Auction fakes...

[Costafortune]

(quote in file)

Aaah, the history file.

[bryan]

Interestingly, it's the very same Stacey Williams of CCA (who is the contact for this horrid fake listing) who pulled a clone from their auction last year which had been identified by me and Pete.

[ORB58]

If that mini on C&C had been re-shelled, why does it have all of the later parts? Like many have said, somebody has just stuck a 60s VIN and plate onto a later car that was already complete.

[cockney21]

looks like they have amended the listing to "1980s" Mini, reg still the same.

[beardylonodn]

I am pleased they have changed the listing and removed the reference to a MK1, although obviously it still is a circa 1989/90 shell with a 1963 identity. This change of description may be in part due to my messages to them, I know others contacted them too. After seeing the listing on here, and like everyone being surprised they were describing that vehicle as a MK1, I politely pointed out some of the issues. They questioned me and asked for further clarification, I hesitated as I didn't really want to get involved further. However, I ended up producing a 3 page document comparing that vehicle to a genuine 1963 vehicle. I said please contact any mini club in the UK, and they will tell you exactly what I have said, so it seems to have done the trick.

[cockney21]

I think they knew already when I called them, before posting the thread, if they didn't then how are they running classic auctions! A case of turning a blind eye and grab the cash...

[Pete]

Good luck with it but just playing devils advocate here for a minute you can understand their scepticism being asked to change their auction listings based on the opinions of random punters contacting them, where do they draw the line, are some doing it out of malice? You can understand their reluctance but it’s interesting to see them actually listening to you . Makes me wonder whether the auctions of several very high profile fake works and Downton type Ss in recent years would still have gone through unedited if they happened now.

[cockney21]

I've noticed how some auction houses using Youtube turn off the Comments when they know the car is slightly iffy, but happy to keep them on for really nice straight and honest cars!
I don't think they can portray themselves as honest sellers of classic and collectable cars if they are happy to mislead people, imagine if BCA started knowing selling ringers...they'd be investigated straight away. Just my opinion, I just don't like seeing people being mislead by those who know better.

[beardylonodn]

True, and I was aware of this, but as I said to them, don't just listen to me, please do you own research, as anyone with an ounce of Classic mini knowledge will spot all of the issues I highlighted and many more. So common sense prevailed.

Good luck with it but just playing devils advocate here for a minute you can understand their scepticism being asked to change their auction listings based on the opinions of random punters contacting them, where do they draw the line, are some doing it out of malice? You can understand their reluctance but it’s interesting to see them actually listening to you . Makes me wonder whether the auctions of several very high profile fake works and Downton type Ss in recent years would still have gone through unedited if they happened now.

[Pete]

Well that’s a good thing and speaking up is the right thing to do but I know just how very unpopular I’ve made myself with lots of bent people doing just that over the years.

[Herbert]

I have informed the DVLC and they assured me that the auction house will be notified of any prosecution if they sell it as a 1963 car. I hate people that do this, it shouldnt be allowed.

[Exminiman]

Re-shelled...so they missed the mark when sourcing a brand new shell or Q plate after the conversion and test.

I'm can't for the life of me see why people are willing to break the law with an old car but would run a mile if it was a 2 year old car!

Imagine turning up with a MK2 Escort Popular on MK1 Escort Mexico plates and V5, I would think Bangers and Cash gang would laugh at you...but Minis "No problem"...just let me see the cash!

The difference with a Mk1 to Mk2 Escort is a major change of body shape obvious to all but as said in previous posts to a non-Mini enthusiast a classic Mini never changed (apart from the Clubman front) and the finer 'anorak' details are of little interest to most people, even if you bothered to point them out.
Also most 'Fast Fords' models also have significant numbers of say Mk1 Escort Mexico plates and V5 on basic model Mk1 Escort donors with varying degrees of accuracy in spec and descriptions of history....not to mention Land Rovers!

I think this is a really good point. It would have been (and still would be I think) legal to re-shell a 1963 Mini into a new later shell because they are similar. For a long time that was your only option except scrapping the car. What has changed is that earlier shells have become more valuable to people who care - this was not really the case for a long time. Obviously, to those who care, an original shell is desirable, but just because a car has been re-shelled, it doesn't automatically make it illegal (worth being careful of what you put in print)

[beardylonodn]

Of course reshells of earlier vehicles are legal, absolutely, but using parts sympathetic to the original vehicle. However in this instance, and which has been previously said, this is not a reshell, but a clear and lazy case of someone assigning of a 1963 identity to 1989/90 car, probably for a quick profit and to avoid road tax and lately gaining MOT exemption as a bonus. Also with zero effort to disguise that fact to the layman, as it clearly is a later body shell, engine, running gear, switch gear, everything except the overriders and the black and white number plates!
So I’m not sure what you mean, when you say to be careful what you put in print, as the seller has changed the auction description, so common sense has prevailed.

Re-shelled...so they missed the mark when sourcing a brand new shell or Q plate after the conversion and test.

I'm can't for the life of me see why people are willing to break the law with an old car but would run a mile if it was a 2 year old car!

Imagine turning up with a MK2 Escort Popular on MK1 Escort Mexico plates and V5, I would think Bangers and Cash gang would laugh at you...but Minis "No problem"...just let me see the cash!

The difference with a Mk1 to Mk2 Escort is a major change of body shape obvious to all but as said in previous posts to a non-Mini enthusiast a classic Mini never changed (apart from the Clubman front) and the finer 'anorak' details are of little interest to most people, even if you bothered to point them out.
Also most 'Fast Fords' models also have significant numbers of say Mk1 Escort Mexico plates and V5 on basic model Mk1 Escort donors with varying degrees of accuracy in spec and descriptions of history....not to mention Land Rovers!

I think this is a really good point. It would have been (and still would be I think) legal to re-shell a 1963 Mini into a new later shell because they are similar. For a long time that was your only option except scrapping the car. What has changed is that earlier shells have become more valuable to people who care - this was not really the case for a long time. Obviously, to those who care, an original shell is desirable, but just because a car has been re-shelled, it doesn't automatically make it illegal (worth being careful of what you put in print)

[Exminiman]

So I’m not sure what you mean, when you say to be careful what you put in print, as the seller has changed the auction description, so common sense has prevailed.

I am just saying lets not get all evangelical about this, it is not always black and white - its an opinion!

My point is, might be worth being careful what you put in print, if you pick the wrong advertiser, you could end up in court yourself defending your comments....or causing agro for the forum

[cockney21]

Just to get this straight how is a "reshell" of a vehicle permitted if it doesn't follow the new shell or inspection/ Q plate rule? Surely if it does not meet these points it is not permitted to display the V5, that was associated with another vehicle, and be legally used on the public road. Am I missing something?

[Costafortune]

The Wise Man follows only one path with DVLA.

Tell them nothing. Volunteer as little information as humanly possible. Make Ambiguity your middle name.

[Peter Laidler]

Wise words there......

[mab01uk]

Just to get this straight how is a "reshell" of a vehicle permitted if it doesn't follow the new shell or inspection/ Q plate rule? Surely if it does not meet these points it is not permitted to display the V5, that was associated with another vehicle, and be legally used on the public road. Am I missing something?

Reshells using a secondhand shell were legal and quite common during restorations before the DVLA introduced the current new shell/Q plate rules in the late 1980's. Therefore many of today's surviving Mk1 Mini Cooper/Cooper S that were first restored back in the 1970/80's, using donor shells from low mileage 'Little old lady' one owner, rust free, Mini 850 Automatics' are legal as the law is not retrospective.

I was a member of the original 'Mini Cooper Club' from the day it was formed in 1979 by Ray Holman and this was the standard way of restoring a rusty or basket case/write off Mini Cooper back then. It was rarely financially viable to carry out the 'barn find' restorations seen today as values of restored early Mini Coopers were not that high and many of the early Mk1 panels available today from companies like Mini-Machine were not available.
Sadly as a result an original Mk1 or Mk2 Mini 850 Automatic is now a very rare classic car!

[Exminiman]

Just to get this straight how is a "reshell" of a vehicle permitted if it doesn't follow the new shell or inspection/ Q plate rule? Surely if it does not meet these points it is not permitted to display the V5, that was associated with another vehicle, and be legally used on the public road. Am I missing something?

Reshells using a secondhand shell were legal and quite common during restorations before the DVLA introduced the current new shell/Q plate rules in the late 1980's. Therefore many of today's surviving Mk1 Mini Cooper/Cooper S that were first restored back in the 1970/80's, using donor shells from low mileage 'Little old lady' one owner, rust free, Mini 850 Automatics' are legal as the law is not retrospective.

Quite true, “can of worms” springs to mind, these cars were rotten and being scrapped or re shelled in the 80s, let alone 45 years later.Do you really know if your shell is the original shell, just looking about the right age means nothing when you just have to unscrew the chassis number and screw it onto another body.
Also, slightly different inverse point, in the past, restorations were less age specific on details, I can think of a couple of older restorations that if they appeared for sale, would be slated for being wrong, or the wrong age shell, but I know are actually original shells, just restored in the past when early panels were not available or people didn’t worry as much about date specific “factory correctness”.

[beardylonodn]

It seems this vehicle sold for £2138 today. Much less than the estimate.