1923 chummy

[Tony Betts]

i dont mind the slagging things down so much.

as we all have are own opinion of what hot or not.

its more that people dont give enough thought to why something has been done the way it has.

for instance, YES YES YES id love to put an original body on my 23 car. even if it costs me well, or a fortune to restore it. but the truth is either there isnt one out there. or nobody will sell one if they have it.

the next thing is people on here dont give consideration to cars with age related numbers. the first thing in peoples heads is the original number has been SOLD. thats why it has an age related.

well all the chassis that were sold from kirby wisk had NO paperwork. because the paperwork was in the house. and the auction company were not allowed in. 

so i dont have the original reg number either. I DIDNT SELL IT.

if anyone can help on that matter, please let me know.

with rear early and sports cars, people should look at the originality of what has survived. or has been painstakingly replaced.

then rip into the work poorly done, or the things like chassis that have been deliberatly faked to con people.

tony.

ps, has anyone ever tried to get an original set of 1923 cowhorns. dynamo. front and rear axle. GEARBOX with monkey puzzle. plus other bits, I HAVE, and if you have. you will seriously know how impossible it is today to build a 1923 austin 7.

[Mike Costigan]

Tony, It was pretty near impossible forty years ago!

[Alan]

The only time it was possible to build a 1923 Austin was 96 years ago. What is possible it to rebuild one. I don’t care if this is achieved with a replacement body. It’s far more important that a pile of bits are returned to the road.

[Edgar Lowe]

i dont mind the slagging things down so much.

as we all have are own opinion of what hot or not.

its more that people dont give enough thought to why something has been done the way it has.

for instance, YES YES YES id love to put an original body on my 23 car. even if it costs me well, or a fortune to restore it. but the truth is either there isnt one out there. or nobody will sell one if they have it.

the next thing is people on here dont give consideration to cars with age related numbers. the first thing in peoples heads is the original number has been SOLD. thats why it has an age related.

well all the chassis that were sold from kirby wisk had NO paperwork. because the paperwork was in the house. and the auction company were not allowed in. 

so i dont have the original reg number either. I DIDNT SELL IT.

if anyone can help on that matter, please let me know.

with rear early and sports cars, people should look at the originality of what has survived. or has been painstakingly replaced.

then rip into the work poorly done, or the things like chassis that have been deliberatly faked to con people.

tony.

ps, has anyone ever tried to get an original set of 1923 cowhorns. dynamo. front and rear axle. GEARBOX with monkey puzzle. plus other bits, I HAVE, and if you have. you will seriously know how impossible it is today to build a 1923 austin 7

Hi Toni
Are you after an early 1923 reg documents? or just any bits for a 1923? 

[Tony Betts]

hi edgar,

im not after a logbook, as RE STAMPING the chassis will change the cars identity.

i have a clear original number stamped on the chassis, and its matching engine with number.

what i would love is, if anyone can match these to the cars original reg number.

i dont mind taking an AGE RELATED number, but as we all know. the original reg gives us the cars history.

for me i would mount a small number plate with the original reg number, on the top of the new age related number plate.

that way the history stays with the car.

and yes im still after 1923 parts, as there are parts i dont have. ESPECIALLY A BODY and WINGS.

there was an original pram hood frame at 750 beaulieu, but theres NO way im paying £1,000 for 3 hoops. i understand it sold to the south coast for £500, were it is likely to spend its life on THE collectors shelf.

i dont mind making what i dont have, so i have the hoops on the 1925 oily rag i can copy.

thanks tony

[Hedd_Jones]

do you have a clue what the registration might have been Tony? Or rather more specifically do you believe a V5 existed 'in the house'?

[Bill Sheehan]

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

[Lance Sheldrick]

In answer to your question Bill, personally, I think at least chassis, body and engine need to be from the same car to call it an original car. Having said that, it only seems to matter if the car in question is either a sports model (particularly Ulster) or an early chummy. It seems that no one gives a damn if a '33 Box saloon has the original engine or even the correct lamps and horn etc.
I remember having this discussion more than forty years ago when a 1927 Austin 7 I knew about was being restored and having a new John Heath chummy body fitted. The original body for the car was an "R" type saloon or "top hat" type and was considered too far gone. Today that saloon body would have been restored, no question. At the time the argument for the chummy replacement body was that in period, many of the more expensive cars were supplied in rolling chassis form for the customer to choose their own coachbuilder, so what was the problem!

[Tony Betts]

hi hedd,

sorry i dont have a clue what the original reg was.

and cant be sure there were ever paperwork at kirby wiske. i know the edmonds auction family quite well, so i know from them they were not allowed in the house for any paperwork.

as we know the company ran for a long time. 

as the engine and chassis were there, its likely it came in as a complete car for spares, anywere from the 1930s to 2010.

if anyone can work out the reg from there, it would bring the cars history back to it.

hi bill.

as for how much you have to have before a car is original, that can only be each individuals decision. and on this forum would be like opening a big can of worms that nobody could get the lid back on.

for me the only part that has to be original, is the chassis. it the number on the chassis that gives the car meaning and acceptance for what it is and when it was originally made. 

from there it down to each individual, 

the original engine is nice, but i wouldnt turn a nice car away because it has an age apparent engine.

same as the rest of the parts, i want them to be age apparent, not original to the car.

as for body, i love someone to prove there is a 1923 austin 7 body out there that has NEVER been repaired. it dont exist. so its up to each person how much repair, is no longer original.

just my opinion, thanks tony

[Mike Costigan]

... as for body, i love someone to prove there is a 1923 austin 7 body out there that has NEVER been repaired. it dont exist. so its up to each person how much repair, is no longer original.

just my opinion, thanks tony

I agree Tony. Those few early cars that were shown at events in the 1960s were all displaying cracking problems at the front of the scuttle; they must all have received major repairs by now.