A friendly international forum for people interested in the tuning & modification of classic BMC vehicles
https://mk1-forum.net/
I've seen it a Mathewsons a number of times. I think its been in 5 sales and never got to reserve. The buyer is trying to get their build costs back.Brynmor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:16 am Does anyone know this car https://mathewsons.co.uk/auctions/aucti ... orris-mini
Maybe the vendor and auction house should read these books.
But were do you race it? It's not a pre-66 car, it's a MkIV shell so will not get FIA papers. The only pace I can think of is hillclimbs, and at 30-40,000, that's a lot of money.woodypup59 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:35 am I've seen that car at Mathewsons. Its highly modified, to some sort of race spec, so to the right person will be perfect.
The seller / Mathewsons just need to find that person.
It would be interesting to see if it has the hydrolastic pipe bracketry on the underside of the shell and the corner wheel arch strengtheners in the boot. Also larger holes on bulkhead to acomodate the hydro pipes. That would match well to the larger MK2 rear window.dannymann97 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:56 am
** BELOW IS THE RESPONSE FROM THE OWNER OF ATW359A **
Doors don’t fit , could it be front half Mk1 rear half Mk2 and not done very well as the door openings are the wrong size . 6 vents sills covering a join?minimk1man wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:48 amIt would be interesting to see if it has the hydrolastic pipe bracketry on the underside of the shell and the corner wheel arch strengtheners in the boot. Also larger holes on bulkhead to acomodate the hydro pipes. That would match well to the larger MK2 rear window.dannymann97 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:56 am
** BELOW IS THE RESPONSE FROM THE OWNER OF ATW359A **
That crossed my mind as well an old cut shut giving the seller some benefit of doubt, but the even with a newer rear end cut shut and maybe a new front panel fitted at some point, that doesnt account for the holes in the A postroymck wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 11:38 amDoors don’t fit , could it be front half Mk1 rear half Mk2 and not done very well as the door openings are the wrong size . 6 vents sills covering a join?minimk1man wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:48 amIt would be interesting to see if it has the hydrolastic pipe bracketry on the underside of the shell and the corner wheel arch strengtheners in the boot. Also larger holes on bulkhead to acomodate the hydro pipes. That would match well to the larger MK2 rear window.dannymann97 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:56 am
** BELOW IS THE RESPONSE FROM THE OWNER OF ATW359A **
I agree with the above and I can't see the wheel arch strengtheners in the boot but notice the front bulkhead is missing the extra nuts for the MK2 speedo cowl (I know these are easily removed though)minimk1man wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:48 amIt would be interesting to see if it has the hydrolastic pipe bracketry on the underside of the shell and the corner wheel arch strengtheners in the boot. Also larger holes on bulkhead to acomodate the hydro pipes. That would match well to the larger MK2 rear window.dannymann97 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:56 am
** BELOW IS THE RESPONSE FROM THE OWNER OF ATW359A **
Indeed I was thinking of it more for rallying, but the lack of a spec is somewhat limitingsurfblue63 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:30 amI've seen it a Mathewsons a number of times. I think its been in 5 sales and never got to reserve. The buyer is trying to get their build costs back.Brynmor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:16 am Does anyone know this car https://mathewsons.co.uk/auctions/aucti ... orris-mini
dannymann97 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:56 am ** 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.
Check the V5 and any old logbooks as Enid Blyton may have owned it.dannymann97 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:56 am ** 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.
Or hes been on Rolex Bob’s car sales courseCostafortune wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:28 pmCheck the V5 and any old logbooks as Enid Blyton may have owned it.dannymann97 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:56 am ** 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.
Why has he mentioned his age in his defence, its irrelevant, Fritzl was even older .......
Good luck, really hope every thing works out, I can’t imagine how dissapointed you must feel.dannymann97 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:05 pm Hi guys,
After several discussions with CCA they are still adamant that ATW359A is a 'really special thing' and a 'genuine car'. However, as we all know that this is a load of rubbish. The expect full payment from me which I have disputed and left in the hands of my hard working legal team. Myself and my legal team have contacted several classic car experts and classic Mini specialists which have confirmed that ATW359A is not a genuine MK1 Austin Mini. There are several issues with the car as of which some of them have been spotted by you guys. With all the evidence that I have gathered against CCA I am in a strong position to fight this in court if it comes that.
I am extremely disappointed with the level of customer care from CCA considering I have been buying and selling with them for years. They certainly won't be getting anymore business from me!
Anyway, I will keep you all informed.
