128 replies to this topic

[CityEPete]

The fact you get 5 points for the monocoque instantly means that the original identity of that part of the car should always and can only ever be the final product is all we need to know, I dont think we should be selling used bodies on this very site without a V5 although I can see that people using them are sort of only ever going to do the opposite of selling a V5 without a body.

 

 

You can fool some of the people some of the time but these cars are what they are, "reshelled in the 80s", it is all bollards and we know it!

[Ben_O]

 

The DVLA uses a points system to decide what registration number to give a radically altered vehicle:-

To keep the original registration number

Your vehicle must have 8 or more points from the table below if you want to keep the original registration number.

5 of these points must come from having the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame.

Part Points:

Chassis, monocoque bodyshell (body and chassis as one unit) or frame - original or new and unmodified (direct from manufacturer) 5

Suspension (front and back) - original 2

Axles (both) - original 2

Transmission - original 2

Steering assembly - original 2

Engine - original 1

 

I always wondered but never got round to asking it.

 

when they list this points system and refer to the components as 'original' Does this mean original to the car or does it mean it has to be of original type? i.e the same as what was fitted at the factory.

 

Ben 

[CityEPete]

They should come off the original car.

[evosal]

 

I think Id still like to own this mini, think of the debates you could have at car shows!

Having reread the ad and the additional information provided by the seller I think its accurately described, no one can be accused of trying to pass it off as an original '59 when it no longer is.

At £13.5K at the minute, is it going to go higher? £15K would be my guess.

 

I think having the title for the listing as 'Austin 7 mini, 1959, the 6th oldest mini in the world,great investment potential' is incredibly misleading. 

 

Im sure anyone seriously interested is going to read the whole advert not just the title !

You say Bill Bell is the authority on 1959 mini's, says who, who appointed him BMHIT ?  no he's just a guy that started a website called 1959 mini register !!

Anyone can do that, I can set one up tomorrow, is he a qualified engineer ? does he have a lifetime in the motor trade ? ............er no he's actually a dental technician, he must have some special skills though because he can tell the whole history of a car through a few poor quality pictures on ebay, he's never seen my car but can condemn off those pics.

My car carries the chassis no 12 that's a fact, its official,  there s no point going on about points systems operated by dvla because the shell change was 25 years ago when it was allowed, the new rules came in effect in 1998

I have been doing lots of research into 621AOK and I reckon my car even with the shell change is a more accurate reflection of a 59 car, with a little work it could easily be very accurate.

As far as I can tell ALL the very early cars are a bit of a triggers broom, especially AOK, if they took all the 1960's parts off it would fit in a wheelie bin

I have had several phone calls and emails off people/mini enthusiasts who have seen his ranting forum posts that are still interested in the car, from all accounts he's upset quite a few other owners.

The sad thing for me is we are all mini enthusiasts, we don't all like the same thing and have our different opinions, I don't post a lot on here but I visit regularly and go to most shows, it will be a real shame if this forum descends to the level of most of the ford forums due to all the back stabbing and bitching, life's too short for all that nonsense.

I have owned mini's since I was 14 (I still have my first one) I also have another 59.

 

Anyway Merry Christmas and happy new year

[Bubblebobble]

Its not ' chassis 12 'is it ?  Its the vin from the car on something else . 

Edited by Bubblebobble, 29 December 2014 - 10:07 PM.

[Shifty]

So why was it pulled/refused by 2 auction houses then?

[cagy]

They couldn't see saw the car for what it really was?

[evosal]

So why was it pulled/refused by 2 auction houses then?

 

Because the re-shell was not declared to the auction houses by the then owner

[Tanya]

I stand by my statement that Bill Bell and the 1959 Register are the authority on these early Minis.  That is recognized by many people and organisations.   

 

I also still believe that the title of your eBay listing is misleading.  I am concerned that those who are not die-hard know-all enthusiasts may not know where to do their research.  Consequently, they may bid on this Mini without being in possession of the full facts and not able to understand the importance of the facts.  

[Bubblebobble]

How does anyone know the car was 'done ' 20 years ago ? Very convenient .

 

And your a car dealer first i would say , not a enthusiast .

Edited by Bubblebobble, 29 December 2014 - 10:14 PM.

[evosal]

That's what Bill Bell says.....so it must be right, do you seriously think someone is going to see the title and bid over £13k without reading the description ?

The description and the title are factually accurate, it is chassis 12 legally, I have given an extensive and detailed description about the KNOWN FACTS of its previous history, most of the 59 features are there, the original engine is fitted.

[CityEPete]

It was never legal unless it used a BRAND NEW shell, were mk1 shells avaiable to buy 25 years ago?

How is it body number 12? Is the vin and v5 avaiable from the car it was transplanted into?

[CityEPete]

That's what Bill Bell says.....so it must be right, do you seriously think someone is going to see the title and bid over £13k without reading the description ?
The description and the title are factually accurate, it is chassis 12 legally, I have given an extensive and detailed description about the KNOWN FACTS of its previous history, most of the 59 features are there, the original engine is fitted.

Can I say I have no issue with the description actually, anyone that cant understand that a body change legal or otherwise on a monocoque car makes it a car to be taken on its own merit shouldn't be getting involved, you can see from many posts in other threads etc that there are plenty of folk happy to buy it even if they are fully aware of the swap.

[evosal]

It was never legal unless it used a BRAND NEW shell, were mk1 shells avaiable to buy 25 years ago?

How is it body number 12? Is the vin and v5 avaiable from the car it was transplanted into?

 

 

Shows how little you know, up until 1998 it was accepted by dvla to use a second hand shell, there is no id from the 1960 car because as far as I know it was just a shell.

For your information DVLA are currently again looking at proposals to allow classic cars over 25 years old to be re-shelled with a second hand shell and keep the original id

 

http://www.classicsm...roposal-update/

Edited by evosal, 29 December 2014 - 10:29 PM.

[CityEPete]

Surely if you were using a second hand shell before 1998 you should have used the ID from the shell not the engine and a pair of rusty subframes?

It always come down to money, funny how they always end up with the more valuable ID when people 'restore' these cars to the road.