128 replies to this topic

[jpw1275]

I wonder how many people own a "ringer" and have not got a clue ?

Cheers james

[CityEPete]

I dont have an issue with any of it really as long as people know what they are getting.

[Black.Ghost]

From my understanding the question is whether the Mini has been re-shelled or had the VIN number (and I guess any other number that could be moved) put directly onto a 1960 Mini.  Re-shelling (so moving parts from one Mini shell to another Mini shell) is different in this context to switching identity.  Is there anything at all from the original 1959 Mini left (so glass, interior, running gear etc), or is this Mini essentially purely a 1960 with the only thing coming from the original 1959 Mini being its identity?   Have then a few 1959 parts been added retrospectively to try to support the claim that this is really the significant Mini that it purports to be?  My understanding is this is what the dispute is about.  

That's exactly the issue with this car I believe!

 

Pete, the point you made about owning two cars and making one doesn't hold; it is perfectly legal and acceptable for me to go out and buy a 1.4 Rover 25 in BRG and use whatever bits I want on my current car. It is a common practice. The illegal bit comes if I then try to pass the new car off as my old one or vice versa. 

 

With the question of 'ringing', the main issue most people have with it is especially true of our Minis - it is very easy to hide a stolen car. I have no doubt this was done in the past, and is still done today. It's unlikely although not impossible this is what was done here. 

 

What I would like to know is WHY was the car re-shelled? The owner says it was done some time ago, but there is no indication of why? 

 

As for the Works cars, it doesn't bother me that it was done like that. Again, it comes down to the cars being stolen and I doubt the Works teams would resort to stealing a car! 

 

I wouldn't have a problem with this car being an actual re-shell (as opposed to an ID swap), but for the fact that the value of a 1959 car is in the subtle differences to the later shells - something this car no longer has, and from my understanding not possible or worth doing. The other thing to consider is, if someone was simply taking the numbers from the 1959 car and sticking them on a 1960 car, in the knowledge that the 59 car is more valuable, they must surely know that there were enough differences that they wouldn't be able to trick anyone into it being a genuine 1959 car. Also, the guy has stated it has been re-shelled and not tried to hide that fact through feigned ignorance! IF the parts were transferred across, it will be down to an individual's interpretation of whether or not the claims in the ad are correct. 

 

This kind of issue is always going to divide opinion, there isn't really too much point getting heated about it. 

 

As a final point - I assume someone will have reported it to eBay by now, and they haven't pulled it, like Bonhams reportedly did when it was due to be auctioned previously. 

[CityEPete]

With respect as soon as that rover 25 vin plate has been unrivetted off one car and stuck on the other you are upto monkey business regardless of your intentions, you are not taxing, mot-ing or insuring the actual car you are using on the highway.

Its fairly simple, monocoque body with a vin plate is the bulk of the car and remains so FOREVER.

[Cooperman]

If buying a Mk.1 there is a chance it will have been re-shelled or extensively re-built. It is also very unlikely to be the original engine as back then engines only lasted about 50k to 60k miles and the factory Gold-Seal replacement units were excellent. When fitting a Gold-Seal engine it was not usual to change the engine number on the log book.

Thinks "I wonder if that 59/60 car has an original 'thin-tail oil fed crank' engine". I would bet not, in which case the engine is not the original either. That would have been changed by about 1961 or '62. The wheels won't be original. The original ones would all have fractured by now and fallen off! It is going up in bid now and it looks as though it will make around £16000+. Even as a 1960 car it is probably worth that. It might be possible to completely strip it and sort out any differences between the 59 and the 60, but the floors are different and would have been modified in those 55 years to prevent water coming in.

The biggest problem might be getting a glass washer bottle. Even then people dropped them and they smashed so owners fitted plastic ones. The rear rad arms should be the fabricated ones, but even those would have been changed in 55 years. It would be easy to pout it back to original colour, but the new '59 trim would be hard to replace in the correct colours, although I believe the grey cars had red trim panels.

An interesting project maybe.

[Black.Ghost]

With respect as soon as that rover 25 vin plate has been unrivetted off one car and stuck on the other you are upto monkey business regardless of your intentions, you are not taxing, mot-ing or insuring the actual car you are using on the highway.

Its fairly simple, monocoque body with a vin plate is the bulk of the car and remains so FOREVER.

That's not what you said in point 2, and that's not what I said in my post. Swapping an engine, battery, wheels, wings, doors, sunroof and interior is all fine provided the ID isn't also swapped over. In your second point, you say nothing about switching ID, just mating two cars together. 

[Shifty]

I've been following this and this is the situation(as I see it).  All the info below is hearsay and I have no first hand experience of this.

 

There is no mini 'saved' as a result of this, a mini has been bastardised and its identity lost as result of someone wanting a number plate in 1995.  The v5 of this car was offered for sale and was sold to chap(who conicidentally had a cherry red '60 at the time).  The plate was sold and this car was born/saved/rung(delete as applicable)

 

There is very little on the current car that is from the original 1959 car, by all accounts the original car was scrapped/lost etc and all that remained was a buff logbook.

 

This car has been removed/refused from auctions by Bonhams and coys due to doubts about its identity.

 

Currently it's being marketed as the 6th oldest when in fact there is little or nothing of the original car remaining

[Bubblebobble]

Exactly , and someone is using the 'its what used to happen ' excuse to hide behind .

[Cooperman]

I do agree that this car is a somewhat strange case due to the Heritage Cert & V5 saying it is such an early car. I don't think ebay should pull it off sale as it is basically as described and the seller has been honest about it or so it would appear (I re-read the ad).

 

The original re-shell was probably because of the rust-bug. The issue here is whether a 1960 car was acquired and after some restoration the identity was simply transferred, as might be the case.  Clearly the vendor didn't do this, but he has said that the re-shell took place and all is not as original.

 

It would not take a genius to restore it as a '59 and nothing need have been said. Any non-'59 parts still fitted could easily have been replaced by repairers over 55 years and the floors would almost certainly have been replaced early on, maybe within 2 or 3 years. The key here is the non-original colour and a few details.

 

It's all a shame really, as that does look like a very nice 'early' car, be it 59 or 60. Now there are always going to be arguments over it which will never go away.

[CityEPete]

With respect as soon as that rover 25 vin plate has been unrivetted off one car and stuck on the other you are upto monkey business regardless of your intentions, you are not taxing, mot-ing or insuring the actual car you are using on the highway.
Its fairly simple, monocoque body with a vin plate is the bulk of the car and remains so FOREVER.

That's not what you said in point 2, and that's not what I said in my post. Swapping an engine, battery, wheels, wings, doors, sunroof and interior is all fine provided the ID isn't also swapped over. In your second point, you say nothing about switching ID, just mating two cars together.

Everyone knows exactly what I'm saying, the 'spare' shells have no id and even when they do they always end up with the vin plates and V5 from the more valuable car!

Banging my head against a wall here, lol

[CityEPete]

I do agree that this car is a somewhat strange case due to the Heritage Cert & V5 saying it is such an early car. I don't think ebay should pull it off sale as it is basically as described and the seller has been honest about it or so it would appear (I re-read the ad).
 
The original re-shell was probably because of the rust-bug. The issue here is whether a 1960 car was acquired and after some restoration the identity was simply transferred, as might be the case.  Clearly the vendor didn't do this, but he has said that the re-shell took place and all is not as original.
 
It would not take a genius to restore it as a '59 and nothing need have been said. Any non-'59 parts still fitted could easily have been replaced by repairers over 55 years and the floors would almost certainly have been replaced early on, maybe within 2 or 3 years. The key here is the non-original colour and a few details.
 
It's all a shame really, as that does look like a very nice 'early' car, be it 59 or 60. Now there are always going to be arguments over it which will never go away.

Theres nothing strange about a V5 and a heritage cert, I've had a few certs, a cheque in the post with the vin number of a car that may or may not even be in your possession isnt strange at all!

Edited by CityEPete, 29 December 2014 - 09:19 AM.

[CityEPete]

I've been following this and this is the situation(as I see it).  All the info below is hearsay and I have no first hand experience of this.
 
There is no mini 'saved' as a result of this, a mini has been bastardised and its identity lost as result of someone wanting a number plate in 1995.  The v5 of this car was offered for sale and was sold to chap(who conicidentally had a cherry red '60 at the time).  The plate was sold and this car was born/saved/rung(delete as applicable)
 
There is very little on the current car that is from the original 1959 car, by all accounts the original car was scrapped/lost etc and all that remained was a buff logbook.
 
This car has been removed/refused from auctions by Bonhams and coys due to doubts about its identity.
 
Currently it's being marketed as the 6th oldest when in fact there is little or nothing of the original car remaining

Finally some sense

The only way to save a mini is with a new shell not a 'tub' that once had It's own V5!

[CityEPete]

I totally understand it too, great so the body was a part number in the book, so you could order one then just like you can now, I'm 100% in favour of that and that really is keeping a car on the road!

Top and bottom no matter who says what, how long you have been working on these cars is that 'reshelling' into used shells was done for the same reason then as it is now, its cheaper than a new replacement heritage body and the ringer that was created was worth more with cooper identity than leaving the 850 on its original document but with all the go faster bits from the cooper bolted on.

You knew what was going on then as people do now, ringers

Heres my guide for ringers new or historical :-D
A-Has the car got the same body it was first built with or one supplied with a receipt from the manufacturer or an approved supplier like heritage? Thats normal but less desirable if its had a new body.

B- Is the car made from what were originally two cars? regardless of whether both cars were owned legitimately at the time of mating, how long ago it was or how new or old both/either cars were at the time of mating or how much of a financial or sentimental investment you have in the resulting car it is in fact a ringer if you use the V5 other than the one from the monocoque.

Edited for clarity that is not needed as we have 4 pages discussing the matter but for anyone else that could miss the point

[mikep12]

Just a point re. works minis. these were reshelled every event because they suffered stress cracks that were not repairable. It was not unusual to see the cars being welded at service breaks in the actual rally. The cars have two rigid subframes that put huge loads on the shell when being rallied with a vengance. Seam welding helps a bit but will just crack next to the weld eventually. I am sure rally cars nowdays do the same, why risk all the effort and cost of rallying just for a shell to fail?

 

If I bought a  crashed Mk1 Cooper now that had any shell deformation it would have to be reshelled into a period straight shell because I would not drive a 50 yr old car that had been bent and jigged and I would not like one on the road.

 

What was done years ago was done because the cars were bangers and of little value. Take out all non original mk 1 coopers and you would find them only in museums not on the road.

 

Re shelling is fine and the car cannot be called a ringer I would not devalue a mini with a reshell as long as it had a history before the reshell, was a correct period shell and correctly modified and not a 'barn find'. There are an awful lot of S's around with later heritage shells but the 'correct' log book???? A ringer is a rebuilt log book. A heritage certificate is proof that only a car as stated was once built.

[Black.Ghost]

Firstly, Pete - apologies. I was just being a bit pedantic yesterday.

Secondly - it does devalue as the value of a 59 mini is in the subtle differences which are no longer present. That is true regardless of whether or not it was genuinely re-shelled or the ID swapped.

Also a ringer isn't only a rebuilt log book. Swapping a VIN from a broken / stolen / rusted car and putting it on a completely new car and not using any old components is a ringer - in which case not a single thing is rebuilt.

Edited by Black.Ghost, 29 December 2014 - 12:10 PM.