54 replies to this topic

[Leigh Trevail]

I have just got around to reading the latest (Feb) issue of The Automobile; which is the only periodical that I take on a regular basis. Page 4 mentions the rift in the Veteran Car Club that has tragically ripped this (once) respected organisation apart. For some time now there has been mentions both in the magazine and elsewhere on the dismantling of the clubs dating service for the motorcars of this period, which until recently was seen as the worlds authority on such matters.

Please could someone explain to me what is behind the breakdown? I have an idea what is behind it but I will keep this to myself for the time being. At least one regular contributor to TNF is mentioned by name in the article, should he or any others reply to this please will they mention this fact.

I await the replies!

[David McKinney]

Perhaps they think there are already to many dating services online and elsewhere

(Sorry)

[Allan Lupton]

Well I can tell you what happened, but not why it happened as there has never been any proper explanation. Sorry if this is a bit long-winded.
The VCC appointed a committee to look into "the future of Dating" for reasons that were never given. It did not allow the Chairman of the Dating Panel(DP) to serve on that committee and quickly sidelined the DP member who did serve. A questionnaire was devised which included reference to including such things as specials, composite cars ("bitsas") and modern copies which the VCC had previously had no place for.
The Board of VCS (the company set up by the VCC to run risky matters such as events, publications and Dating) incorporated some of these extra classes at a meeting where the DP Chairman (also a Board Member) was not allowed to speak - had he been allowed he would have explained some of the difficulties that would follow.
At no time did the Board instruct the DP to follow new practices, yet in the subsequent battle of words we were accused of failing to do so. As nobody had offered any case where one of those extra classifications was relevant we did not deal with those classifications.
I'm jumping ahead a bit. At the end of 2007 the VCS Chairman sent a notice of dismissal to the DP Secretary. According to the VCS Rules of the time the DP was responsible for appointing its Secretary, and for the VCS Chairman to assume authority for her dismissal was, as out legal friends would say, ultra vires. Shortly afterwards the DP members were told that as they hadn't reapplied for DP membership they too were dismissed. We had, as was the case for many years, held elections at the last DP meeting of the year, and the results were due to be ratified at the first VCS Board meeting of the next year (2008) so there again (like our Secretary) we were summarily dismissed by someone with no authority to do so.
Since then a lot of fine words have emanated from the VCS and at various times attempts have been made to form a Dating system. Some of us have even been approached to serve the Club again, despite no recognition in public (or even in private) that we have been wronged. The VCC has just put out a Press Release which claims that their newly formed Dating Advisory Committee will be backed by a "formidable team of marque specialists" as if this were a new idea - but of course the former DP had always consulted outsiders who were acknowledged experts in their own right.
The list of DAC members includes none that has an established record in historical research other than for his own vehicles, and the experts include one who was in dispute with the former DP about a vehicle of one of the marques he is "expert" for.
Aside from The Automobile Pre-War Car has an editorial on the subject plus a useful contribution from Malcolm Jeal, a former DP Chairman, author and researcher.

Edited by Allan Lupton, 05 February 2010 - 12:46.

[Allan Lupton]

Leigh: am I the one regular TNF contributor mentioned in The Automobile's piece that you had in mind?
David: the old jokes are not necessarily the best! When the VCC published a carefully thought-out manual of methods and systems to be followed by the Club and its Dating Panel (based on ISO 9000) which we called "The Dating Control Manual" we had an apparantly serious objection from someone in the USofA who, from the title alone, regarded it as interferance with his private life.

[Leigh Trevail]

Yes Allan; it was you that I was referring to as being named in the article, but I was not sure whether or not the other names also contributed to TFN. Having read the links that you posted I feel that my theory seems to hold water. Obviously as a non member my views are invalid, but whilst there is nothing wrong with Specials, Bitsas and Replicas they must be recognised as such. This is all a very unfortunate situation bought about by the value of motor cars eligible cars for the London to Brighton and those that are not.

On one of the links someone states that ..The British always think, that they can make rules for everyone and everything in the world... Well once we did but those days have long gone. But the very fact that we have been holding events such as the Brighton Run for so long surely means that here is where much (but not all) of the expertise is found. Thank you Allan for taking the time to reply.

[Stephen W]

On one of the links someone states that ..The British always think, that they can make rules for everyone and everything in the world...

Surely with the VCC organising the Brighton run and being the premier veteran car club in the world it is their committee and members who make the rules not only for the club but for the rest of the world to follow. Comments like the one highlighted above just show how jealous people are of the status of the VCC or, as has been mentioned previously, that people with "Specials, Bitsas and Replicas" get upset when the provenance of their car is called into question.

If you join a club then you either abide by its rules and decisions or resign.

[Allan Lupton]

Surely with the VCC organising the Brighton run and being the premier veteran car club in the world it is their committee and members who make the rules not only for the club but for the rest of the world to follow. Comments like the one highlighted above just show how jealous people are of the status of the VCC or, as has been mentioned previously, that people with "Specials, Bitsas and Replicas" get upset when the provenance of their car is called into question.

If you join a club then you either abide by its rules and decisions or resign.

The VCC does not organise the Brighton Run, and never has. It is the RAC that does, recently subcontracting the task to Motion Works.
The RAC (and MW) has consulted the VCC Dating Committee/VCS Dating Panel on matters of eligibility for entrants that did not have a VCC Dating Certificate.

As for making the Rules for the World, we were consulted by other organisations for advice on how to set up a Dating system, and when we had published the Dating Control Manual (referred to above) it was used as a model by a number of other organisations that hoped to do the job well.

Let's also make it clear: The VCC introduced Dating as a means of ensuring that cars entered for its own competitive events were competing like with like in various classes, so it was and is purely a Club matter. The rigour with which that was eventually done resulted in a VCC Dating Certificate having great value outside the Club and has even been referred to as the "gold standard" of vehicle authentication. That was the outsiders' view of the process, and not something that the VCC set out to achieve, but it is why there is unrest outside the Club at what the Club has done.

Without that level of vehicle authentication the VCC becomes just another old car club and (in my view) one that does not now encourage the use of the cars for anything other than polishing and minor parading - they haven't run a competition for years.

[Marticelli]

Interesting to read of the antics of the VCC on this forum, and funny that it hasn't been better explained in more accessible and perhaps appropriate fora... Unfortunately the issue of dating has been clouded over the years by the same sort of stuff that has given bankers a bad name of late. When significant cars are traded for six or seven figure sums, there is a lot at stake in the dating and establishing of the provenance of such vehicles.

What the whole issue needs and needs badly is absolute honesty and transparency, and sadly both appear to have been in short supply for so long that it is hard to know where to start, as so many cars have doubtful dates and or provenance.

And in any case, what is the 'date' of a car? When it was conceived and the design laid down; when it was first mechanically completed and run as a viable entity; when it was completed and bodied as a saleable item; or when it first found an owner... In the earliest days the difference between the first and last definition could be several years... Because the RREC maintains the chassis records of RR, it dates Ghosts from when the chassis was roadtested with a slave body and everyone accepts this date. But few Ghosts were actually driven without coachbiuilt bodies which sometime took two years to build and commission, so most 1910 Ghosts didn't actually run on the road until late 1911 or 1912... Daimlers on the other hand were mostly bodied by Daimlers themselves so dating them is in effect two years adrift from dating Ghosts...

And many many well known cars are almost complete replicas. The VCC Gazette recently published a series of articles describing a loving recreation of an early car from remains found derelict in Australia, and the finished car was undoubtedly a wonderful thing. But as about 75% of the car was newly built, what was it? Certainly not a datable proposition. And in Barry Eaglesfiled's admirable Bugatti Book published in 1954, which inter alia lists survivng cars, Peter Hampton's 5 litre chain drive Black Bess is mentioned as having a spare engine and chassis, which has now miraculously been recreated as another 'genuine' car and accepted as a separate entity with a provenance... Funny that, as its worth seven figures now...

Hard not to be a bit cynical really....! And at some point no doubt the VCC will actually publish a list of its Marque Specialists, so anyone with a particular interest can address his or her enquiry directly to such a person, as members of the VMCC can do.

[Allan Lupton]

Honesty and transparency were what we strove for in the Dating Committee/Panel.
The VCC would assign a date to a car based on a number of things in descending order of value from authenticated Manufacturer's records (best) down to DP's best belief (least good). In recent years the date was supposed to be the date at which the car was most likely to have been completed and (could have) moved under its own power.
What had happened over the decades confused the issue a bit, as in the early day cars were dated at the "earliest possible" date - i.e. when the first example of the model was completed, etc. rather than the specific example concerned. That was done to increase the numbers on the Brighton Run, but came back to haunt the Club when the inevitable inconsistencies were revealed. At the behest of the Executive Committee a series of Dating Reviews were carried out, during which many cars were re-Dated. Because of the 1904/1905 Brighton cutoff, that was not universally popular - as Marticelli says, big sums of money are involved at that date change. (are you the M. Shelley who is/was a VCC Member by any chance?)

The VCC has said the following are on the list of marque specialists: some are those the DP was in touch with, but at least one was in dispute with the DP about his example of the marque he is specialist for.
Derek Grossmark Napier/Hutton
Neil Tuckett Ford
Austin Parkinson De Dion Bouton
Nigel Bradshaw Benz/Siddeley/Deasy/Talbot
John Longden Oldsmobile
Len Barr Standard
Stuart Gray Locomobile/Stanley
Alistair Hacking Albion/Argyll/Arrol-Johnston
Garry Hoonsbeen Buick/Cadillac
David Locket Northern/Yale
Michael Edwards Hotchkiss
Rodney Fowler Belsize/Georges Richard/Sunbeam
Graham Pilmore-Bedford Lanchester
Tony Chesters Morris/Jackson/Briton

Formatting above seems to be lost

Edited by Allan Lupton, 08 February 2010 - 15:58.

[Allan Lupton]

Anyone who's been following this may be interested to know that I had a PM from Marticelli which included a lot of interesting views which were presented as fact and which were in some cases libellous. As the one such that I recognise came from the Veteran Car Club I presume the others did as he is a member.
The recognised tale is completely at odds with what I have stated earlier here and which I know to be true .
I have responded directly to him as this forum isn't really the place for such exchanges.

[Marticelli]

Interesting that Allan Lupton chooses to refer on this public forum to a PM (private message) which I sent him as it was intended to be just that - private - as I had no apetite for continuing to discuss this matter in public, but he clearly doesn't understand the privacy implied by a private message.

Most significant point he has chosen not to respond to is the rather unfortunate fact that members of the much vaunted DP (the Dating Panel of the VCC) regularly use a car on the RAC London to Brighton Run which many others believe is worthy of being redated as ineligible but they are of course above such high handed action that they force on other less fortunate individuals... 'Nuff said!

[Allan Lupton]

Interesting that Allan Lupton chooses to refer on this public forum to a PM (private message) which I sent him as it was intended to be just that - private - as I had no apetite for continuing to discuss this matter in public, but he clearly doesn't understand the privacy implied by a private message.

Most significant point he has chosen not to respond to is the rather unfortunate fact that members of the much vaunted DP (the Dating Panel of the VCC) regularly use a car on the RAC London to Brighton Run which many others believe is worthy of being redated as ineligible but they are of course above such high handed action that they force on other less fortunate individuals... 'Nuff said!

I did not tell the world what the content of the PM was, but merely its character.
Now Mr Shelley comes out into the open and chooses to offer one of his tales, supported by his view that "many others believe is worthy of being redated as ineligible" as if that were more reputable than the Dating Certificates that were properly researched and issued.
The car concerned was Dated and was offered for sale at a well-known auction house as 1904. The present owner bought it and agreed a condition of sale which was that it would be put in for Dating and if it could not be dated 1904, the moneys would be refunded and the car returned to the vendor. It was duly Dated for the second time as 1904, despite its body being one not normally found on a de Dion Bouton.
The Dating Committee/Panel has had to Date a number of cars belonging to its members at various times, and rather than bend the rules in favour of the Member, like most reputable organisations its work would be more rigorous and transparent than ever to avoid the risk that the malcontents would be able to make their accusations stick.
The dating Committee did go through a bad patch when a member who was also a trader was passing off unDated cars with alleged dates that were on his word only, and it may be that he has started this tale as a way of getting back at the more rigorous committee members.

For the benefit of those who regard this as a boring battle of words, I can only apologise. Mr Shelley's accusations are representative of the way the VCC seems to want to function now, and if that be the case I want no futher part in it.

[D-Type]

To help me understand the issues involved am I correct in understanding that bothstars of the film Genevieve, the Daracq and the Spyker have now been re-dated as post-1904?

[Allan Lupton]

To help me understand the issues involved am I correct in understanding that bothstars of the film Genevieve, the Daracq and the Spyker have now been re-dated as post-1904?

The Spyker seems to be in the last list the VCC published (2002) as 1905 but with no certificate nember so not Dated.
The Darracq is in that same list with a relatively recent Certificate number as 1904.

[Marticelli]

The Spyker is now domiciled in the Netherlands and is at present dated 1905. It is now green not yellow and registered ZZ-07-65. The Darracq 'Genevieve' was apparently rebuilt from the derelict remains of two similar cars found in the 40s in a yard in Brick Lane. I understand that long after the film, it was redated 1905 and lived for years in the York Museum in West Australia, but now appears as a 1904 car again, and is also in the Netherlands, still bearing its HXR322 UK registration, which dates from December 1946 when it was first 'created'!!

[Allan Lupton]

The Spyker is now domiciled in the Netherlands and is at present dated 1905. It is now green not yellow and registered ZZ-07-65. The Darracq 'Genevieve' was apparently rebuilt from the derelict remains of two similar cars found in the 40s in a yard in Brick Lane. I understand that long after the film, it was redated 1905 and lived for years in the York Museum in West Australia, but now appears as a 1904 car again, and is also in the Netherlands, still bearing its HXR322 UK registration, which dates from December 1946 when it was first 'created'!!

Much as I understand it too - in later times the combining of two cars to create one would have resulted in a Certificate of Eligibility rather than a Certificate of Date since the CofD is more than just a date and is more or less a certificate of authenticity.
I think the creation was later than 1946, but you may remember that a lot of cars were re-registered at that time in order to be taxed at the then-current flat rate as the only engine size that would not benefit from that was around 6-7 RAC h.p. so the HXR registration may have that origin.
Oh, and it wasn't York museum in WA but a collection in the East of Australia I think.

Edited by Allan Lupton, 10 February 2010 - 15:42.

[Leigh Trevail]

According to my 1965 copy of the Glass’s Guide the London issued HXR index mark ran between Dec 1946 and Oct 1947. But it states next to it that the numbers were ‘Allocated in Blocks’, which could possibly tie in with what Allan said about being used for re-registrations.

[David McKinney]

Oh, and it wasn't York museum in WA but a collection in the East of Australia I think.

I'm sure it was in the Giltrap Museum in Queensland for many years. I have a feeling it was in New Zealand before that, but although I was in NZ about that time - mid 1950s? - my interests then were centred strictly on cars of that period (mid 1950s)

[onelung]

I'm sure it was in the Giltrap Museum in Queensland for many years. I have a feeling it was in New Zealand before that, but although I was in NZ about that time - mid 1950s? - my interests then were centred strictly on cars of that period (mid 1950s)

The Giltrap collection started out in NZ then shifted to the Gold Coast (Aus), did it not?
I recall seeing "Genevieve" at the latter in January '67. (the honeymoon trip, chaps and chapesses...)
It subsequently went to a museum in Albany Western Australia - funded & founded by Paul Terry.
My recollection is that it was during his ownership of Genevieve that he was able to persuade/convince whoever (VCC?) that it should be dated '04 rather than the le$$er '05.

Paul Terry had a lot of input into Albany for a few years. He built the hotel at Middleton beach, the now defunct car museum and he rebuilt and gifted the modern surf life saving club to the Albany Surf Club. In the early 90's he was made the Aerospatiale agent in WA. Unfortunately during subsequent helicopter training in Honolulu he lost control of a chopper and killed himself.

Does not / should not the recently issued FIVA dating system come into this discussion thread?

post script: this link re Genevieve's history may be of interest - make of the "facts" what you will.
I wonder where she'd fit into the above-mentioned FIVA categories

http://www.donbrockw...e's History.htm

Edited by onelung, 11 February 2010 - 00:55.

[Allan Lupton]

I'm sure it was in the Giltrap Museum in Queensland for many years. I have a feeling it was in New Zealand before that, but although I was in NZ about that time - mid 1950s? - my interests then were centred strictly on cars of that period (mid 1950s)

Giltrap was the name on the tip of my fingers but I couldn't recall it when needed. Queensland I was pretty sure of.

[David McKinney]

The Giltrap collection started out in NZ then shifted to the Gold Coast (Aus), did it not?

That sounds right, now you mention it

[Marticelli]

Following the link above <http://www.donbrockw...'s History.htm> and rereading the story of Genevieve raises an interesting point about the robust stance purportedly taken by the VCC DP in redating the car as 1904.

Of course no-one disputes the importance of Genevieve in the popularisation of our hobby, and the later decision by Paul Terry to rebuild it as it appeared in the film. But the car is so modified from Darracq specification and cobbled up from two cars as well as inaccurately restored (radiator, wheels, bodywork, chassis etc) that it is surprising the DP has since pronounced the car as definitely a 1904 Darracq, when it patently isn't...

It is also slightly sad to see the name of Darracq defamed as a 'miserable thing' when actually Darracq were responsible for establishing much of what came to be the benchmark for motorcar design, alongside their chief rival, Panhard. Those who have such things will tell you how well the little twin cylinder veteran Darracqs perform. Watching the film again makes one realise how much licence Cornelius took in casting it as an unreliable and wretched thing, albeit with charm. But then again, judging by its somewhat suboptimal restoration, perhaps its not surprising it didn't go that well...

[RogerFrench]

I apologise for being off-topic, but all the Darracq talk prompts me to share this picture of my Grandfather and family:

http://www.facebook....p;id=1388766436

[Allan Lupton]

Following the link above <http://www.donbrockw...'s History.htm> and rereading the story of Genevieve

It is also slightly sad to see the name of Darracq defamed as a 'miserable thing' when actually Darracq were responsible for establishing much of what came to be the benchmark for motorcar design, alongside their chief rival, Panhard.

John Mitchell, the man who said it was a miserable thing, normally had big, powerful cars and it was just the sort of comment he would have made, and in his defence I would point out that he was referring to a specific example of a twin-cylinder Darracq and not to the marque in general.

Here's an even more miserable thing: that's a single cylinder Darracq which is for sale at present.

[David McKinney]

OK, I'll bite. What's wrong with it?

[Allan Lupton]

OK, I'll bite. What's wrong with it?

Nothing that I know of.
It's just that I don't think much of Veteran singles as their rice-pudding coefficient is so low.

[Marticelli]

Some veteran singles are quite punchy, but they do tend to vibrate a bit which might not suit everyone's taste. A good early example is the late Victorian Leon Bollee tricycle made by the Bollee freres in le Mans, which are indecently fast and lack effective brakes, an intoxicating combination!.

Not of course veteran but early Edwardian, and perhaps the ultimate development, was the Lion Peugeot developed under voiturette racing rules which limited bore but not stroke, so Peugeot took it to somewhet ridiculous extremes, as evidenced by John Brydon's fine interpretation of such a car seen a couple of years ago at Mallory Park... I titled this picture 'Nomex toupoee required' for obvious reasons!!

[Odseybod]

Some veteran singles are quite punchy, but they do tend to vibrate a bit which might not suit everyone's taste. A good early example is the late Victorian Leon Bollee tricycle made by the Bollee freres in le Mans, which are indecently fast and lack effective brakes, an intoxicating combination!.

Not of course veteran but early Edwardian, and perhaps the ultimate development, was the Lion Peugeot developed under voiturette racing rules which limited bore but not stroke, so Peugeot took it to somewhet ridiculous extremes, as evidenced by John Brydon's fine interpretation of such a car seen a couple of years ago at Mallory Park... I titled this picture 'Nomex toupoee required' for obvious reasons!!

Sorry to show lamentable ignorance here but two pipes going into the exhaust suggests to this simple mind a twin, not a monopot. Or is it a 4-valve head .... ?

[Marticelli]

The original Lion Peugeot creation was made both as a single and a very narrow angle V twin, but this recreation uses a four valve head, hence the twin pipes from a single cylinder a la Rudge Whitworth. And it vibrates!! (understatement)

[Odseybod]

The original Lion Peugeot creation was made both as a single and a very narrow angle V twin, but this recreation uses a four valve head, hence the twin pipes from a single cylinder a la Rudge Whitworth. And it vibrates!! (understatement)

Ah, thank you -I don't feel quite so dim.

[onelung]

Sorry to show lamentable ignorance here but two pipes going into the exhaust suggests to this simple mind a twin, not a monopot. Or is it a 4-valve head .... ?

"Racing Voiturettes" by Kent Karslake will give you details of an extrordinary chapter in early forms of rule exploitation in motor racing: Colin Chapman and Jim Hall were definitely not the first there!
Sadly though, Karslake got it all wrong re the Sizaire et Naudin "speed change" mechanism, citing "three rows of teeth on the crown wheel", an error which has been reproduced many times since.
And for the record, my S-N one lunger is surprisingly free of vibration, with most of it emanating from road shocks. (the unsprung weight of the rear transaxle is horrendous!)

[Marticelli]

Funnily enough, the rear axle/gearbox (transaxle) of the 200HP Darracq works in a similar way with two concentric crownwheels cut on a single blank and two bevel pinions and a sliding dog internally (probably a Westie!!) which selects either the outer pair of gears (bottom) or the inner ones (top), ratios being about 2:1 and 1:1 respectively... But then with a 24 litre V8, I suppose you hardly need gears!! Can't wait to see it out!!

[Allan Lupton]

Back on thread The Automobile has carried on their editorials on Dating and also carries a couple of letters from VCC Members who seem to take the view that the VCC has laboured under the heavy insurance burden of its Dating service and should be excused from that. One letter tells us that ". . the job (acting as eligibility consultant for LBVCR organiser) is frought with problems which are causing serious difficulties for all concerned".
Those were not reasons put forward by the Executive Committee or Board at the time that they decided the Rules should be broken to sack our Secretary and then us, so it seems disingenuous that ordinary members advance it now as if it justified doing anything, legal or otherwise, that would get them off those hooks.

[Marticelli]

I think it was you who took us off thread with some views about miserable singles...! The crucial question is, does the VCC Dating Panel come before the VCC committee, as a separate entity with no link to the VCC other than using the clubroom and the library and the past files of earlier dating activity as evidence in support of new dating research? If the VCC Dating Panel was an independent body not part of the VCC, it might be practical to operate this way, but if it is an integral part of the VCC, surely it needs to accept the authority of the club executive or management committee to give it guidance from time to time.

The VCC having adequate insurance to cover possible litigation is not just a trifle but a substantive issue. But the club's insurance is only valid if the various subcommittees act within the overall authority of the main committee, which seems to be where the old DP went off a bit. They appear to have considered themselves outside the mainstream of the club, and to be able to run their own affairs their own way, without advice or approval from the VCC itself.

And given how unreliable and inaccurate the press is these days, and always has been, it is also surprising how much store is set by contemporary press reports... Did journalists in the earliest days of motoring not report things late, or inaccurately or with any errors?

[Allan Lupton]

I think it was you who took us off thread with some views about miserable singles...! The crucial question is, does the VCC Dating Panel come before the VCC committee, as a separate entity with no link to the VCC other than using the clubroom and the library and the past files of earlier dating activity as evidence in support of new dating research? If the VCC Dating Panel was an independent body not part of the VCC, it might be practical to operate this way, but if it is an integral part of the VCC, surely it needs to accept the authority of the club executive or management committee to give it guidance from time to time.

The VCC having adequate insurance to cover possible litigation is not just a trifle but a substantive issue. But the club's insurance is only valid if the various subcommittees act within the overall authority of the main committee, which seems to be where the old DP went off a bit. They appear to have considered themselves outside the mainstream of the club, and to be able to run their own affairs their own way, without advice or approval from the VCC itself.

And given how unreliable and inaccurate the press is these days, and always has been, it is also surprising how much store is set by contemporary press reports... Did journalists in the earliest days of motoring not report things late, or inaccurately or with any errors?

I really do not care if it was I or Mr Shelley who first introduced the "miserable thing" digression.

His first paragraph is correct but the authority of the Executive and Board is not above the Rules or Memorandum and Articles of Association which are current at the time. If he goes back to my first posting (post 3 in this thread) the point I made then and in my most recent post is that the VCC/VCS Chairman, backed by his Executive/Board, chose to act outside the Rules of the time. That is not a matter for debate, being a matter of fact. The Mem. & Arts. were changed subsequently to a form which might permit his action, but even VCS did not manage to incorporate a retrospective period of validity.

His second paragraph continues his flow of unsubtantiated innuendo. He was not involved in the VCC organisation, so far as I know, so is repeating the opinions of others but I have yet to be told of any specific case where the DP/DC ran "their own affairs their own way, without advice or approval from the VCC itself"

I don't see the relevance of the third para to this thread, so I'll venture OT to say that some of the publications of the past gained reputations as journals of record based in the main on their accurate reporting of matters as they happened. They also provide a chronology of change, which the manufacturers' brochures do not. Sadly in recent decades The Autocar has simplified its remit and no longer reports on any technical aspect of the cars that are being written up so in it won't help our successors in 2110.

[Marticelli]

The dating and redating of 'Genevieve' referred to above is but one such example of how dating is still an inexact matter, and subject to opinion and possible influence.

And the matter of the contemporary press is relevant because for many makes where no factory records survive, the press provides the next best source of data, to quote Mr Lupton 'accurate reporting of matters as they happened'. Yet the first press reports of the first heavier than air flight by the Wright brothers appeared in March 1904, three months after the event, in that well know aviation journal 'Gleanings in Bee Culture'. And many early reports are in fact technically flawed, leading to later reference works misquoting or misleading, eg Kent Karslake's misrepresentation of the gearchange of early Sizaire Naudin cars, and the mythical overhead cam Calcott mentioned by Bill Boddy in the little excellent Vintage Motor Car Pocketbook.

And the matter of my propensity to make 'unsubstantiated innuendoes' is not helped by the point that I made when I first contributed to this 'debate', namely that what the dating process needs is absolute honesty and transparency - it is precisely because the old DP conducted its affairs entirely behind a cloak of secrecy that such matters are not better known, which is why speculation and rumour are rife, and indeed why this thread started in the first place... On one ill-fated day I wanted to visit the VCC library (a round trip of about 150 miles) but was told that as the Dating Panel were meeting that day, it would of course be impossible for me, a mere member, to be present in the building at the same time... That left me feeling pretty good about the club, and wondering what it was they had to hide from the membership!!

[Allan Lupton]

And the matter of my propensity to make 'unsubstantiated innuendoes' is not helped by the point that I made when I first contributed to this 'debate', namely that what the dating process needs is absolute honesty and transparency - it is precisely because the old DP conducted its affairs entirely behind a cloak of secrecy that such matters are not better known, which is why speculation and rumour are rife, and indeed why this thread started in the first place...

This is getting silly: who told you that the DP conducted its affairs entirely behind a cloak of secrecy? That's the first unsubstantiated innuendo and I can say that one of the battles we on the DC/DP had to fight was to get our clients to recognise what the term "evidence" means and I am now trying to introduce the concept into this thread.

On one ill-fated day I wanted to visit the VCC library (a round trip of about 150 miles) but was told that as the Dating Panel were meeting that day, it would of course be impossible for me, a mere member, to be present in the building at the same time... That left me feeling pretty good about the club, and wondering what it was they had to hide from the membership!!

The Dating Panel was around a dozen people and that was as many as would fit in the library, so quite naturally it was sensible to require other members to choose a different day. We met four times a year, so not a great inconvenience for someone only coming 150 miles round trip whereas some of the DP came 160-190 miles each way and one nearly 300.
Remember too that the reason that the VCC's library was and is the research resource that it is was because of the VCC Dating Committee's need for it. That's a benefit for the other members too, of course - by the way, don't forget that the DP members were VCC members too.
The other aspect that shows you don't understand committees is the assumption that the DP had something to hide simply because it didn't hold its meetings in public. I may say that I and some others were in the VCC library doing Dating research on a weekly basis, and we often had other club members visiting then - and in some cases the general dialogue was helpful to all of us.

Edited by Allan Lupton, 16 February 2010 - 16:32.

[Marticelli]

It would be interesting to hear some other views on this matter... Are there no other TNF members who have anything to contribute on this important subject? Or is everyone 'on the inside' worried about the consequences of an open discussion on this forum? Maybe there's another place for this discussion?

As I spent my working life as a scientific civil servant latterly running several major committees both here and in Australia, I shall ignore Mr Lupton's views on my understanding of the working of committees! But then again mine were interdepartmental government committees attended by leaders of industry, commerce and academia and with large budgets to support R&D activities in the vehicle industry and science- and engineering-based industry more generally, and supporting R&D in the Australian agri-food sector, not just dating old cars...

[David McKinney]

I can't speak for other members, but I for one am certainly not a VCC insider - or even member.

I have been avidly following the discussion, but it seems too "in house" to allow pertinent comment

[Marticelli]

I suppose the problem stems from the functional requirements of old cars. If someone found the Venus de Milo and added a new pair of arms so it looked like it did in ancient times, what would they have? When acquired by the Louvre in 1821, apparently replacements were made and then removed when they realised the error of their ways. I can just imagine the mayhem if they did that to Brighton runners. There would be more than a few basket cases lying on the Serpentine road like a crazy autojumble!!

If you found an incomplete or derelict old car and decided not to restore it to running order but display it 'as found', then dating it is unnecessary as you can't drive around in it anyway!! And as we know from recent events in Switzerland, an unrestored wreck is worth far more than a complete runner... Restoring it would also be superfluous as someone has already built a perfect replica of that car so you can see what it would have looked like anyway!! Funny old world isn't it?

[HDonaldCapps]

I can't speak for other members, but I for one am certainly not a VCC insider - or even member.

I have been avidly following the discussion, but it seems too "in house" to allow pertinent comment

Much as David has been doing, I have taken an interest in this discussion while being nothing remotely like an insider or a member -- much less being even a potential member -- of the VCC. However, as a "card-carrying historian" -- in the words of someone elsewhere, and all that sort of condemnation carries with it -- I find it interesting and yet not very surprising to see the VCC opt to place what can be construed as "commercial" interests ahead of those interests that might be broadly termed as "historical." It would clearly seem that the Dating Service was often faced with riddles and enigmas which required some form of resolution and, therefore, adjudication, this carrying the inevitable seeds of conflict which seem to have germinated in the form of simply tossing the folks overboard and replacing them with those more attuned to the "current needs of the organization" -- or a concept closely aligned with that thought.

Perhaps, Allan, this is simply another case study for what happens when "history" clashes with "other interests." Historiography can be a very dull topic to the 99.9-to-infinity percent of the world who care very little for history and even less for historians, but for historians conducting research it is the bedrock upon which their work is anchored. I will spare "Marticelli" the lecture series which addresses his query regarding contemporary chronicles and resources, to say nothing nothing of the practical exercises, but when one does it often enough and long enough, the use of contemporary sources can be invaluable; likewise, they can be McGuffins which lead to wild goose chases and then allow legends to become mythology.

As time has passed and wisdom has grown, it has become my view that to suggest that with the rarest of exceptions the whole business, in its several meanings, of old racing cars is an area where angels fear to thread and fools not only rush in, but often proper -- not to venture an opinion, of course.

[Marticelli]

Valuable to have another opinion here, and thanks for that. But seriously how do you 'Date' a vehicle where the recognised expert is the person who rebuilt it from tenuous remains and the vehicle is perhaps 70% brand new, albeit lovingly recreated to its original specification as only the expert knows how?

I well recall Bob Chamberlain's angst at being refused permission by the RAC, (presumably having first consulted widely), to run the famous Napier L48 Samson on the Brighton run. This had been painstakingly recreated around its original engine found in a boat in Melbourne and benefitted from the extensive drawing archive from D Napier & Sons, Acton held by the Science Museum which allowed a faithful remanufacturing of the missing parts.

A couple of decades later, Johnny Thomas was able to recreate the 1902 Gordon Bennett Napier using similar sources but a larger pile of original parts, and was fortunately able to obtain a permit from the VCC to use the car on the Brighton run and what a sight it was... Every knowledgeable bystander knew it had been recreated, but few could fail to be impressed by its presence on the road. I understand the VCC DP's initial advice to Johnny was 'don't restore it', but then they accepted it would be restored if they accepted the car once recreated, given the spirit with which it was rebuilt. What is perhaps more surprising is that an earlier owner of the GB Napier remains, George Wingard, who has an enviable collection of Edwardian racers, didn't do so decades before Johnny!

[HDonaldCapps]

My opinion is that the VCC seems to taken a rather strange approach to this issue, one that seems to indicate that rather than thanking the people who took on this difficult, if not impossible, task, it simply replaced them without thanks or admitting that the inherent challenges in the work of the Dating Panel are/were essentially commercial rather then historical in nature. It would seem that, for the most part, the DP were doomed to extent whatever the decisions they might make in some situations. That Allan and the others attempted to make rational what is in essence an increasingly irrational quest should not be dismissed lightly. I think that replacing one group with another group to deal with the dating issue is not only a bankrupt policy, and a doomed one at that, but displays an inability of the VCC and its leadership to come to grips with what is at the best of times a thorny problem, but now even more of a difficulty given that it has now muddied the waters with its recent actions. Simply an opinion -- of no value -- and an observation, of course, by a disinterested and somewhat bemused party.

I suppose that at this point I should cue the Groucho remark and accept the realization that it is unlikely that I will be asked to address a VCC meeting any time soon.

[Allan Lupton]

Thanks, Don, for your contribution which probably goes to the heart of the matter as it is seen by someone who drove the VCC to do what it did.
From our (DP) point of view we can say that simply tossing the folks overboard and replacing them with those more attuned to the "current needs of the organization" for whatever reason, still has to be done in accord with the Rules that the club is operating to at the time, which it was not.
It might also be thought good practice to cite examples of the problems that had brought the club to that point.
The members of the former DP are all, as you put it, card-carrying historians and most of us who were not already members have joined the British group of the Society of Automotive Historians. You can't say that of many (if any) of the "replacement" Dating Advisory Committee members

But seriously how do you 'Date' a vehicle where the recognised expert is the person who rebuilt it from tenuous remains and the vehicle is perhaps 70% brand new, albeit lovingly recreated to its original specification as only the expert knows how?

Quite simply the VCS Rules say you do not Date such a vehicle. As I mentioned before, we produced the "Dating Control Manual" which set out in great detail the DP methods and requirements and it defined how a car which was not completely original would or would not qualify for a Certificate of Eligibility. That manual was adopted as the basis for Dating in the VCS's Mem. & Arts. so it is part of the Rules, and a car with (say) one original major componant would not even qualify for a CofE.
There is a legislative minefield for the owner of such a car, because if 70% was of recent constuction it should meet current roadworthiness regulations if it is to be used on the public highway: the unscrupulous would find a way of assigning a Veteran period identity to it and claiming it was not a newly made car and I think that there are some people in the VCC who think that the DP should give such cars a Date, thus endorsing the fraud.

[Leigh Trevail]

As the perpetrator of this thread I feel that maybe it is time to say something on the matter. First; thank you all for you contributions and for making this the only thread of mine to make it onto a second page without going off topic.

Obviously Allan Lupton represents the Old School, and there is nothing wrong with that! It was gentlemen such himself that carried the old car movement along for many years, long before the vehicles became an investment, and for this we should all be grateful. On the other hand Marticelli opinions seem to be that of a more modern school of thought, although I have arrived at the conclusion that he is no less enthusiastic towards the motor cars in question.

Also Martichelli makes some very strong statements, but does not have the conviction to do so under his own name. In post 9 Allan asked him if he was a Mr. Shelley, unless I missed it he has neither confirmed or denied it. Please could you correct this before making anymore contentious remarks. Each of these men have been rigorously fighting their own corner, but neither have had their sentiments backed up by other VCC members.

Personally I have no problem with re-creations, I admire anyone who has the ability to work to a hundred year old set of drawings, but the owner should not expect someone to falsify evidence on their behalf to register it. Things were so much easier in the past, and at the time did anyone really care that Genevieve was made out of two cars. Also I was disappointed when Allan to referred to single cylinder Darracqs as “Miserable”, maybe compared to other pre 1905 cars it is, but it is better than walking to Brighton.

This brings us to what I see as the heart of the problem, the London to Brighton Run. I am sure that had the runs instigators foreseen these problems in the 21st century they would have cancelled it. I am not going to take sides with either Allan Lupton or Martichelli (whoever he / she may be). Both have made valuable points, both obviously love old cars. But it is for the sake of these cars that you and other members should reconcile your differences. If you were kids, I’d bang your bloody heads together!

[Tim Murray]

Also Martichelli makes some very strong statements, but does not have the conviction to do so under his own name. In post 9 Allan asked him if he was a Mr. Shelley, unless I missed it he has neither confirmed or denied it. Please could you correct this before making anymore contentious remarks. Each of these men have been rigorously fighting their own corner, but neither have had their sentiments backed up by other VCC members.

Marticelli has in fact told us quite a lot about himself in other threads:

Although I am essentially a biker (actually VMCC Marque Specialist for OEC and Blackburne) I am also a sometime Edwardian competitor in the VSCC so have feet in both camps... If you search TNF for Thornycroft you should find a reference to my current restoration project, a 1909 18HP Thornycroft Torpedo...

Cheers anyway,

Martin Shelley aka 'Marticelli' (since the mid 60s!!)

Hi there, I am new to this forum but have some perhaps relevant information. I am a long standing VSCC member but have only been a VSCC competitor in Edwardian speed events through my ownership of the well known 'Targa Florio' SCAT, which was recreated from remains found in Australia in the 80s. I sold this vehicle as I wanted to own a 'genuine' Edwardian not a 'recreated' one, and by luck I stumbled across the remains of a 1909 18HPThornycroft which had first been owned by legendary Australian cattle king, Sidney Kidman. But that's another story...

(etc)

Martin Shelley (aka Marticelli by which nom de plume I have been known since before the invention of email)

Edited by Tim Murray, 17 February 2010 - 19:55.

[Leigh Trevail]

"Marticelli has in fact told us quite a lot about himself in other threads"


Tim .. Thats as maybe, but I was referring to this thread!

[Marticelli]

Sorry if I appear to be hiding behind a nom de plume, but I have been Martcelli (pronounced Martichelli but with no 'h') since I was about 12, long before the invention of email etc, so when it came along I have always called myself that for simplicity, not to avoid recognition. I told Allan Lupton directly when he asked in his earlier contribution that I was indeed the selfsame Martin Shelley, but as well as being a VCC member, I have been a VSCC member for about 25 years and a VMCC member since 1971 when I acquired my first vintage motorcycle, a Rudge Special on which I rode from Hamilton to John O Groats to Lands End and back to Hamilton, unsupported and avoiding motorways, in eight days in 1974. I have had Rudges ever since, but am almost cured now, as I only have one example left, a 1929 350 parallel four valver. For about 25 years I have acted as OEC Marque Specialist for the VMCC, and more recently Blackburne MS, not a self-appointed authority on this or any other make but an enthusiast prepared to devote a considerable amount of my own time and energy for no gain or remuneration whatsoever to benefit other owners and users of such machinery.

Elsewhere in this Forum (under Barn Finds, post #171), you will find the story of my discovery and restoration of a rare and genuine early car, a 1909 Thornycroft, contemporaneous with the Silver Ghost but far rarer (130 examples were built between 1908 and 1913 compared with well over 6000 Ghosts 1907 to 1924ish). Its a four cylinder sidevalve not a six, but the quality is comparable and the hope is it will perform well once back running later this year with luck and a following wind.

As an impecunious enthusiast aged 20, I borrowed 60 pounds from my mother to buy my first Rudge, and ever since, I've collected bits and restored things often from fairly minimal beginnings, but always striving to rebuild things as they were originally to the best of my ability as an engineer. I also adopted the principle of reusing original parts rather than making new bits, although sometimes one is forced to make new when something sinply cannot be found. When the chance to buy a running 1924 Bullnose Morris arose in 1986, I grabbed it as it was a complete car and well known to the BNMC, so I could use it as a rally car and family transport and I had 15 years of undiluted pleasure with it. Prior to the Bullnose, I had owned Austin Seven projects but never an actual runner... Driving about in a sorted car made me appreciate how much fun it was, and I shared this experience through the annals of thr Bullnose Club magazine by editing it for five years 1988 to 1992, when a secondment to Australia meant I had to pass the job to A N Other.

Travelling widely in Australia for the then Federal government, I was fortunate to meet many petrol heads and form friendships that have lasted till the present with both car and motorcycle enthusiasts. While in Australia, I collected quite a few early motorcycles which were unrestored but restorable, and I have spent much of the time since returning restoring and riding these machines.

When I was offered early retirement in late 2004, I was fortunate to spot on the same day a fine Edwardian competition car for sale in the VSCC Newsletter. Having hankered after something more sporty and powerful than a Bullnose to spend my hoped-for lump sum on, but resigned to the fact that such things as Brescias and 30/98s were for the rich not retired civil sevants, I was delighted to be able to buy the Targa Florio SCAT built by one of the VSCC Edwardian competitors for such competition use. Of course it had some concessions to make it competition worthy, but is was basically a genuine 1911 chassis and running gear into which a 1910 9 litre Simplex T head engine had been shoe-horned, and the car had been finished with a light two seat racing 'body' (if you could call a bonnet and vestigial scuttle with two wicker seats and a bolster tank a body)!!

Travelling to events around Europe in 2005 and 2006, I had some fine experiences participating in the many centenary celebrations that were happening then, including the last Gordon Bennett, the first car TT in the Isle of Man, the first Targa Florio in Sicily etc etc. Everywhere we took the car we were welcomed. On occasion however, I encountered VCC members who rather sneered at such a 'boy racer', even though it had a full complement of Edwardian components. Since selling the car because a morte genuine thing came along in the shape of the Thorncroft, it has featured regularly in the VCC Gazette, as its new owner also enjoys taking out and about as I did but he has found more favour with the 'establishment' than I did - no matter, as I have an alternative project which pleases me more.

In the interim, I owned a very complete and original 1912 Clement Bayard, which I recommissioned after fifty years inactivity and then meticulously preserved unrestored and sold on with a condition that the new owner do likewise, as eventually running unrestored vehicles will be all but extinct or in art galleries or museums as lifeless exhibits. Take a look at <www.spurm.org> which was set up with the aim of helping provide support to those fortunate enough to own an unrestored but useable vehicle but who feel under pressure to do a restoration job on their vehicle as they find coming to events with the scruffiest vehicle puts them in some sort of an unwelcome minority. Funnily enough, I have found that unrestored and original vehicles usually go rather well, which says something about the skills of their creators compared with the recreators around at present.

Hopefully the reader will now understand a bit more about where I am coming from and why I am not a demon trying to unseat the establishment but one who would like a return to the simple enthusiasm as captured by Genevieve the film, where the fun of it all far exceeds the investment potential. I watch with dismay as some of the better vintage motorcycles escalate in value to the point where riding them seems foolhardy, but Phil Vincent and George Brough built their prewar twins to be ridden fast not incarcerated in some collection or museum... Likewise a well fettled Brescia is a joyous thing, and thank goodness there are still those around who love using them as Ettore intended, not fished from a lake and displayed as 'art'.... They are only 'art' when running IMHO...

[Leigh Trevail]

Martin… Thank you for taking the time to write that out. As I said in my previous post; neither yours or Allan’s enthusiasm is in any doubt. And it would be fair if both of you were to point out that; as a non member it was nothing to do with me and that I should mind my own business!

Also; it is so much nicer to be on first name terms!

[Allan Lupton]

In case anyone is still interested they might like to know that when the VCS DP was going well it had a senior representative from the Science Museum as a member (and regular attender).
At some stage in the past the Ministry of Transport had commissioned the Science Museum to issue certificates of date for early cars to enable them to be excused out-of-period requirements at the annual roadworthiness tests. By the 1990s there were very few members of staff at the Science Museum who were capable of (or had the time for) researching for the certificates, and it transpired that they accepted a VCC Certificate of Date as sufficiently rigorous and any vehicle with a VCC/VCS certificate was nodded through their system.
As a consequence of the lack of suitable staff, the Science Museum was seeking to have their responsibility for certificating cars removed and passed on to the VCC/VCS. That had not happened before the demise of the DP and I do wonder what system the Science Museum's curators now use - and I would like to know what they think of the VCS Dating Advisory panel.
It is that sort of consideration which takes this saga out of the "private grief of the VCC" category and makes it important to all historic vehicle owners (and all those who like to see historic vehicles being used on the British roads).