COB 6036 - which is the original?

[rstainer]

I think not.
   
   All known major repairs to chassis or body are already noted in the register (as with 6036). Likewise, the Appendix notes if a replica uses a Thames Ditton chassis in whole or in part (as with its 2003 replica). Further, all Thames Ditton register cars were originally constructed with 'original documented AC built' chassis.
   
   The Appendix correctly notes the other replica you refer to as 'built....(in 1979)....using some parts that were discarded when CSX 3272 was rebuilt. This car was given the chassis number CSX 3140 in 1979, but renumbered 3272 in 2005'; I don't believe that anything needs to be added.
   
   I don't that anything of further use or interest can be added to this '6036-which is the original?' string either, and suggest it may have run its course.

[SBB]

I understand that Brian Gilbart-Smith is the ACOC's official Club Liason Officer appointed to deal with the DVLC on such authentication issues.

[rstainer]

6036 has continuous history and a continuing German 'Fahrzeugbrief', the V5C equivalent, from its original import into Germany until its eventual 2008 sale by Kay Hafner to Joachim von Buest. As in this country, so in Germany it is not possible to record a vehicle as being destroyed whilst keeping the 'Fahrzeugbrief'.
   
   The German authorities would not take kindly to the suggestion that 6036 was destroyed in the early 80's. Neither would Wolfgang Specht, Kay Hafner or its current owner.

[Gus Meyjes]

Steve,
   
   I'm glad to see you posting on the forum. I find this thread both interesting and bizarre. I'm sure there are all kinds of reasons why a replica can have the original number, but I would have to say it is a strange string of events. Seems to me your last statement says it all...
   
   Gus

[Chafford]

CSX 2232, on the front of July's ACtion is another described as a 'replica' in the Registers - mid '80s Angliss chassis but an original '60s body from CSX 2269. But again physically more 'original' than the von Buest car.

[Gus Meyjes]

That would be the one where you stated it can only be original once... But it seems you removed that.[:(]

[302EFI]

Does anybody know why the - undamaged - original 1964 chassis was not used in the 1983-85 rebuilding exercise?
   Jürgen

[rstainer]

Wolfgang Specht, the car's owner, had a carburettor fire whilst on holiday in France. The car was badly burnt and the aluminium largely beyond salvation. Specht asked Christian Wolff (who had acquired the car for Specht) to arrange its repair.
   
   Wolff took the car to Angliss, who concluded that the most economical approach was to use a new body/chassis unit rather than removing the fire-damaged body, rubbing down, cleaning, repairing and repainting the substructure and chassis, wrapping a new body on it etc.
   
   Angliss repaired the car as agreed. Christian Wolff collected the car and discarded parts, took them to Germany and returned the car to Specht. Wolff neglected to tell Specht that 6036 had a new chassis, neglected to tell him that he, Wolff, had the discarded fire-singed chassis and other parts and neglected to tell him that he, Wolff, was keeping these items.
   
   Wolff's economy with the facts was the least of his concerns; it is reported that he later disappeared.
   
   The repair was almost thirty years ago, when very few people would spend extra money to save original material in a car that was worth not much money.

[302EFI]

Thanks for explaining, Robin.

[rstainer]

AC Heritage
   "...anything can only be original once."
   
   TRUE: Once a vehicle ceases to be a vehicle (by scrapping it or parting it out) it cannot subsequently reincarnate as an original vehicle.
   
   Gus Meyjes
   "I'm sure there are all kinds of reasons why a replica can have the original number, but I would have to say it is a strange string of events."
   
   TRUE: There are various ways to obtain an original vehicle's VIN and have it applied to a replica. However, none of these ways are lawful in most European legislative domains.
   
   Administrator
   "The car repaired by Autokraft in 1983 has been continuously registered for decades and has a pretty clear claim to the identity. I have not heard any dispute as to the accuracy of this record. If the car ever returned to the UK, I presume its identity would be upheld by the DVLA."
   
   CORRECT, if the DVLA act as they have in the past.
   
   
   
   If anyone wants to propose a Register change (car level) or a lawful change to registry vehicle categorisation principles (register level-last amended eleven years ago) I'm very happy to hear from them.

[Kay Hafner]

The whole story of COB 6036 had been discussed and clearly documented over many years. The facts remain always the same and I hope that the current owner Joachim von Beust has not to justify and defend himself again and again for having the original car with a proven history.
   
   It is not possible and legal , that someone is repairing his car (in this case at Autocraft) in good faith , the car is returned to his owner without the replaced parts (not unusual), someone else is buying/keeping illegally these parts and another one is selling these parts/frame (illegally) later to someone, who is constructing an "original" car 25 years after the repair and is now trying (illegally) to claim that this car is the right car- the line of owners (Gosheron>Johnson>Thaine>Wolff>Specht>Hafner>Beust)and continuous history is abolutely clear and with no doubt, so I would recommend that Steve Gray is enjoying his car without trying again to change the history of the car to his favour. History and facts cant be changed and there will be always cars , which have more or less original parts depending on the repairs or accidents they had during their life (and Autocraft at that time came to conclusion that the burnt chassis was not usable anymore...) I am now enthusiasted with Cobras for over 25 years and I am happy that dedicated experts like Robin or Ned Scudder are always helping us in having the right view on the history. We should always stick to facts and in this case they are very clear.And we should respect real ownership and history.
   
   Greetings From Germany
   
   Dr.Kay Hafner

[B.P.Bird]

Robin,
   In answer to your request for any proposals regarding Club and Register policies I wonder if I might turn the clock back some three decades and rehearse an argument that became quite heated at the time. The trigger for the disagreement was the Cobra Register and how it was being used by the 'less than scrupulous' to aid the passing off of Cobras which had questionable antecedents. It quickly became clear that in fact many quite genuine cars had convoluted histories and The Registrar had to somehow adjudicate between an out and out forgery at one end of the spectrum and a car which had been damaged and repaired so often that it could be described as Paddy's Axe - three new handles and two new heads, but still Paddy's Axe - at the other end of the spectrum.
   You can imagine that all of the arguments seen in this thread were aired at the time. There was, as in this case, more heat than light and, as has now occurred, a good deal of personal upset with members even withdrawing from Club activities. Given that, I suppose, we are an inclusive organisation able to welcome a very broad selection of Members it follows that this kind of exclusion is the very last thing we should be doing, or encouraging, in any way.
   When this discussion took place all those years ago it resolved into two basic positions: One that The Club should be the custodian of all the facts which could be ascertained and therefrom The Registrars would make a determination on a car's provenance. Or, alternately, The Club should confine Registrars to ascertaining and recording all the facts.
   I was a supporter of this latter position believing a) that The Club should never expose itself to court action and b) the value of a car historically and financially was up to every individual's judgement and c) acting as judge and jury would inevitably and repeatedly engender upset and ill feeling between members.
   In this debate I found myself in the minority and ever since The Club, via The Registrars, has adopted a judgemental policy. This thread amply illustrates the disadvantages of such an approach. As in many other cases (thank you Robin for your painstaking and scholarly research) both these cars have an interesting and legitimate history - which one would you like to own? Your choice. How much would you pay? Your choice. I should be delighted to own and use either. As an A.C.O.C. member I should welcome either at any Club event.
   As the years pass and prices increase we see the same potential for acrimony spreading to The Ace and The Aceca Registers and maybe as far as the 16/80 and 16/90. Time, I feel, for our Council of Management to review this issue once more. I would once again suggest that we keep to The History and let The Individual, not The Registrar, do the choosing.

[rstainer]

The Club's Register Policy was approved by the Council on 31 January 2002. Under the heading  'The Role of A Registrar' the Policy includes:
   •   Not to pass judgement, and to include adverse as well positive information
   
   I would not have become a registrar had this policy not been in place. My role as registrar is solely to record relevant public-domain facts and categorise them according to public-domain principles agreed by the Council; there is not one iota of judgement in this process.
   
   August's  Action contains further detail. Meanwhile, if anyone would like a copy of the Club's Register Policy or AC & Shelby Thames Ditton Vehicle Categorisation principles, please email me.

[Chafford]

quote:Originally posted by B.P.Bird
   
   I would once again suggest that we keep to The History and let The Individual, not The Registrar, do the choosing.

   
   One approach might be to keep the existing coil spring and leaf spring registers for cars with continuous ownership history but add supplementary leaf spring and coil spring registers for cars which the ACOC has agreed have complete or part original AC chassis and/or bodies. So Steve Gray's COB 6036 would be included in this supplementary register. The replica registers would be restricted to cars with AC chassis numbers but no proven AC history, cars with Paramount chassis and converted 428s and Aces.
   
   The Club could then add a statement simply saying that cars with 'continuous history' are recorded in the main registers but that where there is more than one car with claim to an original '60s Cobra chassis number, these are recorded in either the supplementary or replica registers.

[rstainer]

I reiterate that the Club's registers are non-judgemental. The above proposal would put the Club at grave litigation risk because its operation involves arbitrary judgement.
   
   The Club's Register Policy was approved by the Council on 31 January 2002. Under the heading  'The Role of A Registrar' the Policy includes:
   
   

   Not to pass judgement, and to include adverse as well positive information  

   
   I would not have become a registrar had this policy not been in place. My role as registrar is solely to record relevant public-domain facts and categorise them according to public-domain principles agreed by the Council; there is not one iota of judgement in this process.
   
   August's  Action contains further detail. Meanwhile, if anyone would like a copy of the Club's Register Policy or AC & Shelby Thames Ditton Cobra Categorisation principles, please email me.
   
   Any thought-through suggestions for amendments to this Policy (31 January 2002) or categorisation principles (5 December 2001) should be put in writing to the Council. They should include an illustration of their effects on vehicle categorisation and an an assessment of their effect on the Club's legal exposure.