AC Owners Club
AC Owners Club
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 AC Owners Club Forum
 Cobra (Thames Ditton) Forum
 COB 6036 - which is the original?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

Chafford

United Kingdom
696 Posts

Posted - 18 June 2012 :  21:32:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Having seen Steve Gray's beautiful green Cobra at Brooklands on Saturday, can someone explain to me why his car, which has the original chassis for COB 6036, is described in the ACOC register as a replica built in 2003, whereas the COB 6036 in the AC Cobra Leaf Spring Register is given the date 23 November 1964, even though it was constructed with a completely new body and chassis in 1983.



Edited by - Chafford on 20 June 2012 21:55:30

rstainer

United Kingdom
176 Posts

Posted - 19 June 2012 :  19:15:01  Show Profile  Visit rstainer's Homepage  Reply with Quote
The ACOC's classifaction criteria are available to anyone who asks (rstainer@radcothouse.co.uk).

The criteria, fully described in ACtion recently, accord with International best practice, have been tested in law and are in line with DVLA regulations. I suggest that anyone keenly interested in registry practice reads, as a starting point, Martin Emmison's Car & Driver artIcle.

Go to Top of Page

Chafford

United Kingdom
696 Posts

Posted - 19 June 2012 :  20:18:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Very interesting!

http://www.gdlaw.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0002/1100/LegalFiles.pdf
Go to Top of Page

Chafford

United Kingdom
696 Posts

Posted - 20 June 2012 :  18:24:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by rstainer

The ACOC's classifaction criteria are available to anyone who asks (rstainer@radcothouse.co.uk).



An interesting saga going back a good few years!

Having heard some of the detailed background to this case, I feel considerable sympathy for Steve Gray, whatever the law says.

Edited by - Chafford on 01 July 2012 11:21:19
Go to Top of Page

A-Snake

USA
188 Posts

Posted - 02 July 2012 :  03:48:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Chafford

quote:
Originally posted by rstainer

The ACOC's classifaction criteria are available to anyone who asks (rstainer@radcothouse.co.uk).



An interesting saga going back a good few years!

Having heard some of the detailed background to this case, I feel considerable sympathy for Steve Gray, whatever the law says.



Why is that? Gray knew what he had(or didn't have)when it bought the pieces,right?
Go to Top of Page

Chafford

United Kingdom
696 Posts

Posted - 04 July 2012 :  19:33:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Steve Gray's comments as reported on Club Cobra:

'The car was wrecked in 79 . A new car was built in 83 finished in 85 with a new frame body and virtually every new part . The wreck was kept by the owner with its original title papers period history , undamged frame with numbers and various body sections wheels hardtop etc . We aquired it in 02 the then Saac registry 97 discribed the 6036 as a replica which is a fact . Therefore we had the Ac guy look at the frame and associated parts he verfied it was correct - The Ac factory at Frimley in surrey verfied it too . We restored it to Fia spec body style . Its registered on the original uk issued number for the frame'

So in summary, the owner of the new car finished by Autokraft in 1985, years later sold the original Thames Ditton chassis, body sections etc, plus paperwork and logbook to Brooklands knowing full well that the original title of the car remained with the 1985 built car.
Go to Top of Page

A-Snake

USA
188 Posts

Posted - 04 July 2012 :  20:59:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Here is the tread on Club Cobra.

http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/all-cobra-talk/99545-cob-series-vin-3.html
Go to Top of Page

rstainer

United Kingdom
176 Posts

Posted - 06 July 2012 :  15:51:49  Show Profile  Visit rstainer's Homepage  Reply with Quote
The Register entry for 6036, owned by Joachim von Buest, is:
  • ‘Badly damaged by fire (83). Rebuilt with a new chassis and body, using the original engine and transmission and some suspension components (83). The original chassis (undamaged) and certain other components not used in the rebuild were discarded and passed to Ralph Goray in part settlement of a debt (85).’


  • The register appendix records a replica built in 2003:
  • ‘Built by Steve Grey using the original chassis of 6036, which was discarded when that car was rebuilt in 85. FIA HTP.’


  • The ownership of 6036(Gosheron>Johnson>Thaine>Wolff>Specht>Hafner>Buest) has never been in doubt, and A-Snake’s observation that ‘Gray knew what he had (or didn't have) when it bought the pieces’ is absolutely correct.

    If anyone has any information to add to 6036’s register entry or the replica appendix I’d be very glad to receive it.
    Go to Top of Page

    Chafford

    United Kingdom
    696 Posts

    Posted - 16 July 2012 :  21:52:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
    Simon Bathhurst Brown discusses COB 6036 in July's ACtion and notes a recent case which might have implications for cars with original chassis or parts of chassis stamped with the original VIN number that are not currently deemed to be the 'original car'.

    The summary is below and you can access the detailed judgement at this link.

    http://wilmotslitigation.com/news/article/brewer-v-mann

    Go to Top of Page

    administrator

    United Kingdom
    427 Posts

    Posted - 18 July 2012 :  09:04:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
    The identity (the VIN/chassis number) of the Bentley Speed Six in Brewer vs. Mann was never in doubt or disputed.

    The dispute was about Mann's description of the car as a Speed Six and what assumptions could be read into that description as part of the contract of sale.

    The judgement was that the car could be described as a Speed Six as it was built up on at least part of a Speed Six chassis which retained its original chassis stamp, even though the engine was not a Speed Six unit. The judgement also noted that an eighty plus year old vehicle was unlikely to retain many of its original parts and neither originality nor continuous history could be assumed as part of the description but had to be separately negotiated.

    My reading is that this case has little direct relevance to COB6036. Wilmots' summary point (3) is telling (my capitals): "The identity of a car is to be determined by reference to the custom in the classic car trade. It MAY be derived from a part of the chassis with the original chassis number attached to it." - or, in lawyerspeak, it MAY not, depending on the circumstances of the case.

    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.

    It does strike me as odd for one AC licensee (Autokraft) to repair a car, return it to its owner and be paid in good faith for those repairs, only for another AC licensee to produce another car 25 years later and make a claim for the identity for its own car.

    It would be interesting to hear a professional lawyer's view rather than those of journalists or interested onlookers (such as me) who are, by nature, amateurs.



    Go to Top of Page

    Chafford

    United Kingdom
    696 Posts

    Posted - 18 July 2012 :  21:44:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
    quote:
    Originally posted by 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.




    But according to Simon Bathhurt Brown's ACtion article, after AC confirmed the chassis of the car in the UK was the 1964 original, it was inspected by the DVLA and police before the car was reissued with its original 1964 registration number. Doesn't this mean therefore that the DVLA sees CGY 226B as the original car?

    As you say one for the legal experts to clarify!


    Edited by - Chafford on 18 July 2012 21:48:04
    Go to Top of Page

    SBB

    United Kingdom
    34 Posts

    Posted - 20 July 2012 :  11:12:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
    Was Autokraft an AC licensee when this completely new car,except for engine and gearbox,was built? If they were not,and did not have AC's permission to build it, what then is this car?

    The original stamped chassis frame, ie with its own unique number just like a bicycle frame, has never died, been scrapped nor been cannibalised and has a continuous history. In other words, the axe's handle still exists.
    Go to Top of Page

    Chafford

    United Kingdom
    696 Posts

    Posted - 20 July 2012 :  12:46:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
    I believe the new body/chassis was built in 1983 by which time Autokraft were licenced to use the 'AC' trademark when building Mk IV Cobras.

    However if you subscribe to the 'continuous history' principle that is followed by the ACOC and SAAC, Autokraft wouldn't have needed permission from AC to build the new body/chassis as the original 1964 title would be transferred to the restored car.

    But as Simon Bathhurst Brown says in his ACtion article, following this principle means that the 1983 car with the new body chassis is deemed to be the 'original' car, whereas the car built (in 2005) with the original 1964 chassis and other parts is deemed to be the 'replica'.

    Martin Emmison's article makes interesting reading:

    http://www.gdlaw.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0002/1100/LegalFiles.pdf


    Edited by - Chafford on 20 July 2012 12:49:24
    Go to Top of Page

    rstainer

    United Kingdom
    176 Posts

    Posted - 20 July 2012 :  17:51:21  Show Profile  Visit rstainer's Homepage  Reply with Quote


    The Register description of these two cars (the continuous history car and the 2003 replica) appears earlier in this string. The facts are not disputed.

    As regards car identity (the VIN, e.g. COB 6036) the Register and most European legislative domains (including HMG, using the DVLA as its agent) operate as follows:
  • The use made of a discarded chassis is not relevant to (a) the identity (VIN) of the car from which it was discarded and (b) the identity of the car into which it may eventually be incorporated, if used again – see, for example, 6040, 6042, 6115/6130, 2131 etc.
  • Registration authorities and registrars can only act on information received. It would appear doubtful that the DVLA was advised of 6036’s existence in Germany. Were 6036 to be repatriated, the DVLA might well act as they have when other originals, having had their identity assumed elsewhere, are then repatriated.
  • Repairs to a car do not require the original manufacturer’s permission. Likewise, the construction of a replica (regardless of its maker or VIN) does not need any form of ‘permission’. Any manufacturer or licensee believing that rights have been infringed has remedy in civil law.


  • If anyone wants to propose a Register change or a change to registry principles (eg vehicle categorisation) I’m very happy to hear from them.

    Go to Top of Page

    Chafford

    United Kingdom
    696 Posts

    Posted - 22 July 2012 :  14:06:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
    Redesigning the registers completely no doubt would require a considerable amount of work. However, adding further columns to the current Cobra and Replica Registers along the following lines with Yes /No /Part or ? options might be simpler but still useful when scanning the registers.

    For the Cobra Registers, an extra column with heading 'Original documented AC built chassis'

    For the Replica Registers an extra column with heading 'Original AC built chassis'. There's a big difference between the car sometimes described as CSX 3272 which has an original AC built '60s chassis (but whose number cannot be identified) and the version of COB 6040 built in the mid '90s which has no claim to '60s originality.

    Would this be useful?

    Edited by - Chafford on 22 July 2012 20:54:30
    Go to Top of Page

    rstainer

    United Kingdom
    176 Posts

    Posted - 23 July 2012 :  15:10:25  Show Profile  Visit rstainer's Homepage  Reply with Quote
    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.
    Go to Top of Page

    SBB

    United Kingdom
    34 Posts

    Posted - 26 July 2012 :  12:58:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
    I understand that Brian Gilbart-Smith is the ACOC's official Club Liason Officer appointed to deal with the DVLC on such authentication issues.
    Go to Top of Page

    rstainer

    United Kingdom
    176 Posts

    Posted - 26 July 2012 :  13:11:52  Show Profile  Visit rstainer's Homepage  Reply with Quote
    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.
    Go to Top of Page

    Gus Meyjes

    USA
    735 Posts

    Posted - 26 July 2012 :  21:21:21  Show Profile  Visit Gus Meyjes's Homepage  Reply with Quote
    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
    Go to Top of Page

    Chafford

    United Kingdom
    696 Posts

    Posted - 26 July 2012 :  21:47:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
    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.




    Edited by - Chafford on 26 July 2012 22:08:31
    Go to Top of Page

    Gus Meyjes

    USA
    735 Posts

    Posted - 27 July 2012 :  00:37:59  Show Profile  Visit Gus Meyjes's Homepage  Reply with Quote
    That would be the one where you stated it can only be original once... But it seems you removed that.
    Go to Top of Page

    302EFI

    Germany
    114 Posts

    Posted - 27 July 2012 :  12:14:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
    Does anybody know why the - undamaged - original 1964 chassis was not used in the 1983-85 rebuilding exercise?
    Jürgen
    Go to Top of Page

    rstainer

    United Kingdom
    176 Posts

    Posted - 27 July 2012 :  14:54:39  Show Profile  Visit rstainer's Homepage  Reply with Quote
    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.



    Go to Top of Page

    302EFI

    Germany
    114 Posts

    Posted - 27 July 2012 :  16:59:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
    Thanks for explaining, Robin.
    Go to Top of Page

    rstainer

    United Kingdom
    176 Posts

    Posted - 28 July 2012 :  11:30:07  Show Profile  Visit rstainer's Homepage  Reply with Quote
    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.
    Go to Top of Page

    Kay Hafner

    1 Posts

    Posted - 29 July 2012 :  11:21:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
    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

    Go to Top of Page
    Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
    Next Page
     New Topic  Reply to Topic
     Printer Friendly
    Jump To:
    AC Owners Club © 2000-2002 Snitz Communications Go To Top Of Page
    Snitz Forums 2000
    The AC Owners Club is an independent organisation and is not connected or affiliated with Acedes Holdings LLC or the licensees or manufacturers of AC Motor Cars. The statements and opinions expressed here are those of the AC Owners Club Limited or its members (other than on the Forum, which non-members are also permitted to use) and are not endorsed by Acedes Holdings LLC or their licensees or manufacturers or approved by them. Contributions, opinions and comments by individuals, whether members or non-members of the ACOC are their own and are not approved or endorsed by the ACOC or other company or organisation.