Fakery, bakery, fun (and games)
#1
Posted 27 June 2010 - 19:57
#3
Posted 27 June 2010 - 20:35
First, the similarity to an Italian magistrate's ordering the destruction of some re-created Maseratis a few years ago, thereby losing some genuine historic parts to the world
And then there's the tightening grip of Ferrari SpA on all matters to do with historic (and partly historic?) Ferraris
And no, I'm not saying the Dubbinis are innocent. I don't know anything about the cars in question
#4
Posted 27 June 2010 - 20:38
#5
Posted 27 June 2010 - 21:12
#6
Posted 27 June 2010 - 21:17
Wow, the Italians REALLY take chassis-plating seriously.
#7
Posted 27 June 2010 - 21:32
"The lesser charge of using faked historic cars on the road and in motor racing."
Wow, the Italians REALLY take chassis-plating seriously.
Only when they have the grounds to proceed. Clearly, trouble is brewing.
#8
Posted 27 June 2010 - 21:34
#9
Posted 27 June 2010 - 21:49
(That was a joke, btw)
#10
Posted 27 June 2010 - 22:14
So can we necessarily be sure that the Alfettas that appeared again in 1945 were the same ones they walled up in the cheese factory in 1943?
(That was a joke, btw)
Sounds a bit of cheesy explanation to me :-)
(BTW that was also a joke)
#11
Posted 28 June 2010 - 07:43
I wonder what is going on exactly? What are they after? I believe Ferrari Spa might be more worried on the use of a TR on the coffee packaging.Bit of a fuss brewing up in northern Italy then...
http://jalopnik.com/...p-fake-ferraris
DCN
Show me any classic Ferrari with a racing pedigree that has still all original parts. Quite some Ferrari's have had extensive rebuilds or restorations over the years. I mean, once I counted that 6 of the original 250 GTO's currently have bodies manufactured in the UK. Also quite some engines have swopped cars and it is known that quite a few remakes are wheeling about that are hard to distinguish from real (no not the Datsun based GTO).
Also it worries as we see again people with the power at work, while they have zero knowledge on racing cars or car technology. For them a Fe$$a$i is a Fe$$a$i.
Let's see how this ends.
#12
Posted 28 June 2010 - 08:01
#13
Posted 28 June 2010 - 08:39
I've always perceived the Ferrari Classiche programme as a retrospective owner ship tax-very smart if you can work it out but the European Art market seems to be in the same arena.
In this case one wonders if the ''wrong uns'' have got Ferrari classiche tickets-that would be an embarassment.
#14
Posted 28 June 2010 - 10:45
Bit of a fuss brewing up in northern Italy then...
http://jalopnik.com/...p-fake-ferraris
DCN
looks like a Tempesta in a coffee cup .
"..The tip reportedly explained in great detail how the Dubbinis allegedly ran their operation, claiming that they bought old Ferraris on the cheap and transformed them into copies of rare collector's pieces, cars they owned, worth millions of dollars each. These cars were then misrepresented and sold, often at great profit..."
I've done this most of my adult life. I bought cars on the cheap,I transformed them into collectors pieces and sold them at great profit..not as much as a Ferrari is worth may but then I haven't seen too many cheap old Ferrari for the last 30 years ... .So what did they do? buy some 250 GTC's and rebody them as ,many others have done? So what ? any buyer of a classic Ferrari surely knows what they are buying and this Tip appears to have a whiff of jealousy about it.
#15
Posted 28 June 2010 - 10:55
looks like a Tempesta in a coffee cup .
"..The tip reportedly explained in great detail how the Dubbinis allegedly ran their operation, claiming that they bought old Ferraris on the cheap and transformed them into copies of rare collector's pieces, cars they owned, worth millions of dollars each. These cars were then misrepresented and sold, often at great profit..."
I've done this most of my adult life. I bought cars on the cheap,I transformed them into collectors pieces and sold them at great profit..not as much as a Ferrari is worth may but then I haven't seen too many cheap old Ferrari for the last 30 years ... .So what did they do? buy some 250 GTC's and rebody them as ,many others have done? So what ? any buyer of a classic Ferrari surely knows what they are buying and this Tip appears to have a whiff of jealousy about it.
There is nothing wrong with doing old cars up and selling them at great profit even Ferrari's but if they are also giving them fake histories and false chassis identities with histories that is surely fraudulent ?
#16
Posted 01 July 2010 - 05:31
So what did they do? buy some 250 GTC's and rebody them as ,many others have done?
That would be a trick.....
#17
Posted 01 July 2010 - 07:41
Possibly he is one of the Dubbini brothers. Don't know.
#18
Posted 01 July 2010 - 09:21
buy some 250 GTC's and rebody them as ,many others have done?
250GTC ???????
#19
Posted 01 July 2010 - 13:47
250GTC ???????
250 Grand Touring Copy. Simples.
#21
Posted 01 July 2010 - 22:25
Edited by Andrew Stevens, 01 July 2010 - 22:25.
#22
Posted 01 July 2010 - 23:55
Anyone who cuts up an old 2+2 Ferrari to make a replica SWB/GTO/Cal Spider or whatever deserves to be treated with the full force of the law regardless! Italians seem to have an approach to 'antiquities' that does not match with the anglo-saxon concept, which has made the whole Ferrari Classiche system a bit silly anyway. I read just recently that something can be labelled as an antique in Italy if made of old materials/components, even if it was made last week...
Completely disagree!
A 2+2 GTE isn't and never was a desirable Ferrari but it has all the right components to construct a very desirable car:-a 250 SWB or GTO.
As long as the car is not represented as the real thing why not? It means people who are not ultra wealthy can use and enjoy something that would otherwise be unobtainable. My personal goal is to get such a 250 SWB.
Taken to the extreme the view you express would prevent people from having copies of any artwork-what would that achieve?
#23
Posted 02 July 2010 - 08:05
Couldn't agree more. Look at the history of Ferrari and you see modifications, rebuilds, replication, developments by Ferrari, by Maranello craftsmen, other Italian craftsmen, non-Italian craftsmen and less capable people too. All with a certain purpose to fully enjoy the cars potential in looks and/or performance on the road/track. Sometimes with great results, take for example the Breadvan.Completely disagree!
A 2+2 GTE isn't and never was a desirable Ferrari but it has all the right components to construct a very desirable car:-a 250 SWB or GTO.
As long as the car is not represented as the real thing why not? It means people who are not ultra wealthy can use and enjoy something that would otherwise be unobtainable. My personal goal is to get such a 250 SWB.
Taken to the extreme the view you express would prevent people from having copies of any artwork-what would that achieve?
People trying to pass on something which it isnt, are simply frauds. Selling a 250 GTO on GTE basis when mentioned as such are not.
#24
Posted 02 July 2010 - 13:19
Anyone who cuts up an old 2+2 Ferrari to make a replica SWB/GTO/Cal Spider or whatever deserves to be treated with the full force of the law regardless!
This perhaps goes a bit too far, Andrew, but the responses above are completely off. A 330 2+2 or 250 GTE has a dignity and value of its own. While the owner may have a perfect right to do as he wishes with his property, there is an intrinsic value to these cars which transcends their being sacrificed to satisfy some perverse whim. I would no sooner chop one to make a FAKE GTO than I would hack a Series 1 E Type to make a FAKE D Type.
#25
Posted 06 July 2010 - 15:46
I heard at Goodwood that an Italian magistrate recently declared a Maserati of some sort to be a "fake"
But - tellingly - he didn't order its destruction
Is some sort of common sense filtering through?
#26
Posted 07 July 2010 - 21:38
I am absolutely sure that nothing like this ever happened in Merrie England.Italians seem to have an approach to 'antiquities' that does not match with the anglo-saxon concept...
#27
Posted 07 July 2010 - 21:41
#28
Posted 08 July 2010 - 09:33
#29
Posted 08 July 2010 - 10:54
Marticelli
#30
Posted 08 July 2010 - 14:03
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The registration on this fake had me fooled until I got home and checked up on Wiki, interestingly the fake even won the 25th anniversary edition of the event which the original had won, giving this fake a genuine fake history all of it's own :-)
Assigning a chassis or registration numbers to a vehicle simple because a brake light bulb came from the original is simply asinine :-)
Edited by arttidesco, 08 July 2010 - 14:04.
#31
Posted 08 July 2010 - 15:10
To be fair, Ford at Boreham had a pretty strong track record in swopping registrations around in their heyday. Often the same reg. number could appear on 3 visibly different cars on rallies on three successive weekends (say, one would be LHD, then RHD a week later, then full tarmac spec with different bodywork another week later, and probably back to LHD as well). And cars were often completely re-shelled at least once during their life as a works car.The registration on this fake had me fooled until I got home and checked up on Wiki
If they were that cavalier at the time, what hope now to say such and such a car is the genuine article and has provenance?
Edited by BRG, 08 July 2010 - 15:11.
#32
Posted 08 July 2010 - 17:26
The registration on this fake had me fooled until I got home and checked up on Wiki.........
You're throwing the word 'fake' around a bit too freely, I think. Did you look it up on Wikipedia, by any chance?
Shirley a 'fake' is something that is made with the intention of deceit, with the truth hidden?
A 'replica', 'copy', 'recreation', 'facsimile' or whatever else we want to call such things - as long as the truth is not obscured - are something else, are they not ( Shirley )?
#33
Posted 08 July 2010 - 17:54
You're throwing the word 'fake' around a bit too freely, I think. Did you look it up on Wikipedia, by any chance?
Shirley a 'fake' is something that is made with the intention of deceit, with the truth hidden?
A 'replica', 'copy', 'recreation', 'facsimile' or whatever else we want to call such things - as long as the truth is not obscured - are something else, are they not ( Shirley )?
Errr.... why buy the registration H1 FEV to make a replica of FEV 1H if not to disguise the 'replication' with humour Shirley ?
#34
Posted 08 July 2010 - 18:54
Errr.... why buy the registration H1 FEV to make a replica of FEV 1H if not to disguise the 'replication' with humour Shirley ?
Many years ago, early 70s, I owned a car with the reg FEW 119 K, so very close to the famous works Escort that car-mad friends often commented, but I don't think I ever fooled anyone, as the car in question was a Fiat 124ST.
Shirley.
#35
Posted 08 July 2010 - 19:12
... the registration H1 FEV ...
... cannot be legally used (on public roads) on a car registered before 1 August 1990.
#36
Posted 08 July 2010 - 21:05
#37
Posted 08 July 2010 - 21:27
People might think I was being a bit harsh on the GTE 'choppers' but so many of them have used up perfectly good GTEs than could have otherwise gone to enthusiasts to cherish and enjoy. Speaking as a 'keeper'of a 365GT 2+2 I can say that the car doesn't have to be a SWB for you to enjoy the V12 experience. Whilst I would love to own an SWB, I could not with any justification accept a car that is not what it pretends to be. I also think that it deprives some more impecunious enthusiast somewhere the chance of proper V12 ownership at a more reasonable price. It's all my own (biased) opinion, but when you are inside the car, the sound and feel of the V12 and the badge behind the wheel makes the experience great - regardless of what body it's got on top. You might get tired of explaining the replica thing to people along the way too...
There's a very accurate GTO fake for sale at Fantasy Junction for about $400K. But think of the real Ferrari(s) one could have for that kind of wedge. There's also a beautiful plexi Daytona available now for about $65,000 less, and the owner will never have to explain it.
Here's an interesting ongoing discussion on the topic.
www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=289839
I really can't abide chopping an otherwise salvageable car to make it into something it wasn't intended to be. Of course, total losses and parts bin specials would be another matter. Even then, though, I'd rather see their parts used to keep similar cars on the road.
Jack
#38
Posted 08 July 2010 - 21:30
Errr.... why buy the registration H1 FEV to make a replica of FEV 1H if not to disguise the 'replication' with humour Shirley ?
Obviously, the 'H1 FEV' reg is a tribute - or a tip of the hat - to 'FEV 1H'. With some humour, no doubt.
But the car wearing 'H1 FEV' is not a fake. So why are you calling it one?
#39
Posted 08 July 2010 - 21:48
... cannot be legally used (on public roads) on a car registered before 1 August 1990.
And I believe the Museum Special H1 FEV was built 'new' for the 1995 running of the London to Mexico Rally ?
When did production of MK1 Escorts cease 1975 ?
Seriously were there not enough 25 year old ex-works Ford Escort MK1's out there for Hannu to drive ?
Complete comedy and in 75 years time the comedy will be completed when someone buys H1 FEV thinking it was run in the original 1970 World Cup rally winning car :-)
@ Andrew I doubt their is anything harsh about being critical of cynical choppers :-)
Edited by arttidesco, 08 July 2010 - 21:50.
Advertisement
#40
Posted 08 July 2010 - 22:19
What was slightly questionable, as suggested in another post, was the DVLA issuing the registration to the new car. I'm told it was built from a rare (unique?) genuine stored "new" shell (and thus at enormous cost), rather than the "refurbished" (often imported) shells being used to produce "new" Escorts today, and that swung it at the time.
This car does not purport to be something it isn't - unlike a large number of others of the same model where even the specialist press lap up the bullsh*t spouted about them.
I'm also told the DVLA have very recently accepted that a particular "works" Escort UK registration number IS inextricably associated with the genuine ex-works car residing in New Zealand (having been re-registered locally there when the works team "exported" it in period). The application by another party for re-issue of the UK number has thus been refused....unlike many others earlier...allegedly...
Progress at last?
#41
Posted 08 July 2010 - 22:40
H1FEV is a car built to a different spec than FEV1H (it had a BDA for a start, not the 1850 Xflow of the original WCR cars). Its details are well known then and now and it is in no way a "fake"/replica of the earlier car. It is pretty inconceivable that it could ever be sold as the earlier car, however far into the future.
What was slightly questionable, as suggested in another post, was the DVLA issuing the registration to the new car. I'm told it was built from a rare (unique?) genuine stored "new" shell (and thus at enormous cost), rather than the "refurbished" (often imported) shells being used to produce "new" Escorts today, and that swung it at the time.
This car does not purport to be something it isn't - unlike a large number of others of the same model where even the specialist press lap up the bullsh*t spouted about them.
I'm also told the DVLA have very recently accepted that a particular "works" Escort UK registration number IS inextricably associated with the genuine ex-works car residing in New Zealand (having been re-registered locally there when the works team "exported" it in period). The application by another party for re-issue of the UK number has thus been refused....unlike many others earlier...allegedly...
Progress at last?
I don't doubt what you say but why did Ford go to the trouble of 'obtaining' the H1 FEV reg when H 123 ABC or what ever was next on the list at the local DVLC licensing office that day would have sufficed ?
#42
Posted 08 July 2010 - 23:03
I don't doubt what you say but why did Ford go to the trouble of 'obtaining' the H1 FEV reg when H 123 ABC or what ever was next on the list at the local DVLC licensing office that day would have sufficed ?
Why not? Just a joky thing to do (and a proven publicity generator both then and now, since we are still talking about it here years later!). You are right to mention Ford though, as although the car builder was David Sutton's Historic Motorsport (or an earlier name of that company?) I think they did have to involve Ford directly with the DVLA to get the date-dependent reg no that, in theory, shouldn't have been given out then.
#43
Posted 08 July 2010 - 23:15
#44
Posted 08 July 2010 - 23:56
(I ordered one).
http://ferraris-onli...t=SCM_200601_SS
#45
Posted 09 July 2010 - 14:25
Waterproof edition?Ironically Lord Brocket's autobiography is available on amazon.ca for 9 cents....
(I ordered one).
#46
Posted 09 July 2010 - 17:00
Waterproof edition?
No capiche!
#47
Posted 09 July 2010 - 19:25
No capiche!
Wasn't Lord Sprocket the guy who claimed insurance on stolen Ferrari's that were actually buried under his patio or something of that nature ?
I seem to remember he did 'time' for his misdemeanour :-)
#48
Posted 09 July 2010 - 20:07
http://www.amazon.ca...;condition=used
Which is a better deal than the $134 version at the bottom of the page!
Edited by David Birchall, 09 July 2010 - 20:08.
#49
Posted 09 July 2010 - 20:21
You can buy his autobiography and 'read all about it!" for only 9 cents:
http://www.amazon.ca...;condition=used
Which is a better deal than the $134 version at the bottom of the page!
Even cheaper, there are no fewer than 75 copies, all at the bargain price of £0.01 each on Amazon UK
#50
Posted 09 July 2010 - 20:46
In black, silver or blue, they look so stylish, especially compared to the GTO (which I don't actually think are nearly as good looking as many others)
SWB's are better looking, of course (best looking car of all time perhaps) but surely vanity is not reason enough to justify the loss of yet another GTE