Nightmare of 427 provenance

[AC Ventura]

So has this car has been built up from a genuine discarded damaged chassis, which came from a car which was given a new Autokraft chassis, but kept the original chassis number CSX 3272? And does it follow that this (red) car is of contemporary construction, sitting on the former cars original, but repaired chassis, which no longer possesses aforementioned chassis number?
   
   http://www.duncanhamilton.com/cars-for-sale/1966-shelby-cobra-427/
   
   Here's what seems to be the same car (check out the 3 rivet chassis tag)......... wearing a different reg, just to clear things up.
   
   http://www.juliensumner.com/full-details.php?code=119
   
   Is this case of unscrupulous multiplication, outrageous pricing, or am I missing something?

[rstainer]

Mike,
   
   The ACOC Cobra Register, based on the internationally-accepted continuous history as a vehicle principle, illustrates the 3272 issues. Only one vehicle has continuous history as a vehicle since 1966: during its repair many new components were used to replace discarded damaged items.
   
   A new vehicle was built in 1979, using some discarded 1966 components, and given the VIN´CSX3140´. Twenty-six years later this VIN was changed to ´CSX3272´.
   
   I don´t think anyone is being unscrupulous. The facts are readily available to those who want them and many rightly conclude that a replica/replica performance/replica price combination better meets their needs than the alternative. This is particularly the case in front-running historic racing.
   
   Robin

[AC Ventura]

Thanks Robin. Are you saying the  original 1966 car, the one that was originally damagedand and recipient of the replacrement Autokraft chassis (apparently in the US) and this car (seemingly in the UK) both now carry the chassis number CSX 3272?

[rstainer]

Mike,
   
   Yes, per the Register (which received authoritative infomation some ten years ago) they have the same VIN, or 'Car Number' using Factory Ledger oldspeak.
   
   RS

[AC Ventura]

Thanks for the info Robin. I have no axe to grind and I don't wish anybody any misfortune, but you and everyone else knows that the DVLA position on this would probably be that the car built up from the chassis remains of CSX 3272, should be placed on a Q registration. That is, a car of varying component age when initially constructed. I realise that doesn't suit everyone's purpose, but I don't think we can subdivide cars to make two examples from one and call them both vintage. Most I think would agree this sounds like a profit led practice. However that's only an opinion. It's an interesting situation and the argument about what constitutes which car can lay claim to the original title will run and run. To me, without doubt  it's the original car, the one the damaged chassis came from, even if everything was replaced.
    The car

[nikbj68]

The (re)build of this car pre-dates the introduction of the 'Q' plate, IVA or SVA, there is no reason why this car should bear one; the registration is not an issue, and the facts are not being hidden. The difficulty of both cars having the same chassis number would become an issue should the U.S.-based CSX3272 come to live in the UK, which we have seen a few times in the past.

[SJ351]

The body chassis unit is the car. Continuous history may have legal precedence but, I know where my money would go.

[rstainer]

The car is the car, in the same way that the person is the person. Some skeletal and epidermic remains do not a person comprise.
   
   This has nothing whatsoever to do with money. The principles employed are widely used, published, available to any interested party, fully approved by ACOC Council and tested in law in a number of leading jurisdictions. They ensure than one car (or person) cannot become two, three or more and that a dead car (or person) cannot be resurrected.
   
   RS

[SJ351]

All sound logical and legal arguments of course Robin but, were I forced to choose between the two, I would favour the rebuilt original body chassis unit as having more original Thames Ditton DNA than its substitute. It is well known that a certain middle eastern dictator had a number of body doubles but the 'original' was ultimately brought to trial.  In any case, I would prefer to pay double and purchase a 'no stories car'.
   
   Perhaps that is taking things too far... Put it this way : continuous history is widely accepted by collectors in race cars as they are expected to have accidents. However, when it comes to road cars, such matters are generally hushed up and caveat emptor applies. Vigilant registrars are there, like your good self, to ensure that facts are researched and documented as far as possible without exposing the club to legal ramifications. A fine line has to be trodden. Ask the right people about certain AC Cobras and you will get all the facts you could possibly want if you are a genuine purchaser.
   
   The car world is moving on and wealthy car collectors are seeking originality, not just in the physical form, but more so now in the originally produced pure factory material, warts and all. The rise of the 'barn find'  a phenomenon that would have seemed preposterous only a few years ago tells us this... Eveything is only original once.
   
   Classic Car clubs, as values rise, may have to accept one day in the not too distant future that purchasers are leaning towards art world definitions of originality. These are very different and, as we know, the continuous history argument would hold no water.

[AC Ventura]

To me it's all about an intangible called provenance and whether we believe we should be able to rely on documented chassis numbers to prove that.
   
   Our car registration system is based on cars having individual, registration, engine chassis and chassis numbers. The first two you are generally legally free to change, but the chassis number you cannot. It's so people don't have to rely on hearsay and stories, to be sure a car is what it appears to be.
   
    As previously mentioned, if the US car was imported to the UK and somebody attempted to register it, the DVLA would cross reference the chassis numbers and be forced to make a decision, possibly via inspection, possibly via the ACOC. One of the cars might end up with a Q reg and that owner would understandably, be very unhappy. This action by the DVLA can be retrospective of they feel misrepresentation has occurred. I don't think I'd want to be the person buying or selling this car, no matter how fabulous it no doubt is.

[rstainer]

All leading car registration systems have Vehicle Identification Number (VIN-an ISO standard) or Car Number (AC´s period Factory Ledger term) as the unique identifier. The VIN, or VIN subset, appears in five or more places for early leaf spring Cobras and six or more for later cars.
   
   The VIN is (or is intended to be) a unique international car identifier, though it is sometimes nefariously duplicated or triplicated, either in different legal jurisdictions or in the same jurisdiction where two separate physical cars share the same identity (one being a ´ringer´ for the other). The ACOC Cobra Register principles are such that one car cannot become two or more cars, just as one person cannot become two or more people.
   
   Over fifty ´later´ replica cobras that have (or claim to have) the VIN of a period Cobra are listed in the Club´s website members´ area (acownersclub.co.uk/members-area/models/cobra_thamesditton). May I suggest that future discussion considers specific documented examples and uses defined terms such as VIN and Car Number. The only DNA in a Cobra comes from the originators of its few organic components, not from the car itself.
   
   RS

[shep]

If the original Mona Lisa was re-framed because of wood worm, the re-framed painting would still the original. If a shady character picked up the discarded frame, treated it with Rentokil, and commissioned a really good artist to make an accurate copy which was then mounted on the freshly treated original frame, would you pay £700m for it? I don't think so. A couple of grand for the workmanship maybe, but it will always be a replica irrespective of the frame's origin.

[SJ351]

Metaphorically, what if it were damaged in a historic racing accident or caught fire I wonder Andy - and then a new Kirkham body/chassis slipped in?  I agree with your analogy - the painting itself is what is desired - worth a bit more with its original exterior wooden frame still attached to embellish it but.......
   
   With cars, it is all subjective. You have the (very easily duped in the past) DVLA recognizing a car in one way, and Internationally along legal lines with VIN numbers etc. Then you have the paying public like us who recognize the law can be an ass. Ultimately, we all recognize something that is precious to us in what we buy, and that defines how authentic or valuable a particular artifact may be. Japanese swords are very interesting on this front.
   
   The Cobra Register is useful in reporting the duds and copies for the unsuspecting, although is rather economical with the facts as far as some cars are concerned. LKeeping to the necessary'fine line'.
   
   My friend has an old Dawes professional racing bicycle in his shed  - the fact that it has been in pieces for many years as such does not mean it no longer exists just because he has not bothered screwing it together again in 25 years. Continuous history it still has and will shortly be back in one piece. Now you cannot get much more original than that.

[shep]

Simon, I was just re-reading this post and saw your piece on the Dawes racing bike. I agree that it doesn't matter if it was kept together but in pieces for 25 years. Robin's principles still apply. It started off as a complete bike, and if it has continuous history, remains that same bike, even if the frame has been repaired or replaced. Someone cannot acquire the old frame, and build it into a new Dawes racing bike and claim it is the original. The owner who restored the original still owns the original irrespective of who has done what with discarded parts. I see Aston Martin are getting on the Classic Reproductions band waggon again with "continuation" DB4 GTs. They did the same with "Sanction" DB4 Zagatos a decade or so ago, and Jags have produced a batch of Lightweight E Types. The problem for me, is that the value of the original classics rests in their ground breaking design and successes in the 1950s and 1960s. They were produced for racing, in small numbers, and so 60 years later are extremely desirable and rare. Consequently they change hands for over a million pounds each. To recreate these cars from scratch with all new components will cost more than a mass produced Porsche or Ferrari, but not that much more. The manufacturers can see that it may cost 200k each to make a small batch of replicas, and if they can persuade 10 or 20 people to part with 500k each, there is a nice little profit to be made. My worry is that in another 20 years, that some unsuspecting investor will be offered one of these Factory Replicas at the price of a true original. They will not be buying the historical importance of a car which was ahead of its time, but rather an assembly of components which have no claim to that history. In my view, replicas are worth the sum of the parts, plus a margin for putting them together. This has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the originals which they imitate. Other marques are also available!

[aaron]

What happens if the owner of an original car and a replica with the same chassis no gets sold on ?