Hello everybody,
First of all, thanks to Daniel King to introduce to me in this Forum with the doubt that I send to him
I've been searching a lot for datas about these pics.
I assume that it has to be 1951, not 1950 attending to the info that appears at
http://www.silhouet....50/1950.html#py ("1950 Non-World Championship Formula One Races") As a resume:
1950
1 Alberto Ascari Ferrari 375 '375-2'
2 Dorino Serafini Ferrari 375 '375-1'
3 Piero Taruffi Ferrari 340/F1 '125-C-04'
4 Philippe Etancelin Talbot-Lago T26C '110008'
5 Emmanuel de Graffenried Maserati 4CLT/48 '1601'
6 Yves Giraud-Cabantous Talbot-Lago T26C '110002'
7 Georges Grignard Talbot-Lago T26C '110006'
NC Henri Louveau Talbot-Lago T26C-GS '110001'
NC David Murray Maserati 4CLT/48 '1595'
NC Juan Jover Maserati Milano-Speluzzi
Fastest Lap: Alberto Ascari (Ferrari 375), 2:24.2, 157.90 kph
Did Not Finish
Robert Manzon Simca-Gordini T15 '0014-GC'
Peter Walker BRM P15 MkI '152'
André Simon Simca-Gordini T15 '0011-GC'
Francisco Godia-Sales Maserati 4CLT/50 Milano
Louis Chiron Maserati 4CLT/48 '1606'
Johnny Claes Talbot-Lago T26C '110011'
Louis Rosier Talbot-Lago T26C '110001'
"B.Bira" Maserati 4CLT/48 '1598'
Maurice Trintignant Simca-Gordini T15 '0012-GC'
Luigi Chinetti Ferrari 125 '125-C-02'
Franco Rol Maserati 4CLT/48 '1604'
Reg Parnell BRM P15 MkI '151'
Then, number 6 should be a Talbot Lago, but we can see clearly a Ferrari, but it's true that the driver in car #6 seems to be too thin to be Gonzalez. Of course, it the info can be wrong, as well as can be wrong the info for 1951.
And yes, Rosier run a lot of GPs (15) after Pedralbes 51 (The wrong comment comes from a mistake from my side) Unfortunatelly, it's also true that Rosier did not reach the good results as in precedent years.
Also taking a look to the driver (as with Gonzalez), it's very common to see pictures of Etancelin wearing a kinf of cap instead a helmet, and in the picture seems to be seen a cap. But then, the car should be number 34, attending to the sources, and the number in the pic cannot be a "4" (can be a 2,3,6,8,9,0) attending to the curve of the upper part of the number.
It's very confused.