The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Undefined variable $search_thread - Line: 60 - File: showthread.php(1617) : eval()'d code PHP 8.1.31 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/showthread.php(1617) : eval()'d code 60 errorHandler->error_callback
/showthread.php 1617 eval




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1923 chummy
#37
A while back on this subject Tony Press wrote "a reproduction body which, even though very well made I find it difficult to accept as original".
This brings up an interesting question - how much of a car has to be still there before it's accepted as "original"?  The car in question (either late-December 1923 or January '24) was badly damaged in a collision and in about 1929 a saloon body shell was fitted.  The original engine, gear box with monkey puzzle, running gear etc was still there. I used (small) parts of the flloor but most of it was unusable, from memory the original firewall, dashboard, doors, windscreen, rear wings, radiator & shell, sparewheel drum, other bits, were used to bring it back to what it originally looked like. The windscreen had been narrowed 1 5/8" to fit inside the saloon pillars so I added the necessary bits.  Naturally I had to make another hood frame & sidescreens and the owner produced correct headlights & tail light.   It took a week to remove the extraneous brackets and get the matching chassis back to scratch.  In all, I tried to save everythig oriiginal possible.  I believe otherwise a bit of history would have been scrapped. If the incident had occured in the UK the owner would have probably bought a replacement tub from Longbridge & I doubt one would call the latter a "reproduction" body.   
SO what do others on the Forum think - how original does a car have to be before it"s accepted as "original"?   Cheers,  Bill in Oz

A while back on this subject Tony Press wrote "a reproduction body which, even though very well made I find it difficult to accept as original".
This brings up an interesting question - how much of a car has to be still there before it's accepted as "original"?  The car in question (either late-December 1923 or January '24) was badly damaged in a collision and in about 1929 a saloon body shell was fitted.  The original engine, gear box with monkey puzzle, running gear etc was still there. I used (small) parts of the flloor but most of it was unusable, from memory the original firewall, dashboard, doors, windscreen, rear wings, radiator & shell, sparewheel drum, other bits, were used to bring it back to what it originally looked like. The windscreen had been narrowed 1 5/8" to fit inside the saloon pillars so I added the necessary bits.  Naturally I had to make another hood frame & sidescreens and the owner produced correct headlights & tail light.   It took a week to remove the extraneous brackets and get the matching chassis back to scratch.  In all, I tried to save everythig oriiginal possible.  I believe otherwise a bit of history would have been scrapped.   If the incident had occured in the UK the owner would have probably bought a replacement tub from Longbridge & I doubt one would call the latter a "reproduction" body.   
SO what do others on the Forum think - how original does a car have to be before it"s accepted as "original"?   Cheers,  Bill in Oz
Reply


Messages In This Thread
1923 chummy - by J Faulkner - 01-11-2019, 09:56 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Betts - 01-11-2019, 11:44 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Press - 02-11-2019, 01:51 AM
RE: 1923 chummy - by JonE - 02-11-2019, 09:19 AM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Mike Costigan - 02-11-2019, 09:43 AM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Betts - 02-11-2019, 10:07 AM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Griffiths - 02-11-2019, 12:20 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Ruairidh Dunford - 02-11-2019, 01:37 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Alan - 02-11-2019, 01:49 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Griffiths - 02-11-2019, 06:07 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Mike Costigan - 02-11-2019, 06:35 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Zetomagneto - 02-11-2019, 08:25 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Press - 02-11-2019, 10:47 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Griffiths - 02-11-2019, 11:34 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Betts - 03-11-2019, 12:48 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by JonE - 03-11-2019, 01:19 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Griffiths - 03-11-2019, 03:05 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by robert regan - 03-11-2019, 07:52 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by John Barker - 03-11-2019, 10:58 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Griffiths - 03-11-2019, 11:26 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Press - 04-11-2019, 03:34 AM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Jeff Taylor - 04-11-2019, 11:12 AM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Ruairidh Dunford - 04-11-2019, 11:53 AM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Griffiths - 04-11-2019, 03:16 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Robin Boyce - 04-11-2019, 07:48 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Betts - 04-11-2019, 08:18 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by J Faulkner - 05-11-2019, 08:27 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Ivor Hawkins - 06-11-2019, 04:40 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by JonE - 06-11-2019, 07:03 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Betts - 06-11-2019, 08:15 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Mike Costigan - 06-11-2019, 08:20 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Alan - 06-11-2019, 08:51 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Edgar Lowe - 06-11-2019, 10:20 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Betts - 06-11-2019, 11:17 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Hedd_Jones - 07-11-2019, 12:06 AM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Bill Sheehan - 07-11-2019, 12:40 AM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Lance Sheldrick - 07-11-2019, 10:17 AM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Betts - 07-11-2019, 10:18 AM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Mike Costigan - 07-11-2019, 10:27 AM
RE: 1923 chummy - by JonE - 07-11-2019, 10:57 AM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Betts - 07-11-2019, 02:03 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Edgar Lowe - 07-11-2019, 02:53 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Hedd_Jones - 07-11-2019, 03:08 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Betts - 07-11-2019, 04:07 PM
RE: 1923 chummy - by Tony Betts - 07-11-2019, 07:33 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)