on a ramp. Last year I was lucky enough to hitch a ride with Chris in a D and then a friend of his in her Lynx around the track at Goodwood, the Lynx is quicker and they feel different. If Lowdrag is telling people his Lynx rolled off out of the gates of Browns Lane then that is one thing, if he's not disabusing people their dreams then that is a different matter.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
Let the debate continue.
BTW, I never met Nigel Webb, but I have been over taken by him :-)
I think you will find that Lowdrag knows Chris very well, they are building his C type body. Whilst I don't know, I would expect they have looked after his Lynx cars.
Reading Lowdrag's posting above I took it that Nigel's car was rebuilt about a frame that was removed from XKD504, but was stamped XKD505. It would be nice to know the history of the frames from their sale by the experimental dept through to their appearance in XKD504. But assuming there is reason to believe the frames in 504 were the ones from 505 then is it not the normal rule that the "original" car is considered to be the one with the original frame? These arguments happen all the time, most race cars had hard lives (the experimental departments ones certainly did!) they get crashed, they get repaired, they got continually modified. I guess few ever stayed that close to the car that left the factory. After accidents and rebuilds different parts often head off in different directions. I recently had the surreal experience of standing between XKD555 and XKSS701, they are the same car, but they are in two bodies - they now have one owner. Talking to Chris back in April he is working on a number of similar projects. The values of these cars have reached a point where owners are prepared to buy out the clones built from the parts of the originals.
You are right, it would be nice to know more of the history of chassis frame. But on this score the law is probably, as usual, an ass. There needs to some part that constitutes "the original car". There have been cases where the law has decided in favour of the car with the right frame over the car with every other bit that left the factory.
With 505 having ended it's life at Jaguar in the experimental dept. it would have almost certainly had a whole succession of major components. Unless there are records of their destruction things weren't usually destroyed.
As to the question about Jaguar D types and Lynxes all I can say is they are different. If someone wants to see a Lynx and believe its a D let them. Of course you would need to get down on your hands and knees to see the difference, or maybe you'd want to put them on a ramp. Last year I was lucky enough to hitch a ride with Chris in a D and then a friend of his in her Lynx around the track at Goodwood, the Lynx is quicker and they feel different. If Lowdrag is telling people his Lynx rolled off out of the gates of Browns Lane then that is one thing, if he's not disabusing people their dreams then that is a different matter.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
Let the debate continue.
BTW, I never met Nigel Webb, but I have been over taken by him :-)
Elderly said:
lowdrag said:
- they wanted to believe they had seen a real D type. The secretary of the Lotus club I watched giving my car a good once over and he thought it was genuine since I've detailed it to look so and was amazed to learn it was a Lynx. So, after quite some years, I now let them believe they've seen, touched and at times sat at the wheel of a real 1955 short nose Le Mans D type.
I like the truth but.................
As you like the truth, you should do everything in your power not to cloud any future provenance accuracy.I like the truth but.................
May I suggest that a trustworthy and authoritative owner telling people that a perfect recreation/replica/copy is in fact the real thing, is not the best way to prevent the spread of possible future argument and confusion.
If you like making people unhappy, that's your thing; it certainly isn't mine. My friends know this is a replica, as do many here, but that's life. I went out for a drive today and parked it up at a bar near the circuit and had loads of people around it. Once I knew that one of them knew his cars I was quite frank about it and explained, but nevertheless he was delighted to have seen "a D type".
Edit: A8hex, the definition of a real Jaguar, no matter what type, according to the JDHT and most people, is "a car with continuous history". Since neither XKD 505 nor 604 (for example - there are more) had any history from 1955 and 1956 for over 25 years they are suspect. They suddenly reappeared from nowhere, rebuilt from a small part that was found and a new car built around that part. End of story. My new car will never, ever be anything but a replica because the history of the originals is well documented, rrespective of its V5 registration document identity. It ain't real but a recreation, done purely for my pleasure, not to try and make money. (I'll probably lose a fortune doing it, but that is the nature of a hobby).
Frankly, this argument is going beyond the pale and I won't post again because if any of you had researched Jaguars like I have over 30+ years you'd know what is what. Just apply the commonsense definition of a real car as shown above and you know exactly what is what. No more to say.
Edited by lowdrag on Saturday 4th October 20:48
Edited by lowdrag on Sunday 29th July 09:56
lowdrag said:
Elderly said:
lowdrag said:
- they wanted to believe they had seen a real D type. The secretary of the Lotus club I watched giving my car a good once over and he thought it was genuine since I've detailed it to look so and was amazed to learn it was a Lynx. So, after quite some years, I now let them believe they've seen, touched and at times sat at the wheel of a real 1955 short nose Le Mans D type.
I like the truth but.................
As you like the truth, you should do everything in your power not to cloud any future provenance accuracy.I like the truth but.................
May I suggest that a trustworthy and authoritative owner telling people that a perfect recreation/replica/copy is in fact the real thing, is not the best way to prevent the spread of possible future argument and confusion.
If you like making people unhappy, that's your thing; it certainly isn't mine. My friends know this is a replica, as do many here, but that's life. I went out for a drive today and parked it up at a bar near the circuit and had loads of people around it. Once I knew that one of them knew his cars I was quite frank about it and explained, but nevertheless he was delighted to have seen "a D type".
Edit: A8hex, the definition of a real Jaguar, no matter what type, according to the JDHT and most people, is "a car with continuous history". Since neither XKD 505 nor 604 (for example - there are more) had any history from 1955 and 1956 for over 25 years they are suspect. They suddenly reappeared from nowhere, rebuilt from a small part that was found and a new car built around that part. End of story. My new car will never, ever be anything but a replica because the history of the originals is well documented, rrespective of its V5 registration document identity. It ain't real but a recreation, done purely for my pleasure, not to try and make money. (I'll probably lose a fortune doing it, but that is the nature of a hobby).
Frankly, this argument is going beyond the pale and I won't post again because if any of you had researched Jaguars like I have over 30+ years you'd know what is what. Just apply the commonsense definition of a real car as shown above and you know exactly what is what. No more to say.
Edited by lowdrag on Saturday 4th October 20:48
As you "won't post again" I shall try and not say anything contentious but just answer some of the points you have made as they pertain to me.
I will start off by stating that I know little or nothing about Jaguars (other than I would like a replica(ish) lightweight E-type as a Trackday toy
)But I am not naive in related matters; I have spent 36 years specializing in a branch of the Arts and Antiques trade where I have witnessed many examples of objects not being what they appear to be which are unfortunately now in the canon as the genuine article.
I didn't suggest that YOU would ultimately try and pass your car off as the real thing but I am concerned that as time goes by, issues of authenticity and provenance can, and sometimes do become obscured, and I don't want people to be fooled or financially hurt many years down the line.
Even those who know their cars can be fooled; looking under the bonnet or at the rear suspension may not be conclusive; there were two good examples of this at the recent Goodwood auction,
one car was a perfect copy but was being sold as the real thing (it was spotted and subsequently withdrawn), the other was the real thing but because some of some visible engine parts and the rear suspension (amongst other things) were not correct, its authenticity was doubted. (Let's not get into the question of chassis numbers etc.!)
I DON'T like making people unhappy. I too track an admired (by the 'public') loosely built replica; I'm always being asked what it is but I don't do the same as you (as you suggest I might); I tell them that it's been cobbled together from two or three cheap wrecks of donor cars. Their response is usually very positive and they have got pleasure from the nostalgic aspect, its visual appeal, its (induction) noise and just watching it on track.
I agree with you; it isn't a pretty thing, seeing people's dreams go up in smoke which is why I believe that they would feel cheated, hurt and unhappy if I had told them it was the real thing and later they discovered they had been fooled.
Hi Everyone, my goodness, what have I started.Everyone calm down.
However, you can see my point, what would be an accurate description for this car.A re-creation? There was some discrepancy even over the 505 number on the frame anyway. Apparently it was a not of the same typeface as the other Ds.I suppose alot of this can be blamed on the factory. We do know that 505 has no continuos history past 58, where it was broken up for spares.The original tub with it`s de dion bracketry exists on another D,as do other parts but it is the values that have determined the re mating of these cars, but to what extent do you re build an important car and call it the real thing. If the frame is genuine,then it`s continued history but not as an entity. A colleague of mine has the original radiator stamped 505 ,but certainly has no intention of building a car around it. Difficult one, not helped by the factory running works cars on trade plates with riveted chassis plates !
However, you can see my point, what would be an accurate description for this car.A re-creation? There was some discrepancy even over the 505 number on the frame anyway. Apparently it was a not of the same typeface as the other Ds.I suppose alot of this can be blamed on the factory. We do know that 505 has no continuos history past 58, where it was broken up for spares.The original tub with it`s de dion bracketry exists on another D,as do other parts but it is the values that have determined the re mating of these cars, but to what extent do you re build an important car and call it the real thing. If the frame is genuine,then it`s continued history but not as an entity. A colleague of mine has the original radiator stamped 505 ,but certainly has no intention of building a car around it. Difficult one, not helped by the factory running works cars on trade plates with riveted chassis plates !
Always a tricky one. This whole thing started in the 80s, when prices started to climb. Stories abound, and not just about jaguars.
And as someone else mentioned, old cars (and especially racing cars) were crash, repaired and crash again. A good case which went to court regarded a bently, I believe. This car was well known to the club, having continuous history from almost new. However, most of the car had been replaced over the years. Someone got hold of a fair % of the original parts, and rebuilt a car. OK they used many new parts, but, they argued theirs had more of the original parts in it then the original car and should, therefore be thought of as the original car. Common sense prevailed, as the Court decided the car with continuous history was the original,a nd accepted that parts get replace dover time. Afterall, how often was the oil changed? Were those the original tyres from 1955??
Here’ a few I can remember:
1) Two drivers arrive at a circuit with a racing car. Both claimed they had the same car!
2) A magazine in the 80s wrote about visiting a well-respected restoer. they had three Bugatti chassis lying aroung, waiting to be built up into cars. When asked where three came from, they replied
“the front third of this one is original, the middle third of that one is original…..”
It’s a minefield out there, and the experts who can tell the difference often (and quite rightely) want to keep the diffences to themselves, in case the restorers add these to their cars.
As for what to call them? Its tricky. Some are recreations, some are fakes, some of faithful reproductions, some are copies. And what would you call a D-type which jaguar decided to make today??? It would be made by them, but would it be a jaguar D-type???
Sometimes the misrepresentation is a genuine mistake, but often when money is invovled it’s fraud. As long as the owner doesn’t pass their car off as something else when asked, that’s fine with me. If the public don’t know the difference between an original, replica, recreation or copy, but don’t care and are happy to see it, who are we to argue?
And as someone else mentioned, old cars (and especially racing cars) were crash, repaired and crash again. A good case which went to court regarded a bently, I believe. This car was well known to the club, having continuous history from almost new. However, most of the car had been replaced over the years. Someone got hold of a fair % of the original parts, and rebuilt a car. OK they used many new parts, but, they argued theirs had more of the original parts in it then the original car and should, therefore be thought of as the original car. Common sense prevailed, as the Court decided the car with continuous history was the original,a nd accepted that parts get replace dover time. Afterall, how often was the oil changed? Were those the original tyres from 1955??
Here’ a few I can remember:
1) Two drivers arrive at a circuit with a racing car. Both claimed they had the same car!
2) A magazine in the 80s wrote about visiting a well-respected restoer. they had three Bugatti chassis lying aroung, waiting to be built up into cars. When asked where three came from, they replied
“the front third of this one is original, the middle third of that one is original…..”
It’s a minefield out there, and the experts who can tell the difference often (and quite rightely) want to keep the diffences to themselves, in case the restorers add these to their cars.
As for what to call them? Its tricky. Some are recreations, some are fakes, some of faithful reproductions, some are copies. And what would you call a D-type which jaguar decided to make today??? It would be made by them, but would it be a jaguar D-type???
Sometimes the misrepresentation is a genuine mistake, but often when money is invovled it’s fraud. As long as the owner doesn’t pass their car off as something else when asked, that’s fine with me. If the public don’t know the difference between an original, replica, recreation or copy, but don’t care and are happy to see it, who are we to argue?
williamp said:
If the public don’t know the difference between an original, replica, recreation or copy, but don’t care and are happy to see it, who are we to argue?
But what happens if say a replica, recreation or copy turns up mis-described in some auctionmany years down the line (as apparently happened at Goodwood a couple of weeks ago) and an inspired member of the public now for the first time wanting to buy a classic car correctly recalled seeing it and talking to the owner years ago who told him it was the real thing; buys it for a lot of money maybe against reserve, believing it to be the real thing????
Tony Dron in Octane a few months ago wrote a wonderful column on this very topic. His compared the whole thing to a hammer, in some cases the hammer is known to have gone through a quite a lots of new shafts and even the odd new head, but it's still the same hammer.
If you have the chance, I'd look out a copy, it must have been about the April or May edition as Lowdrag and I were exchanging emails about it at the end of March. Amyway, if you an find a copy it's a very good laugh and deals very well with this topic.
If you have the chance, I'd look out a copy, it must have been about the April or May edition as Lowdrag and I were exchanging emails about it at the end of March. Amyway, if you an find a copy it's a very good laugh and deals very well with this topic.
I do believe you need to read an article about not turning over flat stones by Jenks...
This has gone on for a long time and always will. People are greedy and egotistical, they want the valuable famous cars and can't have them so make it up. I own a replica of an exact car, (it is worth a lot less than a D-Type though!) It has lots of original parts on it and some new, most wouldn't know the difference but I wouldn't pass it off as an original. Plus the V5 has replica on it.
I think that the DVLC need to be a lot more careful when "re-issuing" logbooks to old cars...
This has gone on for a long time and always will. People are greedy and egotistical, they want the valuable famous cars and can't have them so make it up. I own a replica of an exact car, (it is worth a lot less than a D-Type though!) It has lots of original parts on it and some new, most wouldn't know the difference but I wouldn't pass it off as an original. Plus the V5 has replica on it.
I think that the DVLC need to be a lot more careful when "re-issuing" logbooks to old cars...
OK, OK, I've posted again
On the subject of replicas becoming "the real thing" further down the line I have considerable experience of the Jaguar world over many years and such things DID happen but couldn't happen any more I feel. The history of all the cars is too well known. Take my own replica for example: it will be a precise, exact copy of the original but the history of the originals is completely known. Chassis XKC 001, the #17 1952 car Driven by Moss/Whitehead, was later taken apart and used for spares, as was XKC 002 (#18). Chassis XKC 011 is still existant and is now wearing a standard C type shell. So all cars are known and since my car has no continuous history it is and can only ever be a replica, never the real thing even if I were to put the "original" chassis plate on it. On this subject a bit of strawberry jam, some acid and a six month bath in strong black tea would create a chassis plate good enough to fool any expert but the car cannot ever be the original since it is clearly known to have been dismantled and is shown as such in Jaguar archives. Interestingly, neither XKC 001 or 002 was ever road registered and only ever had trade plates so that is another identity matter that can never be overcome either.
Not long back I sold a D type shell to an american and this was a replica of an existing D type which is well known. To my horror I found out afterwards that the new owner had various parts, including the rear body shell, of the original car. In reconstructing the new properly replicated D type we were very careful to include hidden tell-tales all over the bodyshell, so well hidden that it would take a lifetime to find them all. This has been photographed and well documented and a copy of the CD-ROM of the photos lodged with the JDHT.
Elderly, it doesn't take an expert to know that a Lynx D type is under the skin an E type with a D type skin. One Lynx owner tried to take his car apart and turn it into a real D type but nothing will fit and he ended up spending a fortune having the car put back together; I know, I've seen it and photographed it. Secondly, the auction houses would have to reimburse any purchaser under the Misrepresentation of Goods Act should they ever try and pass off a replica as a fake nowadays which is why they are extremely careful and employ marque experts to verify a car before auction. E2A was sold in America recently but an expert was flown out from the UK to verify the car anyway, despite the provenance of this unique car being well known and that it had been in the same ownership for over 40 years.
I doubt there is one car out there, racing or otherwise, that is original in the truest sense. They have had accidents and been modified and modified again down the years but the definition in official circles of an "original car" is "one with continuous history". XKD 505 and 604 can't meet that test nor could my replica.
I hope that this clarifies for once and for all the position of replicas/copies/fakes/clones/duplicates/reproductions, call them what you will.
On the subject of replicas becoming "the real thing" further down the line I have considerable experience of the Jaguar world over many years and such things DID happen but couldn't happen any more I feel. The history of all the cars is too well known. Take my own replica for example: it will be a precise, exact copy of the original but the history of the originals is completely known. Chassis XKC 001, the #17 1952 car Driven by Moss/Whitehead, was later taken apart and used for spares, as was XKC 002 (#18). Chassis XKC 011 is still existant and is now wearing a standard C type shell. So all cars are known and since my car has no continuous history it is and can only ever be a replica, never the real thing even if I were to put the "original" chassis plate on it. On this subject a bit of strawberry jam, some acid and a six month bath in strong black tea would create a chassis plate good enough to fool any expert but the car cannot ever be the original since it is clearly known to have been dismantled and is shown as such in Jaguar archives. Interestingly, neither XKC 001 or 002 was ever road registered and only ever had trade plates so that is another identity matter that can never be overcome either.
Not long back I sold a D type shell to an american and this was a replica of an existing D type which is well known. To my horror I found out afterwards that the new owner had various parts, including the rear body shell, of the original car. In reconstructing the new properly replicated D type we were very careful to include hidden tell-tales all over the bodyshell, so well hidden that it would take a lifetime to find them all. This has been photographed and well documented and a copy of the CD-ROM of the photos lodged with the JDHT.
Elderly, it doesn't take an expert to know that a Lynx D type is under the skin an E type with a D type skin. One Lynx owner tried to take his car apart and turn it into a real D type but nothing will fit and he ended up spending a fortune having the car put back together; I know, I've seen it and photographed it. Secondly, the auction houses would have to reimburse any purchaser under the Misrepresentation of Goods Act should they ever try and pass off a replica as a fake nowadays which is why they are extremely careful and employ marque experts to verify a car before auction. E2A was sold in America recently but an expert was flown out from the UK to verify the car anyway, despite the provenance of this unique car being well known and that it had been in the same ownership for over 40 years.
I doubt there is one car out there, racing or otherwise, that is original in the truest sense. They have had accidents and been modified and modified again down the years but the definition in official circles of an "original car" is "one with continuous history". XKD 505 and 604 can't meet that test nor could my replica.
I hope that this clarifies for once and for all the position of replicas/copies/fakes/clones/duplicates/reproductions, call them what you will.
lowdrag said:
I hope that this clarifies for once and for all the position of replicas/copies/fakes/clones/duplicates/reproductions, call them what you will.
Or a new one, "homage" as my car was called in this month's Classic and Sports Car magazine. It was subbed as they felt the text said replica to many times 
lowdrag said:
Elderly, ....... the auction houses would have to reimburse any purchaser under the Misrepresentation of Goods Act should they ever try and pass off a replica as a fake nowadays which is why they are extremely careful and employ marque experts to verify a car before auction.
I hope that this clarifies for once and for all the position of replicas/copies/fakes/clones/duplicates/reproductions, call them what you will.
Somewhere lowdrag, you posted that you were argumentative ... me too I hope that this clarifies for once and for all the position of replicas/copies/fakes/clones/duplicates/reproductions, call them what you will.
.An extract from Conditions of Business for Buyers from a major auctioneers:-
"*******'s knowledge in relation to each lot is partially dependent on information provided to it by the Seller, and *******'s is not able to and does not carry out exhaustive due diligence on each lot.
Bidders acknowledge this fact and accept responsibility for carrying out inspections and investigations to satisfy themselves as to the lots in which they may be interested."
Yes I know that reputable auctioneers will/should refund in the case of a Counterfeit lot
but each of the conditions of the Authenticity Guarantee have to be satisfied
. (Marque) experts ..... first; they can be wrong and secondly I'm sure that not every lot is verified. How else could one explain the last minute withdrawal of a car with a six figure estimate from B*onham's last sale at Goodweed?
As for replicas/copies/fakes/clones/duplicates/reproductions, I myself commissioned an item (not a car) that I sold to a dealer (for very little money) that was patently newly created.
I later heard on the grape-vine that an expert from the V&A had given it an important attribution.
Some time later it turned up at Christie's - not 'Attributed to' or even 'Ascribed to', but a description stating; 'By ....'.
It didn't sell (it actually didn't make it to the saleroom).
But a few years down the line it appeared again, this time at Sotheby's and also with a definate; 'By ....' description.
Before the sale I stepped in and told Sotheby's, their response was to make an announcement from the rostrum that bidders were buying what they saw and not necessarily as described in the catalogue.
But both house's catalogues are extant (used maybe for future reference?) with photographs and (incorrect) descriptions of the item.
'caveat actor' still appears to rule.
I may tell you more if we meet on the 'Remparts' next September ........
Edited by Elderly on Thursday 9th October 21:17
Hi All,
It should be the responsiblity of the action houses to work with recognised historians/DVLA inspectors on historic cars, to produce the correct history for a given vehicle that `appears`.
It should be final and un-biased.Also I feel this method should be recognised by all the relevant bodies, including the FIA. Owners should have this form of verification as a legal requirement, established certification. If not, vehicles must be described as "being assembled from a Kit of Parts" by the relevant auction house/DVLA.That should sort the problem out once and for all. No grey areas, just a simple legal document.
The trouble now, that too much of that grey area has been left open with a lack of clarity.If schemes apply to the antiques trade, the same should apply to the historic vehicle trade.There is far to much greed on behalf of the auction houses to warrant it.I personally believe most auctioneers know very little about there subject.
I speak from experience here, I bought a wreck and sold a 30s ex works MG Magnette, through Christies. I researched it as best I could but did not know it`s important history, but the new bidder/ purchaser did!. He wrote a report on the auction houses` lack of expertise on the sale of such.We made a good profit, so I was satisfied, but what if it was marketed properly? as a Works car? the sum would have been much more and also it would have attracted a greater audience.
It should be the responsiblity of the action houses to work with recognised historians/DVLA inspectors on historic cars, to produce the correct history for a given vehicle that `appears`.
It should be final and un-biased.Also I feel this method should be recognised by all the relevant bodies, including the FIA. Owners should have this form of verification as a legal requirement, established certification. If not, vehicles must be described as "being assembled from a Kit of Parts" by the relevant auction house/DVLA.That should sort the problem out once and for all. No grey areas, just a simple legal document.
The trouble now, that too much of that grey area has been left open with a lack of clarity.If schemes apply to the antiques trade, the same should apply to the historic vehicle trade.There is far to much greed on behalf of the auction houses to warrant it.I personally believe most auctioneers know very little about there subject.
I speak from experience here, I bought a wreck and sold a 30s ex works MG Magnette, through Christies. I researched it as best I could but did not know it`s important history, but the new bidder/ purchaser did!. He wrote a report on the auction houses` lack of expertise on the sale of such.We made a good profit, so I was satisfied, but what if it was marketed properly? as a Works car? the sum would have been much more and also it would have attracted a greater audience.
This has been a fascinating thread to read, and I am most grateful to various parties for the knowledge which has been deployed. The most interesting fact for me is Lowdrag's comment that the official definition is that the original car is the one with continuous history. This grasps the essential without getting lost in unnecessary detail. Though RW774's desire for certainty has driven the thread, I kind of feel it would be better to accept that the truth is many shades of grey. Though auction houses do give a varying degree of recourse in the event that something they have sold proves to be a forgery, caveat emptor remains the basic principle. If they get experts to verify the authenticity of a lot, it is done so that they can make statements in the lot description, which is then going to have a major impact on the level of bids they receive and what commission they will be paid. They have no real interest in whether or to what extent the lot is genuine, and can be held only to what they have said. I think it would be unfair to force them to become some sort of ultimate guarantor of the truth, which is in any case a will o' the wisp. This gets like the search for the Holy Grail. Maybe the DVLA realise that. I once saw a skip full of bits and a V5 for a UK registered '69 TR5PI for sale at a well known dealer for £5000. How much of that car was going to be original? And why worry about it?
If someone is going to spend way over the intrinsic value of an article because of its perceived provenance that is very much their own business. Many people wish to do just that, and like the people who sit in Lowdrag's D-Type, the truth is what they want it to be. If they have paid a fortune for an auction house to guarantee that truth, even better. They are buying dreams, including I suspect the redoubtable Mr Webb.
If you think cars are bad, imagine what other antiques are like. Very often the most genuine are the cheapest, because it is worth no-one's time to even clean them up, never mind fake them. Personally I would like to have a nice aluminium replica C-Type one day, I will know Mike Hawthorn or Stirling Moss never drove it, but none the less I will be as happy as a lark.
ed: Having now read Lowdrag's other post I'm sure it won't be as beautiful as your one is going to be, but I'll still be happy!
If someone is going to spend way over the intrinsic value of an article because of its perceived provenance that is very much their own business. Many people wish to do just that, and like the people who sit in Lowdrag's D-Type, the truth is what they want it to be. If they have paid a fortune for an auction house to guarantee that truth, even better. They are buying dreams, including I suspect the redoubtable Mr Webb.
If you think cars are bad, imagine what other antiques are like. Very often the most genuine are the cheapest, because it is worth no-one's time to even clean them up, never mind fake them. Personally I would like to have a nice aluminium replica C-Type one day, I will know Mike Hawthorn or Stirling Moss never drove it, but none the less I will be as happy as a lark.
ed: Having now read Lowdrag's other post I'm sure it won't be as beautiful as your one is going to be, but I'll still be happy!
Edited by cardigankid on Wednesday 22 October 17:48
Let me tell you my story with regards to replicas, I have been a Jag fan for many years and have owned 3 E-types, had been regional organiser for the JEC and took part in a few jaguar events.
Quite a few years agoI purchased a 1972 porsche 911 `e`, as a bit of a project. It had been cosmeticaly converted to look like a later SC. Things I noticed when I got it was no sun roof, light weight door trims, plastic instrument quages and a few other things. Found the chasis number call ed a specialist who turned up with a very worried looking chap to look at the car. Turned out that i had the 80% of a very very succesfull raceing 911 rsl. I had it all bar the back end and the engine. The worried looking chap had purchased the engine and assumed the rest had been destroyed and was rebuilding the car claiming the chassis number. He had threatend legal action with in 24 hours claiming that he had the engine and was entitled to claim to own the original history . I was young and had just go married and did not want (or afford) litigation so he made me an offer to buy the car, I accepted and I am pretty shure he took the car to our local scrap yard and had it crushed.
His 911 rsl is now claimed to be the original. From what I could see the only differance between an original and a replica is the depth of the owners pockets.
Lowdrag, do you have a video of the 25th aniversery of the e-type at silverstone ? I took part in the parade laps along side the big boys in there D types and c types in my e type. I had a sticking throtle and nearly wiped 2 of them out on the first corner........
Quite a few years agoI purchased a 1972 porsche 911 `e`, as a bit of a project. It had been cosmeticaly converted to look like a later SC. Things I noticed when I got it was no sun roof, light weight door trims, plastic instrument quages and a few other things. Found the chasis number call ed a specialist who turned up with a very worried looking chap to look at the car. Turned out that i had the 80% of a very very succesfull raceing 911 rsl. I had it all bar the back end and the engine. The worried looking chap had purchased the engine and assumed the rest had been destroyed and was rebuilding the car claiming the chassis number. He had threatend legal action with in 24 hours claiming that he had the engine and was entitled to claim to own the original history . I was young and had just go married and did not want (or afford) litigation so he made me an offer to buy the car, I accepted and I am pretty shure he took the car to our local scrap yard and had it crushed.
His 911 rsl is now claimed to be the original. From what I could see the only differance between an original and a replica is the depth of the owners pockets.
Lowdrag, do you have a video of the 25th aniversery of the e-type at silverstone ? I took part in the parade laps along side the big boys in there D types and c types in my e type. I had a sticking throtle and nearly wiped 2 of them out on the first corner........
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff