Originality and registrations

[Mrotwoman]

I would say something that is unrestored is 'Original' myself.

[Maaarrghk]

I'd go for all major parts are those that it left the factory with, perhaps with some degree of repair, the only replacement items being normal service items. Tyres, brake pads, filters, plugs, silencer, etc. I would regard a full respray as non-original, but a repaired area that's blown in as original.

I guess we have to look at some form of sensible generalization. How many would drive around in an immaculate, un-restored Mk1 Zephyr on its original tyres just because to change them would stop the car from being original and there was still some tread left?

[JPB]

.....How many would drive around in an immaculate, un-restored Mk1 Zephyr on its original tyres just because to change them would stop the car from being original and there was still some tread left?

Someone who'd taken their concours d'état '50s Bentley as far as they could and wanted to move on to a new challenge?

[arceye]

A topic that always gets my goat this one.

Very few cars or landys out there are now original, it is ok to buy a brand new chassis and swap it out for a rotten one, the vehicle identity remains the same, but to use a chassis from another vehicle of the correct age is now "ringing" a vehicle. The same goes for re shelling, new heritage shell and you have an original tax exempt car, old correct age replacement shell and you again have a "ringer".

For me the ringers with correct period chassis or shell are nearer to being correct than something built around a new shell, but those using period major components risk q plating or are classed as ringers. These are vehicles with correct period fitments, just from various sources, how can they be less correct than something built around componenets manufactured last week? As with most things these days it seems if you have the money you can have a less "true" vehicle that is original, if you haven't got the cash and build a bitsa it isn't any less authentic, but you risk q plating and ISVA testing.

Another problem is that it used to be acceptable to swap chassis or shells, the DVLA I believe are happy to accept such vehicles to which this work was carried out back in the eighties etc, all you have to do is provide the receipts etc from the garage that did the work. Problem is that much of this work was carried out by individuals, and many vehicles do not come with these receipts which leaves us all open to the possibility of losing our vehicles "identities".

So, all landy owners, check your front drivers dumbiron, that is where the chassis number is on the spring hanger If you can find it, it very likely won't match, I say if you can find it as the dumbiron rots and is an available replacement part, so if this has been replaced you risk losing the vehicles identity.

So rant over, it's a minefield, but old cars are old cars, engines have been changed, axles have been changed, shells have even been changed, their still old cars, perhaps not the one that originally left the factory at all but still as authentic as something built around heritage components.

I'm not on about putting the vin of a series landy onto a coil spring defender, that is just plain wrong, but we risk losing the right to use truly classic vehicles, they may be Triggers broom, but really thats just part of their long history that makes them what they are.
When all comes to all, a vehicle "identity" is only a way of taxing, insuring, mot'ing and generally keeping track of the legal aspects of a motor vehicle.

For me a number plate identity is the least important part of a vehicle, its just a means to using it on the road, so if an old vehicle has been repaired lots of times, it probably isn't the same old vehicle anymore, a good replica maybe, but likely authentic still, but this is really the natural course of events with something of this nature.

One ray of sunshine though, if it is authentic enough then you can always go the dating certificate route, at least with motorbikes anyway, and I would presume the same applies to cars.

Long post, but I guess the gist is that an authentic vehicle to me is one that uses components mainly from the correct year/s. Original is a term I don't like as i believe there are very few original vehicles, authentic, but rarely original in the true sense.

[arceye]

Another thought I had, if you look at my bloggy in members cars and projects I'm doing a very original Riley RM, 40,000 miles and absolutely original when I aquired it. As it has its original chassis and pretty much every other component its about as unbutchered as you can get.

However, look at the amount of new steel and wood going into the body, will it still be original when I'm done? I don't know, legally yes, but if you weigh in the new steel, it will also need a roof and interior retrimming, new paint, chrome off another car, it can't be original but I believe it will still be the same car.

If we give someone a heart transplant, or liver, or kidney, then are they still original, I'd say yes.

[needstlc]

Really it all boils down to what the word means and how important it is to you to use the word. Once something has been restored, that's what it is: "restored", but what does it matter? Personally I'd enjoy looking at any old cars that have been brought back to their best and kept alive for future generations, but despite the fact that I give my cars names I can't disguise the truth that they are all just man-made artefacts, and in many cases man-repaired. If you broaden the topic a bit, if someone has two valuable Moorcroft vases, one of which has been skilfully repaired, the untouched or "original" one will carry a premium; by the same token, pop down to Bristol for a look at SS Great Britain, which has been restored to its former glory. In 1973 I went aboard to look at what was basically a hulk, but until the ship was renovated it was hard to envisage it as it had been originally. Now it is a fascinating place to go, but I don't think even its curators and the craftsmen involved would say it is "original". I doubt anyone is worried either!

Basically it's just a word, and the problems start when people come over all pedantic. Just look at the trouble you can cause by asking whether such-and-such a car is a classic!

[arceye]

I think thats very well put, and in our circles originality is in fact rare, restored is more common. It really shouldn't matter.


And..... lets never have the "what's a classic" conversation thats in the eye of the beholder.

[1900sr]

I suppose the term should be original specification for anything that has had work, but isn't modified.

[Maaarrghk]

Perhaps a lot of it all just boils down to provenance. A vehicle with an interesting history.

Is that really Queen Victorias Beetle, or just one that has a few parts from hers?

Personally, I am more concerned with condition and am not bothered if the car was made from 2 dozen others plus new spare parts as long as it is in good nick and at a price I can afford. I would not even be too bothered about a Q plate if it were not having read somewhere that it is used as another pitiful excuse for insurers to add a bit more onto the premiums.

I currently have a longing for a LHD series 2a Land Rover SWB. By the time I have done with it, the chassis will be a replacement galvanized one and the engine will be a 200TDi. Wheels and tyres will also be non-standard. So what? The point for me is that it will last my lifetime and keep up with modern traffic.

[bnicho]

I really don't understand all this reshelling and replacement chassis stuff. It's just too murky.

To me the car is the chassis or mono body where the VIN/chassis is stamped. As soon as you change that it becomes a different car, either the "donor car" or a new vehicle. Anything else - wheels, suspension, seats, engines etc, whether new or old, should be completely irrelevant to the identity.

For example, if I put a body from a 54 Beetle onto a 76 model chassis, the resulting car might look like a 54, but it's registered as a 76 by our authorities because that is where the chassis number is stamped.

To use another example, a Mini 850 shell fitted with every single component from a rusty Mk1 Cooper S is not a Cooper S and should not maintain a Cooper S identity or chassis number, no matter how many "points" it earns.

My Moke is a complete bitsa:
- Engine and gearbox from a 1990 Metro
- Shifter and steering column from a 93 Mini
- Front bare subframe from a 68 Mini Auto.
- Rear subframe from a 75 Mini Van
- Rear suspension arms off eBay from who knows what year Moke.
- Steering rack and most front suspension parts from a 71 Clubman.
- Front brakes from an 87 Mini
- Alloy wheels previously used on a 1970 Morris Minor
- Windscreen, hood and bows from a 72 Moke that went racing.
- Bonnet, side panels, pedal box and fuel tank that were found in various mate's spares piles.
- Custom dash, seats, rollbar all made anywhere from 1985-2009.
- All fitted to a 71 Moke bodyshell that was stripped completely bare when I acquired it.

Do I care? No. I like it just the way it is.

My Moke is quite legal like that in Australia. It's not identified in any way as a paste-up car on it's registration. Most of the bits are generic Mini/Moke parts that can't easily be identified by year anyway.

Yet technically my Moke should earn a Q plate if I ever registered it in the UK. I find that ludicrious.