I have just received the following news from the leading Italian Maserati and Ferrari sports-racing car authority, Franco Lombardi. It details the effective 'execution' by the Italian legal system of a Maserati (not entirely 'real') which nonetheless had been painstakingly reassembled around surviving provenly original, in-period components such as one of only three known genuine 350S engine - all now lost to posterity...
MASERATIS MELTED DOWN: A SHATTERING EXAMPLE OF ITALIAN JUSTICE
By order of an Italian Court, two reconstructed Maserati sports-racing cars from the 1950s - an A6GCS and a 350S – have been delivered by the Police to a local scrapyard to be crushed into cubes for recycling.
No, this is not a joke.
It happened on March 22nd 2006 in obedience to a Court order made in Ferrara, Italy. Furthermore, in full execution of that order, the two cubes were then melted in a foundry furnace; just to be on the safe side and because, as we all know, fire is the safest way to deal with sin.
This story began six years ago with a police operation which was carried out simultaneously in 17 different locations, including restorers, body shops, and private garages and houses. The whole operation was launched after months of intelligence investigation, ’phone tapping, etc. (more or less the sort of effort which might have been better justified if cracking down on the Medellin Cartel).
Let me just add that – at least in this case – there was no fraud or malicious representation involved and that this Operation was not provoked by any automobile manufacturer.
In fact, it seems that Maserati – one of the 17 locations raided that morning – was particularly excited by the Police’s unexpected visit to inspect the activities of the Registro Maserati, located in Via Ciro Menotti 322, Modena.
It would be interesting to discuss this judicial initiative of six years ago and its possible consequences, but right now we can only add that no significant penal consequence has been produced (or probably will ever result) from these investigations. On the other hand, nobody will even know what the final cost will be for the Italian taxpayer, or whether any other criminal-policy priorities might have been better tackled with that kind of effort.
What is abundantly relevant is that the Italian Judges tend now to interpret the existing legal provisions for Brand Protection in the sense that a copy of a classic automobile could potentially be an infringement of that Code.
Therefore, while the replica business is booming world-wide, this activity – and I mean bona fide activity – can be persecuted in Italy even to the extent of confiscation – and destruction! - of the reproduced car.
This kind of reasoning leads to regarding such replicas in exactly the same manner as the law regards the thousand of Louis Vuitton fake purses sold daily by hordes of immigrants on all the squares and the beaches of the western world.
Returning to the events of March 22nd, I must add that a lack of formal communication of the order of the Court left it impossible for the cars’ owner to present any legal defence which might have prevent their destruction.
This is an unfortunate circumstance (leaving the door open for further litigation for damages against the Judicial Administration), but here I will concentrate upon the general issue.
Personally, I know no detail concerning the A6GCS involved in this case, but I do know of the 350S which had been reconstructed by Maurizio Grazzi of Ferrara.
I have no evidence to support his claim of originality for his chassis – apparently found in Modena – but I know that the aluminium body of that car had been correctly made by a well-known body specialist, Elis Garuti, of Rubiera. Of greater concern, Mr. Grazzi had patiently collected ORIGINAL major and minor components for this car with fastidious perseverance.
The ORIGINAL engine came from the Orsi firm (former owners of the Maserati company), the transaxle from the Parravano/Sorrell parts collection via David Cottingham in the UK. Suspensions, brakes, wheels, tanks, steering and several other components employed in the car’s re-assembly were all original.
We may still accept that an ensemble of original factory-made, in-period components does not create an original car.
Of course this I accept, but in any case the seizure would have been probably sufficient to enact the law.
While awaiting further investigation and verification, confiscation of the car would have been more than sufficient, perhaps making an order to entrust the car to a Museum, a University or to any other Public Institution as a “didactic copy”.
In fact, only three original Maserati 350S dry-sump sports-racing car engines were made by the Factory in period.
If I recall correctly, one was broken on the test bench while being run by Ermanno Cozza – now in charge of the Maserati archives (and he still shows the pain of this memory whenever he recalls that episode).
One of the other two original 350S engines is in the USA, installed in chassis number 3502 … and the third was in Grazzi’s now destroyed car.
Nice shot! One of the only two surviving genuine Maserati-made engines of this historic type has been obliterated by the machinations of the Italian legal system - the only one which had survived at all this side of the Ocean.
Using laws more apt to deal with tons of fake Chinese watches, the Judges have ensured there might be no further possibility of seeing a rare set of mechanical parts of high technical and historical significance.
Well done!
Let me add that the man in charge of the crushing machine not only refused to operate it but in fact left his workplace, leaving one of his young assistants to do the job. I guess he might be still asking if some common sense is left anywhere in ‘modern Italy’.
While this happens in Italy, at International level a car with supposed identity 3503 is offered for sale as the real thing, having presumably a Maserati 3500GT shortened chassis, in left-hand-drive form, and only vaguely resembling the original car.
I do not intend to add any further comment.
I can only be troubled by the opinion of Italian justice that enthusiasts, historians and car collectors world-wide might now form. I am afraid not a good one. And let me add that it is with a strong sense of bitterness that I am broadcasting this sad and foolish story.
Franco Lombardi
OK - so the hapless 350S used arguably a replica chassis, definitely a replica body but if Franco's assessment of its engine and many other components as being entirely genuine/in-period/Maserati-made is in fact accurate, this surely is a staggeringly appalling act of purblind judicial ignorance and vandalism.
Views? Further info??
DCN
Enforced melting-down of Maserati 350S
Started by
Doug Nye
, Mar 30 2006 13:56
-
This topic is locked
57 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Vitesse2
-
- 41,876 posts
- Joined: April 01
Administrator
Posted 30 March 2006 - 14:24
To quote Jim Hacker: I'm appalled.
Execution indeed. Had there been any fraudulent intent, then yes - the car should have been confiscated: but not destroyed.
Madness, absolute madness .... :
So where does this leave anyone who wants to exhibit (say) a "replica" or "reconstructed" Auto Union in Italy?;)
Execution indeed. Had there been any fraudulent intent, then yes - the car should have been confiscated: but not destroyed.
Madness, absolute madness .... :
So where does this leave anyone who wants to exhibit (say) a "replica" or "reconstructed" Auto Union in Italy?;)
#3
jcbc3
-
- 12,980 posts
- Joined: November 04
RC Forum Host
Posted 30 March 2006 - 14:37
This was the case for the defense. It would be interesting to hear the case for the prosecution before passing final judgement.
But I can agree that it would have been more prudent to 'save' the original bits and thrown the replicated parts out.
But I can agree that it would have been more prudent to 'save' the original bits and thrown the replicated parts out.
#4
ensign14
-
- 62,013 posts
- Joined: December 01
Member
Posted 30 March 2006 - 14:48
People often criticize the English legal system. And yes, it is highly expensive, it takes a year to get to trial, some things are ludicrously overburdened (defamation in particular), it involves heavy management time &c &c.
But I have never, ever come across a legal system that is ultimately as fair.
The Italian legal system stinks to the highest heaven. Fair Trials Abroad are on record as stating that you can start with the basic premise that trials in Italy (as well as France, Spain, Portugal and Greece) are unfair. You'll be lucky to get to trial in Italy within 10 years. The Italian judges ignore binding European law to get the result they want rather than what justice demands. And the levels of corruption are staggering even to someone dealing in Bliar's Britain.
Alas, this is a comparatively minor symptom thereof.
The worst of it is, is that the Italian legal system is not the worst in western Europe, by any means...
But I have never, ever come across a legal system that is ultimately as fair.
The Italian legal system stinks to the highest heaven. Fair Trials Abroad are on record as stating that you can start with the basic premise that trials in Italy (as well as France, Spain, Portugal and Greece) are unfair. You'll be lucky to get to trial in Italy within 10 years. The Italian judges ignore binding European law to get the result they want rather than what justice demands. And the levels of corruption are staggering even to someone dealing in Bliar's Britain.
Alas, this is a comparatively minor symptom thereof.
The worst of it is, is that the Italian legal system is not the worst in western Europe, by any means...
#5
Stephen W
-
- 15,586 posts
- Joined: December 04
Member
Posted 30 March 2006 - 14:50
How is this going to afect anyone with a 'replica' when they take it to Italy?
Will they be stopping 'suspect' cars and impounding them?
It all seems too absurd. Typical of the Italians who cannot crack down on the real criminal element!
Will they be stopping 'suspect' cars and impounding them?
It all seems too absurd. Typical of the Italians who cannot crack down on the real criminal element!
#6
alessandro silva
-
- 758 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 30 March 2006 - 14:51
Doug,
you are certainly aware that Mr. Lombardi cannot be the most impartial observer of the Italian judicial system. It does not matter if this lack of objectivity has been originated by an act of justice or of injustice. Unfortunately some could always feel the smell of revenge in his words and some other could always dispute his assessments about the originality of a component.
This is an unfortunate human problem and TNF members should be aware of it before making an avalanche of remarks about Italians crushing remarkable engines when not playing mandolines.
you are certainly aware that Mr. Lombardi cannot be the most impartial observer of the Italian judicial system. It does not matter if this lack of objectivity has been originated by an act of justice or of injustice. Unfortunately some could always feel the smell of revenge in his words and some other could always dispute his assessments about the originality of a component.
This is an unfortunate human problem and TNF members should be aware of it before making an avalanche of remarks about Italians crushing remarkable engines when not playing mandolines.
#7
Gary C
-
- 5,571 posts
- Joined: January 01
Member
Posted 30 March 2006 - 16:04
this does seem a tad over zealous.
#8
FLB
-
- 29,931 posts
- Joined: February 01
Member
Posted 30 March 2006 - 16:38
Of course, nobody's ever completely impartial in a case like this... This is a case that invokes emotion as much as reason, if not more.Originally posted by alessandro silva
Doug,
you are certainly aware that Mr. Lombardi cannot be the most impartial observer of the Italian judicial system. It does not matter if this lack of objectivity has been originated by an act of justice or of injustice. Unfortunately some could always feel the smell of revenge in his words and some other could always dispute his assessments about the originality of a component.
This is an unfortunate human problem and TNF members should be aware of it before making an avalanche of remarks about Italians crushing remarkable engines when not playing mandolines.
I don't think the question of the definition of 'originality' is what is particularly worrisome, at least to me. I'm more worried if this was indeed a fully-documented, builder-acknowledged, factory-approved 'replica'. Even if it had been (or was) a 100% restoration (meaning little or no original parts), the fact that it had 'traceability' and was STILL ordered for destruction is more than a little troubling. The prospective buyers would have had means to know this car was what it was and not what some with looser ethics might claim it to be.
Caveat Emptor would have been satisfied within reason.
#9
Sharman
-
- 5,284 posts
- Joined: September 05
Member
Posted 30 March 2006 - 16:40
Bang goes the Mille Miglia Retro ! To follow the thinking to its' logical conclusion if it is not provably the real thing it has to be crushed.....
#10
David McKinney
-
- 14,156 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 30 March 2006 - 17:21
So farewell then historic racing in Italy
To take Sharman’s point further - perhaps that country’s entire classic car movement is doomed
Who’s going to want to own a valuable historic car - genuine or not - when all it takes is for the authorities to think it’s a replica, and it’s gone, with no opportunity of defence
It is unbelievable that this can happen.
Are Italian courts competent to define what’s original and what’s not? Most 250F owners these days leave their factory-built engines on the bench and use post-period replica engines for racing. Regardless of what one’s views of that practice might be, the fact remains that it would be extremely risky for anyone to show such a car in public in Italy, as - in that form - it is not 100% original. I know of at least one ex-works 250F with completely traceable history - which happens to include the replacement of the original chassis after a racing accident. That car would clearly be destined for the crusher, even though the provenance of the “entity” is unquestioned.
I trust FIVA and FIA have both handed stern notes to the Italian ambassador.
To take Sharman’s point further - perhaps that country’s entire classic car movement is doomed
Who’s going to want to own a valuable historic car - genuine or not - when all it takes is for the authorities to think it’s a replica, and it’s gone, with no opportunity of defence
It is unbelievable that this can happen.
Are Italian courts competent to define what’s original and what’s not? Most 250F owners these days leave their factory-built engines on the bench and use post-period replica engines for racing. Regardless of what one’s views of that practice might be, the fact remains that it would be extremely risky for anyone to show such a car in public in Italy, as - in that form - it is not 100% original. I know of at least one ex-works 250F with completely traceable history - which happens to include the replacement of the original chassis after a racing accident. That car would clearly be destined for the crusher, even though the provenance of the “entity” is unquestioned.
I trust FIVA and FIA have both handed stern notes to the Italian ambassador.
#11
HDonaldCapps
-
- 2,482 posts
- Joined: April 05
Member
Posted 30 March 2006 - 18:31
Originally posted by jcbc3
This was the case for the defense. It would be interesting to hear the case for the prosecution before passing final judgement.
With everyone jumping around, spinning in circles, sputtering dire & dark remarks about "those people," and often talking out of their asses since there seems to be little actual information on exactly what happened and the facts of the case, perhaps someone should take the time to do a bit of follow-up and find out whether or not this was some miscarriage of justice or something a bit more, ah, fitting since there may or may not be more to the story than is currently being told. It could very well be that most of the remarks here are justified, but then again perhaps that is irrelevant on The Nostalgia Racing Comments forum?
#12
Wolf
-
- 7,883 posts
- Joined: June 00
Member
Posted 30 March 2006 - 18:52
Don, I can't see which trangression on part of the owner would warrant the original parts of the car being completely and utterly destroyed, if this description is correct... I presume counterfit artifacts/merchandise are in most countries invariably condemned to destruction, but if one finds Mona Lisa in fake frame, does one burn the painting with frame too?
#13
ensign14
-
- 62,013 posts
- Joined: December 01
Member
Posted 30 March 2006 - 19:37
The European Convention on Human Rights is part of Italian law and part of that convention is a right not to have property arbitrarily seized by the state (of course we had that in Magna Carta in 1215, followed up by the Statute of Marlborough in 1267, but hey Europe is a bit behind legally).Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
...perhaps someone should take the time to do a bit of follow-up and find out whether or not this was some miscarriage of justice or something a bit more, ah, fitting since there may or may not be more to the story than is currently being told.
Any punishment of seizure must also be proportionate to the crime.
Destroying a car - whilst there still would have been time for an appeal - is entirely disproportionate. It has already been established that you cannot seize a vehicle from a smuggler, even though the amount smuggled is worth massively more than the amount seized.
So just from that alone the judgment ordering destruction is per incuriam.
#14
Doug Nye
-
- 11,535 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 30 March 2006 - 20:02
Please note - in my original post of this thread I wrote 'if Franco's assessment...is in fact accurate' and asked for further info/views on this matter. There is certainly some way to go to establish the objective facts, and as Alessandro has pointed out Franco is not completely dispassionate in his view of the Italian legal system, having himself been convicted for loudly rubbishing another owner's car - a rather iffy Ferrari I believe (???) after what at the time sounded to me - as an Anglo-Saxon islander - a similarly contentious legal process...
But the destruction of any real motor racing artefact merely to satisfy judicial requirements must surely concern the Historic and classic car community at large.
Or is my Italian friend in fact barking, and was there nothing real in that 'Maserati' at all - or had it indeed been misdescribed in an attempt to achieve a sale - or had it somehow featured in some similar attempt at fraud? Even then (as Ensign writes above) destruction is palpably a bridge far too far...
Until contrary evidence surfaces I would accept Lombardi's account - albeit impassioned - more or less at face value. In my experience he's a hugely knowledgeable enthusiast, with his heart in the right place...
DCN
But the destruction of any real motor racing artefact merely to satisfy judicial requirements must surely concern the Historic and classic car community at large.
Or is my Italian friend in fact barking, and was there nothing real in that 'Maserati' at all - or had it indeed been misdescribed in an attempt to achieve a sale - or had it somehow featured in some similar attempt at fraud? Even then (as Ensign writes above) destruction is palpably a bridge far too far...
Until contrary evidence surfaces I would accept Lombardi's account - albeit impassioned - more or less at face value. In my experience he's a hugely knowledgeable enthusiast, with his heart in the right place...
DCN
#15
rudi
-
- 345 posts
- Joined: September 04
Member
Posted 30 March 2006 - 21:28
How can we be sure that the engine was original?
Two cars were built in 1956 with 3,5 l engines.
One of the cars (3501) was converted to 450S with a V8 engine.
Car 3502 is surviving in original shape with original engine.
The third car was fitted with a V12 engine.
So if the 3501 engine was destoyed while testing as told in the story, how can we have a third engine?
Two cars were built in 1956 with 3,5 l engines.
One of the cars (3501) was converted to 450S with a V8 engine.
Car 3502 is surviving in original shape with original engine.
The third car was fitted with a V12 engine.
So if the 3501 engine was destoyed while testing as told in the story, how can we have a third engine?
#16
alessandro silva
-
- 758 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 30 March 2006 - 21:28
Doug,
since you posted this afternoon, I looked for confirmation of the news but I was not able to find any. So we have only Mr. Lombardi's word that:
1) a seizure had taken place
2) a destruction had taken place after seizure.
We also have his word only that:
3) one of the cars involved had authentic parts
4) nobody had tried to sell something as something else.
So, some words of caution at the top of your first post, might have been appropriate.
I find also that another remark could be made about your second post. There is - at least as I have been told - an antefact to the "iffy Ferrari" part of the story, which if true might lead to locate Mr. Lombardi's heart not precisely where you say it is.
since you posted this afternoon, I looked for confirmation of the news but I was not able to find any. So we have only Mr. Lombardi's word that:
1) a seizure had taken place
2) a destruction had taken place after seizure.
We also have his word only that:
3) one of the cars involved had authentic parts
4) nobody had tried to sell something as something else.
So, some words of caution at the top of your first post, might have been appropriate.
I find also that another remark could be made about your second post. There is - at least as I have been told - an antefact to the "iffy Ferrari" part of the story, which if true might lead to locate Mr. Lombardi's heart not precisely where you say it is.
#17
Ducfer
-
- 27 posts
- Joined: August 04
New Member
Posted 30 March 2006 - 21:38
Doug,
Is this not precisely the end that you recommended for the J. Rindt Lotus only several months ago here in the TNF?
I am anxiously awaiting my opportunity to purchase a partially genuine Maserati 350 S Pot Lid.
Is this not precisely the end that you recommended for the J. Rindt Lotus only several months ago here in the TNF?
I am anxiously awaiting my opportunity to purchase a partially genuine Maserati 350 S Pot Lid.
#18
Gary C
-
- 5,571 posts
- Joined: January 01
Member
Posted 30 March 2006 - 21:59
Ducfer, did anyone die in this 350S then??
#19
philippe charuest
-
- 701 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
Posted 30 March 2006 - 22:48
in italy like everywhere else the police doesnt move before theres a formal complaint done by someone. whats missing here is the beginning of the "story"
Advertisement
#20
HDonaldCapps
-
- 2,482 posts
- Joined: April 05
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 05:13
As I pointed out, the outrage being howled into the cybersphere might be fully justified and the act rightfully condemned. Or, there might be aspects to the case that may or may not known which could at least provide some idea as to why this was done and done this particular way. While fully aware of the feelings that many are venting their spleens over, I also have an awareness of how often things are not quite what they seem when it comes to things such as this. Otherwise, as much as I may sympathize with some of the comments, I am not getting too worked up over this until there is much more known.
#21
Patrick Fletcher
-
- 775 posts
- Joined: February 04
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 09:04
What is abundantly relevant is that the Italian Judges tend now to interpret the existing legal provisions for Brand Protection in the sense that a copy of a classic automobile could potentially be an infringement of that Code. [/B][/QUOTE]
Brand protection - fair call.
If a developer without permission built a series of homes exactly the same as say the last two that Frank Lloyd Wright designed and called and named them as FLW designed homes then I would suggest he would get the backside sued off him/her.
Then again if the developer called them FLW inspired I think he may well get away with the act.
How would Maserati Specials be treated by an Italian judge?
Brand protection - fair call.
If a developer without permission built a series of homes exactly the same as say the last two that Frank Lloyd Wright designed and called and named them as FLW designed homes then I would suggest he would get the backside sued off him/her.
Then again if the developer called them FLW inspired I think he may well get away with the act.
How would Maserati Specials be treated by an Italian judge?
#22
jj2728
-
- 2,966 posts
- Joined: January 04
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 11:16
Not to offend our italian friends for I hold them and their wonderful country with deep affection, but having lived in Italy for many years, this episode surprises me not in the least. Their judicial system can at times be a bit 'felliniesque' to put it mildly.
#23
MKIVJ6
-
- 345 posts
- Joined: June 04
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 11:44
Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
As I pointed out, the outrage being howled into the cybersphere might be fully justified and the act rightfully condemned. Or, there might be aspects to the case that may or may not known which could at least provide some idea as to why this was done and done this particular way. While fully aware of the feelings that many are venting their spleens over, I also have an awareness of how often things are not quite what they seem when it comes to things such as this. Otherwise, as much as I may sympathize with some of the comments, I am not getting too worked up over this until there is much more known.
Ditto.
Thank you for writing to us! Although we receive hundreds of e-mails every day, we really and truly read them all, and your comments, suggestions, and questions are most welcome. Unfortunately, we cannot personally answer every piece of incoming e-mail.
Our site covers many of the items currently being plopped into inboxes everywhere, so if you were writing to ask us about something you just received, our search engine can probably help you locate the very article you're looking for. Just choose a few key words from the item of interest and enter them into search box. (Searching on whole phrases will often fail to produce matches; selecting one or two key words is the best search strategy.)
Our What's New page and our 25 Hottest Urban Legends page are also handy places to check whenever you receive something questionable in your inbox.
Thank you for using snopes.com.
#24
Cris
-
- 164 posts
- Joined: August 04
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 12:04
An early April Fool's day joke perhaps? Hopefully?
Cris
Cris
#25
Doug Nye
-
- 11,535 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 13:41
...Glad I am apparently not the only who's barking here...
I now have independent confirmation from two further prominent Italian Maseratisti that the basis of Lombardi's story is, sadly, true. Two replica - or fake - cars have indeed been sequestrated by the court and - possibly because the owner was judged to be a serial offender - they were indeed ordered to be destroyed, and this order has apparently been carried out.
The A6GCS I am told also included original components, while the 350S engine used some original castings and other parts "of the kind which are damaged and destroyed in Historic racing every day". Hmm.
However, the Maserati world does seem rather aghast that a destruction order should have been handed down, and carried out. The verdict seems rather to exceed the perceived 'crime'.
Big problem with the 350S was that the owner/constructor/replicator/faker (choose your preferred term, it would seem) failed to appreciate that the real 1956 car '3501' used a modified chassis which had originally been designed and intended for the late-arriving 450S V8 engine.
It was modified just before completion to accept the 350S in-line engine instead, to make it to the start of that year's Mille Miglia. Piero Taruffi drove one such car, Moss/Jenkinson the other - that being the entity which with general agreement Lombardi now owns.
Factory drawings were prepared subsequently to convert a 300S-type chassis - I think for Tony Parravano - to accept a sister 350S engine.
The 'unfortunate' replicator/etc/etc/etc didn't apparently appreciate this crucial nuance, and his version of '3501' was based upon a frame made to these later, inappropriate, drawings - reproducing a chopped about 300S chassis, not a chopped about 450S design.
It seems that the court's expert investigator found the artisan in Modena who constructed this chassis in recent times to the replicator's order.
So here's further detail on what has really occurred - but all that craftsmanship being consigned to the crusher, original parts melted-down too, for what it's worth I do feel some sympathy with Franco's reaction, over-stated for his own reasons though it might be.
The Judge's order has not only punished the replicator/faker/however one might describe him...it has also left many Maseratista who do not share Lombardi's position as expressed in his diatribe (above) pretty much equally dismayed. They wish to condemn fakery - but did not expect this to happen.
DCN
I now have independent confirmation from two further prominent Italian Maseratisti that the basis of Lombardi's story is, sadly, true. Two replica - or fake - cars have indeed been sequestrated by the court and - possibly because the owner was judged to be a serial offender - they were indeed ordered to be destroyed, and this order has apparently been carried out.
The A6GCS I am told also included original components, while the 350S engine used some original castings and other parts "of the kind which are damaged and destroyed in Historic racing every day". Hmm.
However, the Maserati world does seem rather aghast that a destruction order should have been handed down, and carried out. The verdict seems rather to exceed the perceived 'crime'.
Big problem with the 350S was that the owner/constructor/replicator/faker (choose your preferred term, it would seem) failed to appreciate that the real 1956 car '3501' used a modified chassis which had originally been designed and intended for the late-arriving 450S V8 engine.
It was modified just before completion to accept the 350S in-line engine instead, to make it to the start of that year's Mille Miglia. Piero Taruffi drove one such car, Moss/Jenkinson the other - that being the entity which with general agreement Lombardi now owns.
Factory drawings were prepared subsequently to convert a 300S-type chassis - I think for Tony Parravano - to accept a sister 350S engine.
The 'unfortunate' replicator/etc/etc/etc didn't apparently appreciate this crucial nuance, and his version of '3501' was based upon a frame made to these later, inappropriate, drawings - reproducing a chopped about 300S chassis, not a chopped about 450S design.
It seems that the court's expert investigator found the artisan in Modena who constructed this chassis in recent times to the replicator's order.
So here's further detail on what has really occurred - but all that craftsmanship being consigned to the crusher, original parts melted-down too, for what it's worth I do feel some sympathy with Franco's reaction, over-stated for his own reasons though it might be.
The Judge's order has not only punished the replicator/faker/however one might describe him...it has also left many Maseratista who do not share Lombardi's position as expressed in his diatribe (above) pretty much equally dismayed. They wish to condemn fakery - but did not expect this to happen.
DCN
#26
Peter Morley
-
- 2,263 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 14:00
This would suggest they destroyed the 'replica' because it wasn't totally accurate, that would seem to be stepping outside of the law that is meant to protect replica items that could fool potential purchasers into thinking they were buying the genuine item.
Hopefully someone involved will have enough time and money to take action against the people who thought this was justifiable.
I was just starting to wonder what this means for owners of Cameron Millar 250Fs for example, it sounds like as long as they are accurate then they are safe!!
If Italian bureaucracy sees sense enough to allow historic racing at Monza I wonder how many CM 250Fs will be tempted to participate!
Hopefully someone involved will have enough time and money to take action against the people who thought this was justifiable.
I was just starting to wonder what this means for owners of Cameron Millar 250Fs for example, it sounds like as long as they are accurate then they are safe!!
If Italian bureaucracy sees sense enough to allow historic racing at Monza I wonder how many CM 250Fs will be tempted to participate!
#27
Doug Nye
-
- 11,535 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 14:34
Don't misunderstand Peter - the fact that the replicar featured the wrong type of chassis frame was merely what proved it could NOT be the original surviving car which the owner was apparently judged to have claimed it to be.
The car was not condemned to destruction because it was inaccurate, though that was an evidential factor in proving it was a replica - or rather a fake - which then led the Judge to order its destruction.
So at that rate any misdescribed but otherwise accurate CM car could certainly find itself in the firing line - as could any of the running Lancia or Lancia-Ferrari D50s - or Cooper-Bristols - or F2/Atlantic Marches - or Wolf F1 cars - or GT40s - or Lola T70GTs - or Crossles - or 'Shelby' Cobras - or Scarabs - or Lotus 16s - or BRM type 25s - or a P261 - or Lotus 24s - oops, I forgot of course, the FIA now accepts all these things...and had the flakey A6GCS or 350S (complete with their original mechanical parts) been permitted to survive they were plainly acceptable to this 'supreme governing body' as well.
But not to the Italian court, it would seem.
Right? Or wrong?
DCN
The car was not condemned to destruction because it was inaccurate, though that was an evidential factor in proving it was a replica - or rather a fake - which then led the Judge to order its destruction.
So at that rate any misdescribed but otherwise accurate CM car could certainly find itself in the firing line - as could any of the running Lancia or Lancia-Ferrari D50s - or Cooper-Bristols - or F2/Atlantic Marches - or Wolf F1 cars - or GT40s - or Lola T70GTs - or Crossles - or 'Shelby' Cobras - or Scarabs - or Lotus 16s - or BRM type 25s - or a P261 - or Lotus 24s - oops, I forgot of course, the FIA now accepts all these things...and had the flakey A6GCS or 350S (complete with their original mechanical parts) been permitted to survive they were plainly acceptable to this 'supreme governing body' as well.
But not to the Italian court, it would seem.
Right? Or wrong?
DCN
#28
ensign14
-
- 62,013 posts
- Joined: December 01
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 15:06
Given that the Court could have ordered a notice such as "Warning! This is not the original entity that rolled off the Maserati production line back in the 50s" to be affixed permanently to the car, which would have remedied entirely the original wrong, save for civil remedies from the intellectual property holders, then I submit that the order for chassis pulping was wrong.
#29
RTH
-
- 6,066 posts
- Joined: January 03
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 15:08
As I understand it "the offence" if there is one, in Britain at least , would be only when selling such a vehicle under the trades descriptions act and then only if someone attemped to "pass it off "as a genuine original or at least knowingly mislead a buyer by not bringing to their attention that it was a later amalgam of parts genuine original or not and not a vehicle that started life complete at the time stated or implied or from when the parts were dated or styled.
You are still free, here at least to build something for your own enjoyment, you just must not mislead someone in to parting with their own money for something which is not quite what it would appear to be.
No matter what, I don't think forced destruction of what we would consider a work of art could ever be the right response. I don't think this case is comparable with say counterfeit CDs.
You are still free, here at least to build something for your own enjoyment, you just must not mislead someone in to parting with their own money for something which is not quite what it would appear to be.
No matter what, I don't think forced destruction of what we would consider a work of art could ever be the right response. I don't think this case is comparable with say counterfeit CDs.
#30
brickyard
-
- 612 posts
- Joined: October 01
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 15:33
Oh, yes... the italian judicial system...
Does the names Rindt, Peterson, Senna rings any bells?
If you are watching a race on an italian racing circuit, do not forget to pray to your God that someone doesn't die on track that day... or you will have some trouble to get on time for dinner.
#31
Peter Morley
-
- 2,263 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 15:41
Originally posted by Doug Nye
Don't misunderstand Peter - the fact that the replicar featured the wrong type of chassis frame was merely what proved it could NOT be the original surviving car which the owner was apparently judged to have claimed it to be.
I see. Trying to pass it off as the genuine article was a bit naughty!
Making mistakes with a 'forgery' is always a bad idea.
Hard to imagine that happening with old cars isn't it - Cooper Bristol (& the current production of Monacos etc), March, GT40, TZ Alfa etc 'restorers' (& owners) should still be able to sleep comfortably knowing that they have always been truthful in their descriptions......
Originally posted by Doug Nye
Right? Or wrong?
That probably depends whether you are the buyer or the seller!
Destroying any part of history can't be good, it would obviously have been better to save the original parts for a more legitimate purpose but the legal system tends to try to make an example of someone (Ken Dodd etc ) to deter others in the future.
Peter
p.s. have you seen Colin Crabbe's Maserati remains on Ebay - that suddenly looks less interesting!!
#32
zoff2005
-
- 277 posts
- Joined: October 05
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 16:21
I know that Ferrari (who own Maserati) are very concerned, and rightly so, with protecting their trademark and intellectual property. It could be that this “incident” was prompted by them.
I certainly do not blame any manufacturer (whether it be Louis Vuitton, Cartier or Ferrari) for making sure that fake copies of their products are destroyed.
Presumably the person who builds a “replica” Maserati 250F, and obtains factory approval for putting the Maserati badge on it and obtaining an HTP certificate or whatever has nothing to fear. Is this the case with the Cameron Miller series? – are they officially sanctioned?
It is the person who builds a replica chassis (out of thin air so to speak) and does not obtain official sanction from the owner of the trademark or design rights, who will have to be extremely careful.
I also imagine that anybody building a replica Ferrari GTO out of a Ferrari 250GTE has nothing to fear, because he has title to a real Ferrari. However the person who builds a fake GTO out of a Datsun and puts the Ferrari badge on it is looking for trouble.
So whatever you may think of the Italian justice system (and do not forget that the “rule of law” existed in Rome a few centuries before Britain!) I am sure this “incident” did not just happen without some real reason behind it.
As regards building a replica Lotus 22 or 24 and obtaining an HTP certificate under the new regulations I would seriously advise one to obtain permission from whoever owns the trademark and intellectual rights (Clive Chapman?).
So to summarise – without authority from Alfa Romeo/FIAT you can build a replica Giulietta SZ (if you own a Giulietta), but you cannot build a replica TZ because the chassis is completely different.
I certainly do not blame any manufacturer (whether it be Louis Vuitton, Cartier or Ferrari) for making sure that fake copies of their products are destroyed.
Presumably the person who builds a “replica” Maserati 250F, and obtains factory approval for putting the Maserati badge on it and obtaining an HTP certificate or whatever has nothing to fear. Is this the case with the Cameron Miller series? – are they officially sanctioned?
It is the person who builds a replica chassis (out of thin air so to speak) and does not obtain official sanction from the owner of the trademark or design rights, who will have to be extremely careful.
I also imagine that anybody building a replica Ferrari GTO out of a Ferrari 250GTE has nothing to fear, because he has title to a real Ferrari. However the person who builds a fake GTO out of a Datsun and puts the Ferrari badge on it is looking for trouble.
So whatever you may think of the Italian justice system (and do not forget that the “rule of law” existed in Rome a few centuries before Britain!) I am sure this “incident” did not just happen without some real reason behind it.
As regards building a replica Lotus 22 or 24 and obtaining an HTP certificate under the new regulations I would seriously advise one to obtain permission from whoever owns the trademark and intellectual rights (Clive Chapman?).
So to summarise – without authority from Alfa Romeo/FIAT you can build a replica Giulietta SZ (if you own a Giulietta), but you cannot build a replica TZ because the chassis is completely different.
#33
ensign14
-
- 62,013 posts
- Joined: December 01
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 18:10
After a trial, or after a criminal conviction, fair enough...but this is an entirely different situation.Originally posted by zoff2005
I know that Ferrari (who own Maserati) are very concerned, and rightly so, with protecting their trademark and intellectual property. It could be that this “incident” was prompted by them.
I certainly do not blame any manufacturer (whether it be Louis Vuitton, Cartier or Ferrari) for making sure that fake copies of their products are destroyed.
The EU is certainly considering bringing in more stringent laws on design right. However, as usual this will favour big business. The idea is that, say, there will be design rights in the shape of a Toyota headlamp. So Halfords could not make a cheap one that you can use, you HAVE to buy one from Toyota, who will then be able to charge the earth. Perhaps not coincident that car manufacturers have an unusually close relationship with some Euro governments.Originally posted by zoff2005
It is the person who builds a replica chassis (out of thin air so to speak) and does not obtain official sanction from the owner of the trademark or design rights, who will have to be extremely careful.
Touche! And it's perhaps not coincident that the whole thing went tits up when the Rule of Law was pretty much ignored.Originally posted by zoff2005
(and do not forget that the “rule of law” existed in Rome a few centuries before Britain!)
#34
Doug Nye
-
- 11,535 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 19:28
Originally posted by zoff2005
So whatever you may think of the Italian justice system (and do not forget that the “rule of law” existed in Rome a few centuries before Britain!) ...
Just a moment...before 55BC when Julius and his legions passed through British Customs the Celtic tribes they later recorded as the Trinobates and the Catevellauni (or various spellings thereof) plus all their friends and rivals most certainly operated their own tribal rule of law. Different, no doubt, but I suspect just as brutally effective...
#35
ensign14
-
- 62,013 posts
- Joined: December 01
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 19:41
That would not be a Rule of Law, cos it could be overridden by whichever king was around...
#36
Doug Nye
-
- 11,535 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 19:57
Huh - try telling that to the King...
#37
Sharman
-
- 5,284 posts
- Joined: September 05
Member
Posted 31 March 2006 - 20:59
Who is the perpetrator, the builder or the person putting up the money for the building? If the latter there is a certain Auto Union copy (alleged),which has been the subject of any extensive thread here, which might be the intellectual property of VAG. Seriously, when I was first in the motor business "as parts" were kept under the counter but even at a Main Dealership were fitted as genuine. It all comes down to the 11th commandment.
#38
Doug Nye
-
- 11,535 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 01 April 2006 - 07:46
Now I understand there's another twist - the car builder and owner Maurizio Grazzi should have been informed of the destruction order upon his cars so he could place an appeal. That would have staved off execution of the order, pending review.
It seems that the Court then screwed up, and Grazzi and his lawyer never received notice of the order.
With no appeal having being lodged, destruction proceeded.
Only after it had taken place did the lawyer and Grazzi realise what had happened. Apparently Grazzi is now instituting a major action for damages against the Court and the Judge and the police.
Under the Italian system, that should occupy the next 15-20 years quite nicely...
DCN
It seems that the Court then screwed up, and Grazzi and his lawyer never received notice of the order.
With no appeal having being lodged, destruction proceeded.
Only after it had taken place did the lawyer and Grazzi realise what had happened. Apparently Grazzi is now instituting a major action for damages against the Court and the Judge and the police.
Under the Italian system, that should occupy the next 15-20 years quite nicely...
DCN
#39
Ted Walker
-
- 1,432 posts
- Joined: November 01
Member
Posted 01 April 2006 - 08:03
Slightly off topic I know BUT you should all read Dougs excellent article in OCTANE this month on our own Lister Battle
Advertisement
#40
Doug Nye
-
- 11,535 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 01 April 2006 - 15:55
Maurizio Grazzi's Maserati 350S - here it was.
DCN
DCN
#41
David M. Kane
-
- 5,402 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 01 April 2006 - 16:09
These photos really put this in perspective, this was no Chinese watch! That the man who works the crusher left the scene says a lot too!
On top of the Monza noise joke, what the heck is happening in Italy? Did they attend a legal seminar here in America or what? This is insane!
On top of the Monza noise joke, what the heck is happening in Italy? Did they attend a legal seminar here in America or what? This is insane!
#42
HDonaldCapps
-
- 2,482 posts
- Joined: April 05
Member
Posted 01 April 2006 - 16:42
What this simply points out (once more...) is that we, collectively as a group, have completely lost the ability to reason with one another.
#44
HDonaldCapps
-
- 2,482 posts
- Joined: April 05
Member
Posted 01 April 2006 - 19:47
Originally posted by Doug Nye
How so, Don?
Long before this all got to the courts in the first place, couldn't there have been some, ah, discussions held whereupon the whole affair could have been thrashed out behind closed doors and at least the original parts put to better use not put in the crusher and then turned into slag? Or I am not only hopelessly naïve , but incredibly delusional as well? Wasn't this once how such, ah, "matters" were dealt with? After all, the complaint had to come from somewhere and "somewhere" is generally where someone with a bone to pick dwells. Again, perhaps I simply don't get it. Which is not surprising considering the twists and turns that seem to abound in this sordid little affair, where no one seems to leaving the table without either a share of the blame or a new measure of stupidity added to their portion....
#45
ensign14
-
- 62,013 posts
- Joined: December 01
Member
Posted 01 April 2006 - 20:03
One of the advantages of the English legal system is that this is very much encouraged. The whole "without prejudice" negotiations without a Court finding out what went on is not something that occurs on the Continent to a large extent.Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
Long before this all got to the courts in the first place, couldn't there have been some, ah, discussions held whereupon the whole affair could have been thrashed out behind closed doors and at least the original parts put to better use not put in the crusher and then turned into slag?
Although, as Charlie Brown once said, a good compromise makes everybody mad.
#46
Doug Nye
-
- 11,535 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 01 April 2006 - 20:13
Aah. Sorry Don - I read your use of 'we collectively, as a group' to mean we here on TNF... This puzzled me.
#47
Gary C
-
- 5,571 posts
- Joined: January 01
Member
Posted 01 April 2006 - 20:28
funnily enough, that's exactly what I was thinking, Doug!
#48
David M. Kane
-
- 5,402 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 01 April 2006 - 20:39
No, I took it as we the world of all peoples...
#49
Sharman
-
- 5,284 posts
- Joined: September 05
Member
Posted 02 April 2006 - 08:37
The actual problem is not that we can't reason with each other, it is "we" the people who are not allowed to reason with the various entrenched arbiters of what "they" think we should believe. i.e. Bureaucracy in all its forms, the prolification of lobbies, Political Correctness (only correct if it is to their way of thinking), this goes on to include stupids who get themselves kidnapped and put soldiers lives at risk etc, etc, Brussels and its' minions who all have their snouts in the trough and have a vested interest in creating more rules which can be open to interpretation which serves to increase the grip of government.
#50
HDonaldCapps
-
- 2,482 posts
- Joined: April 05
Member
Posted 02 April 2006 - 08:39
Originally posted by Sharman
The actual problem is not that we can't reason with each other, it is "we" the people who are not allowed to reason with the various entrenched arbiters of what "they" think we should believe. i.e. Bureaucracy in all its forms, the prolification of lobbies, Political Correctness (only correct if it is to their way of thinking), this goes on to include stupids who get themselves kidnapped and put soldiers lives at risk etc, etc, Brussels and its' minions who all have their snouts in the trough and have a vested interest in creating more rules which can be open to interpretation which serves to increase the grip of government.
Bullshit.
