Model B Coupe

[Colin Morgan]

Sorry, I missed your first post giving the reg dates.

B5-3732 would have been on 150432 - which isn't on the register - registered around March 1932.

The original Coupe from 1930 that I know has a painted crackle-finish dash - not wood and light grey uppers, as per the famous publicity publication.

[Nick Lettington]

To my mind, any body or chassis plate not fixed with the original rivets is suspicious... even on an otherwise beautifully restored car, I can't help but think these should not be disturbed...

[Reckless Rat]

I agree, Nick. Mine are not what you would call in a very good state, but they are original so I've never replaced them.

[Hedd_Jones]

No worries Colin, it is good we are both in agreement.

Having seen the pictures on here the first time a number of things stand out in running gear terms. Not so long ago I had 5 chassis within about 20yards from each other. 1 @ early 1928. 1 @ late 1928. 1 @ early 1929. 1 @ early 1930. 1@ late 1930. 1 @ early 1931 (SWB). A bit of time studying them and the differences meant I learnt an awful lot. Though I dont know the precise dates of the changes - i.e which chassis number etc, but it gives me a good ballpark.

Some observations from me.

The sawn off end to the front crossmember was glaringly obvious, having now put a number of original bodies on chassis, it soon becomes clear that the proper body and the proper chassis match and go together perfectly. A sawn off crossmember is indicative of a chassis thats been on a special at some point in its life, and/or its not the approprate chassis for that body... A hole on that side of the crossmember first appeared in about 1930 (?), looking harder the upturn on the bottom flange of the chassis rail goes passed the brake shaft (also sometime in 1930 from my observations - sometime between the late 1929 and early 1930 chassis I had - just where this one should be!), ok , no particular issues so far, if its a late 1929 chassis registered in early 1930 which is what the reg suggests it is. Though one perhaps might expect the later 'styled' wings like on an AE or late RK?  (or indeed early RL/AF) - though I conceed that the rear wings are not the same as these models, just the same style - the same style as you see on a factory Ulster.

The handbrake has been doctored to clear a bolt on radius arm ball (fair enough), but the shape of the relief to the top flange on the crossmember looks odd, and hang on 2 holes on the bottom flange show it was probably a 'coupled brake' crossmember at some point?. Studying the pictures on here is that cross member has never been off those chassis rails give the presence of rivetts, so is that a post July 1930 Chassis doctored into an uncoupled pre July 1930 style one?. It would be interesting to look for welded up holes in the front (and rear) crossmember, also for some in the bottom flange of the chassis rails, a little further back than the location of the present uncoupled shaft. The pictures dont show any agreed.

Not that its any great evidence of anything, but thats the earlier style banjo isn't it too? shouldn't it have a screw in torque tube job?

But for me,
1. sawn off front crossmember,
2. A coupled car front crossmember and by suggestion possibly whole chassis,
3. A dicky 'car number'
4. What seemed to be an appropriate registration number - 1929/30 (matching broadly the car) but not the 1932 car number
5. 50/50 on the wings
6. Odd components on what should be a very 'tasty' car. The dash, the parking sensor starting handle, and the earlier rear axle.

Suggests things are not quite what they seem.   

So it might not be quite such a travesty that the number has been sold.

[Tony Griffiths]

Not that its any great evidence of anything, but thats the earlier style banjo isn't it too? shouldn't it have a screw in torque tube job? 

Indeed; the first illustration of the screw-in torque tube was in the parts list for May 1929, replacing the early "short-flange" type; still, this might have been a retrofitted unit. The car does appear to be a bit of a lash-up. As for the starting handle, oh dear.

[Ivor Hawkins]

Following Hedd’s detailed analysis, I don’t feel quite so bad about the number being robbed!

[Tony Griffiths]

The collection of parts in all its polished glory (complete with loose rubber trim on the dash) https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/165609043230?...name=11021

[Steve kay]

Was Gilray not a famous and savage cartoonist? Ah no, that was Gillray. No caricatures here then.

[andrew34ruby]

The collection of parts in all its polished glory (complete with loose rubber trim on the dash) https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/165609043230?...name=11021

But to a non-expert like me, it looks to be a lovely car. Though maybe not seventeen grand lovely.

[Tony Griffiths]

The collection of parts in all its polished glory (complete with loose rubber trim on the dash) https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/165609043230?...name=11021

But to a non-expert like me, it looks to be a lovely car. Though maybe not seventeen grand lovely.

Indeed, indeed - it looks most appealing. The hope is that a potential buyer does the necessary research to discover what it really is. Today, with so much easily available data, there is little excuse for being caught out. If he or she discovers this forum and the expert comments contained therein, they should not go far wrong.