It's also been plater*ped - ATW359A is a re-registration. Could vaguely understand the subterfuge if it was the original number but why bother making it out to be a 62' unless there was no V5 with the shell. Comes with £100 worth of wicker baskets though...
It's also been plater*ped - ATW359A is a re-registration. Could vaguely understand the subterfuge if it was the original number but why bother making it out to be a 62' unless there was no V5 with the shell. Comes with £100 worth of wicker baskets though...
This just shows how not looking carefully can land you with something that is over priced. Hammered at £13,000, plus commission (and VAT) means the buyer paid £14,560.
Much more sensible was the Mk2 Auto Traveller which hammered at £7500, or £8400 inc. comm. and tax
An A suffix is 1963 and engine number is far later than the 1962 it's supposed to be. My 66 has 6 digits after H, this one has 7 so maybe 1969.
Think the boot lid is much later as well.
There are SO many things "wrong" with that car . The new owner will have a shock if he/she ever takes it to one of the better Mini shows and hopes for admiration.....
The auctioneers should be ashamed of themselves.
Old English White wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:28 pm
There are SO many things "wrong" with that car . The new owner will have a shock if he/she ever takes it to one of the better Mini shows and hopes for admiration.....
The auctioneers should be ashamed of themselves.
Forget the Auction contract, there may be potential to sue some one for misrepresentation... buyer may be entitled to believe it is what the Auctioneer or seller has advertised it as....but looks as if it isn’t......
If it was a modern car, it would be a Ringer........it stinks
Old English White wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:28 pm
There are SO many things "wrong" with that car . The new owner will have a shock if he/she ever takes it to one of the better Mini shows and hopes for admiration.....
The auctioneers should be ashamed of themselves.
Forget the Auction contract, there may be potential to sue some one for misrepresentation... buyer may be entitled to believe it is what the Auctioneer or seller has advertised it as....but looks as if it isn’t......
If it was a modern car, it would be a Ringer........it stinks.....EDIT, sorry sounds bit of a rant when i read it back....
whistler wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 3:57 pm
An A suffix is 1963 and engine number is far later than the 1962 it's supposed to be. My 66 has 6 digits after H, this one has 7 so maybe 1969.
Think the boot lid is much later as well.
The 'A' suffix is often a bit of red herring and applies here too. It may indicate 1963 but a suffix was not used in Essex until Jan 64, and by then it was 'B', so 'A' never issued at the time. Also 'ATW' would appear have been used 3 times - 1933, 1954 and 1968. Somebody has very kindly trawled through the Glass's guides of the period and come up with a database. Been on here before but here's a link:
whistler wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 3:57 pm
An A suffix is 1963 and engine number is far later than the 1962 it's supposed to be. My 66 has 6 digits after H, this one has 7 so maybe 1969.
Think the boot lid is much later as well.
The 'A' suffix is often a bit of red herring and applies here too. It may indicate 1963 but a suffix was not used in Essex until Jan 64, and by then it was 'B', so 'A' never issued at the time. Also 'ATW' would appear have been used 3 times - 1933, 1954 and 1968. Somebody has very kindly trawled through the Glass's guides of the period and come up with a database. Been on here before but here's a link:
I just wanted to let you guys know that I purchased this Austin Mini at the weekend from CCA auctions. This Mini was supposed to form part of my collection of classics but after reading all your points I have decided that I will no longer be going ahead with the purchase. I am in the process of rejecting the car. i was wondering if somebody could be kind enough to list all the issues so I can forward them onto the CCA.
The most obvious thing that is wrong is the car has the shell from a Mk2 Mini. This can clearly be seen by the size of the rear window.. A Mk1 has a smaller window than the one that the car sold by CCA has.
MK2 rear window.jpg
The other pointers are the boot lid, the courtesy light switch holes in the a-pillars and the front valence has the brake cooling cut outs.
There are a lot of other parts which are incorrect, but it could be argued that they were part of the restoration process.
Good luck with trying to cancel the purchase.
Stuart
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
whistler wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 3:57 pm
An A suffix is 1963 and engine number is far later than the 1962 it's supposed to be. My 66 has 6 digits after H, this one has 7 so maybe 1969.
Think the boot lid is much later as well.
The 'A' suffix is often a bit of red herring and applies here too. It may indicate 1963 but a suffix was not used in Essex until Jan 64, and by then it was 'B', so 'A' never issued at the time. Also 'ATW' would appear have been used 3 times - 1933, 1954 and 1968. Somebody has very kindly trawled through the Glass's guides of the period and come up with a database. Been on here before but here's a link:
Slightly off topic but any idea when in 64 the B was adopted in Wales? My Feb 64 came from City Motors Cardiff without a suffix
Click on the following link. When the page is open click on the letters that are the last two on your plate. You will then be able to see when certain three letter combinations were used and with which year letter.
Slightly off topic but any idea when in 64 the B was adopted in Wales? My Feb 64 came from City Motors Cardiff without a suffix
Click on the following link. When the page is open click on the letters that are the last two on your plate. You will then be able to see when certain three letter combinations were used and with which year letter.
** BELOW IS THE RESPONSE FROM THE OWNER OF ATW359A **
In 2018 having restored this car took it to Brighton Mini Run to try out the car as well to hope to meet Mk 1 club. Two experts looked the car over starting at the engine area as from 1962 the structure had change but was ok .They devoted a lot of time on the guttering as very important on Mk 1 was correct.Next the door aperture was measured also correct.Then the rear window was checked as thought it should have the smaller window, they ran there hands done both sides of the back and asked me to do the same that is only on Mk 1 as owners of Mk 1 will be aware.The glass coding is 1962.
So why has it larger glass-in 1962 the rear narrow window panel had to be reworked slowing production as the tooling needed polishing meaning a month out for the tooling to be worked.If you talk to “Minispares” they will Be able to confirm this .A decision was made to use a stockpile of new larger aperture panels and showed me another owners car which had the same.The boot lid would have different variations as the company were trying to save costs but had “Austin Mini” holes and not a mark 2 as thought by some owners.
The writer is correct in January 1962 the Austin Mini and Mini Minor was dropped and now known as the “MINI” for export reasons but the writer fails to mention that both Austin and Minor continued until mid 1962 when all old bonnets and boots were used up in UK hence why my car has Austin emblems.
History this car was purchase in 1962 confirmed by copy of logbook also showing number transferred by owner in 1970.
This car was driven for some 7 years before having a minor accident taking the car to her friends garage in Cambridge for repair in the meantime she brought a Cortina.
20 years later her friend still had her Mini,Malcolm my friend collected car but with rusty doors and bumpers sold it to Malcolm. He strip car into boxes and started repairs however having re-skinned the doors finding they were too large and gave up.
15 years later purchased Mini in 2017.
The car was sand blasted and to make the doors fit the Body Engineer cut the door skins down the middle and knocked together and welded up no distortion perfect job.
There seems some Mini experts saying it has been reshelled if they had inspected this car they would find its a genuine Mark 1 mini that has not been reshelled and would happy go to Court to prove this.
There was mention of holes on the A frame indicting lights had been fitted I failed to find.
Do they mean the B post that’s seat belt bolts that were never used.
If the buyer looks through the paperwork I supplied the evidence is for all to see as well the costing of renovation .
I am a 74 old man and have all was been upfront with everything I do and would not deceive anybody particularly in this case this car I vouch is genuine Mark 1 and the buyer would be proud to own and will find that proper Mark 1 guys would know the truth that this car that has been off the road for 48 years has been restored to its glory.
I find it sad there are mini owners who think they know it all but Fail to understand the history of such a great car
I Robert Car deem the facts true and would happy to go to court to prove such.
. The new owner will have a shock if he/she ever takes it to one of the better Mini shows and hopes for admiration..... 
