Gentlemen (and ladies if some are present),
Having just done a quick check of the data supplied in the advert, I
find that the Chassis number K0147 is nothing more than a dyslexic
typist. This car is, in fact, K0417 and is listed as such on the
Triple-M Register as car # 2134. It is NOT, like so many others, listed
as a replica K3, but simply as a "K1 Racer" It's last owner was listed a
Jacqueline Jenkins of the UK in 1996.
I think if anyone could be described as stretching the truth, it might
well be Coys. It isn't until well into the description that they
describe this as a K1.
Regards,
Lew Palmer
(Registrar, NAMMMR)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-mg-mmm@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-mg-mmm@autox.team.net]
On Behalf Of Pip Bucknell
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 7:26 PM
To: Kellmg@aol.com
Cc: MMM List UK
Subject: Re: another disput looming
Brian,
Thanks for your comments, too.
I am not wanting to re organise the MMM Register, but they have been
guilty of
getting a couple of things wrong before.
As an example :- When I first joined in early 1960's (as member number
9) I
don't think anyone ever considered that somebody would have anticipated
prices
reaching the levels they have today. I paid 1100.00 for my K3 in 1960.
And
the matter of replicas was never raised in my presence during the time I
lived
in UK - 1963 & 64.
A replica, by definition, is a copy - but made by the original "artist"
such
as 12/12's. Well that is what the Oxford Dictionary says & I guess a
USA
dictionary would be likely to have a similar meaning.
To take a K1 chassis & try to turn it into a K3 is at best a conversion,
not a
REPLICA and if it purports to be something that it ain't, (that is a K3)
I
still see it as a fake. It is also a non standard or non original MMM
MG. It
is however one step better than trying to make a K3 from nothing. It
still is
a MG that I would be keen to compete with in speed events, but I would
not
grant the dignity to a non factory based car, of competing against it.
Now, please understand, I do not say that the MMM Register has got it
wrong,
but if it ain't what it purports to be, it is a FAKE regardless of what
MMM
register decides and when the Oxford Dictionary says that Replica is a
copy
made by the original "artist", then I think that has some real meaning.
Have a nice day, everyone.
Regards
Pip Bucknell
AUSTRALIA
----- Original Message -----
From: Kellmg@aol.com
To: mgwizard@caloundra.net
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: another disput looming
Listers,
Being the guilty party who listed this originally. Pun intended.
I would have been more correct in the subject title to list it
"Replica K3"
as opposed to "K3 Replica."
As for Pips remarks the "Our new Pre War MG Register Captain in
Australia is
grappling with these terms" the UK Register has made this distinction
many
years ago when they decided on the "Replica" as a prefix. So as not to
be
confused with a 12/12 Rep. for instance. In this format it would read
"Replica
12/12 Replica."
The MMM Register register these replicas as "Replica K3."
Who was it that asked Mike Allison "Why are you trying to reinvent the
wheel"?
More to the point of the advert, and there have been no takers as yet.
Chassis Number. K0147?? Didn't any one tell them the Abingdon
telephone
number??
Further, have you read Bob Clare's, the MMM Registrar's, comments in
the
October MMM Bulletin? Page 15, last paragraph.
Brian Kelly.
PA 0512????
In a message dated 01/05/2002 5:13:03 PM Central Standard Time,
mgwizard@caloundra.net writes:
My dear friends around the world.
It was nice to see the pictures of the destroyed K1 and I thank you
for
the
listing. I am glad the PRESENT owner does not make it out to be a
K3. So
many do. And what about future owners.
However, to call it a meticulous "upgrade to K3 specifications" is
somewhat
wide of the mark.
I enjoyed Mr C Sherriff's comments as he accurately describes this
car as
a
FAKE. That is, it is purporting to be something that it is not.
Perhaps you would all consider if it is time that we gave these cars
their
correct name. This car can only be a modified K1 or a K3 fake.
Surely it
is
not a replica.
Our new Pre War MG Register Captain in Australia is grappling with
these
terms
and it will be interesting to learn what he decides on these
matters.
I have said that I dislike the word "special" when describing MMM
MG's.
The
reasons is that, to me, all MMM cars were special. Some specially
bad &
some
specially good, but nun the less, still special. So when some one
wants
to
change a car from this group, to something that it was not
originally
produced
to be by making "it" look like something else, isn't it truly a
FAKE.
Well, today is Sunday and I guess it is time to leave you all to
ponder
those
words
Best wishes to all for 2002.
Pip Bucknell
AUSTRALIA
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or
try
/// http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/wilma/mg-mmm
/// Send list postings to mg-mmm@autox.team.net
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/wilma/mg-mmm
/// Send list postings to mg-mmm@autox.team.net
|