Brabham BT14

[Marcus Mussa]

Does this mean the car is now in Australia?

When I saw it in an underground garage in Monaco, after the Coys sale, the person with me (initials AB, I am sure you all know who I mean!) said that in his opinion it was probably a BT18.
The Coys sale catalogue described it as chassis FL-8-65 however, as you say, the chassis plate clearly states FL-9-65. How Coys could describe it as chassis FL-8 beats me, being such a reputable company.

I understand that the ACM letter saying the car would be eligible if entered for the historic GP was written on the assumption that it was chassis FL-8-65 (as described in the request sent to them), which ran in F1 albeit non-championship.

Anyway I hope the buyer in Australia picked it up cheap; I am sure he will have lots of fun racing the car.

Marcus

[allenbrown]

Originally Posted by Marcus Mussa

(initials AB, I am sure you all know who I mean!

It's not me!

[Andrew Fellowes]

Denis I don't have anything that would help, I should have sent you a reply sooner, sorry. Below is what Coys said (as has been mentioned 2 pages earlier), perhaps the Italian owner can give the name and address of the Kiwi he bought it from.

Chassis FL 8 65 is recorded as having competed in various non championship Formula 1 races in 1965 including Goodwood and Brands Hatch where it was piloted by two well known drivers, John Caldwell and Rodney Bloor as well as reaching a 17th place at the Silverstone trophy of that year. The car was subsequently shipped out to New Zealand where it enjoyed a second racing career and it was from here that its current Italian owner acquired the car. In his hands the car has enjoyed a (recent) nut and bolt restoration and has competed successfully in a number of important European Historic Races. Today it is presented in immaculate condition and is accompanied by FIA paperwork and a letter from 'Automobile Club de Monaco' stating its eligibility to compete in this years 'Grand Prix Historique'.

Do Coys have any responsibility for the description they write or is it journalistic free range?
Andrew

[allenbrown]

Originally Posted by allenbrown

FL-2-65 - John Butterworth 1965-68 - Dennis Chorley 1969 ... missing 1970-71 ... Geoff Inglis in 1972 ... Devon in 1978 ... John Ampt (Aus) - Noel Robson (Aus) 1988; retained 2006

Bob Breeze is sharing ex-Butterworth 1.5 Brabham BT14 with Chorley: Autosport 2 May 1969 p17.

[Marcus Mussa]

Originally Posted by Andrew Fellowes

Do Coys have any responsibility for the description they write or is it journalistic free range?
Andrew

That is exactly what somebody asked Coys at the sale (I think he quoted them an excerpt from the trade descriptions act!) - they replied "this is what the seller told us"!!!

Marcus

[Chris Townsend]

Elsewhere in the auction world this would be a wholly reprehensible [and possibly illegal] act since it constitutes a mis-selling. It is the responsibility of the auction house to check provenance, rather than simply go on the description provided by the vendor. [though, of course, this is how a lot of art looted by the Nazi's subsequently got sold, because the auction houses took supplied provenance at face value] and there are now a large number of collectors having to return such works to rightful owners, and hopefully queuing up to sue lax auction houses

Chris

[allenbrown]

How interesting.

If only there was an objective and independent research organisation that the auction houses could turn to for some sort of authentication...

[Steve Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by allenbrown

How interesting.

If only there was an objective and independent research organisation that the auction houses could turn to for some sort of authentication...

If only .........

[Andrew Fellowes]

Originally Posted by Marcus Mussa

That is exactly what somebody asked Coys at the sale (I think he quoted them an excerpt from the trade descriptions act!) - they replied "this is what the seller told us"!!!

Marcus that’s almost unbelievable!
If there has been any misrepresentation that is not legal then the new owner certainly has the tenacity and ability to seek justice.




-and independent research organisation, my my, could start a web site too.

[grice80]

I can assure all you guys with absolute certanty that the purchaser of this vehicle believed it to be a BT14 CHASSIS FL-8-65 based on the in formation supplied by Coys.
IT was not untill the car arrived in Australia that any thing else was even considered.
I personally unloaded the vehicle from the container and was shocked when I saw the chassis plate.

Some very high priced lawers have been consulted on the matter and Coys approached in regard to misrepresentation and responsibility.

Coys answer was direct and blunt. They deny any responsibility,want nothing to do with the car,And will not enter into any correspondance regarding the car.

One problem is that the vehicle was purchased in Monaco,paid for in London,and we and the vehicle are now in Australia! We have been given legal advise saying that costs to run such a case could be in access of $200,000.00.

So much for purchasing from a respected and reputable auction house.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Chris Townsend

Elsewhere in the auction world this would be a wholly reprehensible [and possibly illegal] act since it constitutes a mis-selling. It is the responsibility of the auction house to check provenance, rather than simply go on the description provided by the vendor.
Chris

That would not appear to be standard practice for UK motoring auctions (or art come to think of it) - personally I'm suprised to hear that there are some auction houses who would think of this as reprehensible, but I hope it is true.

I've heard one of the UK (car specialist) auction houses suggest to someone who registers a complaint that they should read the small print which informs you that they do not guarantee the information in any way.

In some countries they can't adopt such a cavalier attitude, but in the UK such behaviour is seemingly acceptable (as with other businesses e.g. the London stock exchange is notably less restrictive than some others).

Apparently one auction house discovered that other countries laws are different when they pretended to sell a car at auction in France/Monaco.
Having ran it up to a suitably impressive figure (over reserve), they discovered that they were obliged to pay the seller despite not having found a real buyer.
The attendant 'huissier' (Government appointed official, who is present at any French auction) confirmed that the hammer price was a legally binding contract.
(n.b. one reason why it wasn't surprising that the recent Auto-Union auction never happened).

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by grice80

So much for purchasing from a respected and reputable auction house.

Sorry, I thought you said he bought it via Coys, who did he buy it from!!!

[Chris Townsend]

Peter

What I meant was that an auction house would [or should] apply different standards for a work of art. [And in some cases they actually still do, having been sufficiently burned...] If I show up at Christies with a small Matisse under my arm and say 'I'd like to flog this, old chap' they would actually do a little work to check that a: it was real and b: I had legal title to the goods I was selling.
It seems to me that the people who auction classic cars couldn't tell if a car was faked or not and mostly don't give a flying whatever about provenance or accurate description. Perhaps this is because even at their most expensive classic cars are relatively cheap compared to fine art [or not so fine art when a Peter Doig sells for 7 million], more likely it betrays a general attitude in the auction houses to clients and objects alike, that typifies a booming market.

Chris

[grice80]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

Sorry, I thought you said he bought it via Coys, who
he buy it from!!!

The car was purchased at the Coys Monaco auction 2006 lot number (277) The owner is listed as a MR P.Rizzi of Padova Italy.But this gentleman has proved impossible to find.
It should be noted that Coys Euro office that conducted the sale is also in Padova Italy !
As per Mr Luptons comments we believe the car to be a genuine Brabham and would like to rebuilt it to it original specification ie:BT14/15/16/etc so any informationon its history would be most appreciated.

We cannot use the car in Australia unless we can prove its history to be 100% true and correct.

[allenbrown]

FL-2-65 - John Butterworth 1965-68 - Dennis Chorley 1969-70 ... missing 1971 ... Geoff Inglis in 1972 ... Devon in 1978 ... John Ampt (Aus) - Noel Robson (Aus) 1988; retained 2006

Autosport 9 Jul 1970 p50: "Dennis Chorley has returned to the hills in the blown Brabham BT14/21 which he damaged at Shelsley last year".

[allenbrown]

Originally Posted by allenbrown

FL-2-65 - John Butterworth 1965-68 - Dennis Chorley 1969-70 ... missing 1971 ... Geoff Inglis in 1972 ... Devon in 1978 ... John Ampt (Aus) - Noel Robson (Aus) 1988; retained 2006

Autosport 9 Jul 1970 p50: "Dennis Chorley has returned to the hills in the blown Brabham BT14/21 which he damaged at Shelsley last year".

AS 7 Oct 1971 p41: in the 1100cc class at Weston is "the Brabham BT21B of Geoff Inglis". I wonder if that's the BT14/21?

[Denis Lupton]

Allen, That's really interesting,as I helped my friend,John Ampt, when he had the car,and said to him at the time that we should correct the bodywork,as it had a BT21 nose.It's easy to spot,the lower edge of the windscreen where it fits on to the sides of the cockpit is straight,whereas the BT14/15/16 has quite a curve. Noel Robson still has the car,and it still has the BT21 nose.
Denis

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Chris Townsend

Peter

What I meant was that an auction house would [or should] apply different standards for a work of art. [And in some cases they actually still do, having been sufficiently burned...] If I show up at Christies with a small Matisse under my arm and say 'I'd like to flog this, old chap' they would actually do a little work to check that a: it was real and b: I had legal title to the goods I was selling.
It seems to me that the people who auction classic cars couldn't tell if a car was faked or not and mostly don't give a flying whatever about provenance or accurate description. Perhaps this is because even at their most expensive classic cars are relatively cheap compared to fine art [or not so fine art when a Peter Doig sells for 7 million], more likely it betrays a general attitude in the auction houses to clients and objects alike, that typifies a booming market.

Chris

Chris

I agree they seem to put more effort into researching paintings & antiques, maybe it is because by their nature cars will very rarely be totally original, or as you say cars simply aren't worth so much of their extremely valuable time

But I doubt that they put as much effort into artworks as you would hope - they also tend to use a limited number of experts who can sometimes be biased and possibly not possessing a great deal of expertise.

(n.b. A friend's brother apparently made a piece of "Bugatti" furniture, the auction house expert's main criteria for authentication was where did it come from (e.g. documentation) rather than investigating the item itself - of course that happens a lot with cars as well).

How could you value an expensive painting that has been repainted (!), or had the canvas (chassis) replaced!!
(Actually I think it has been known for the canvas or whatever it is painted on to be replaced?).

Given that sort of thing happens all the time it would be risky to stand behind all the statements they are presented with, so total denial is safer.

In the case of something like this Brabham where the auction house's total commission is 'only' around £5000 they clearly aren't making enough money out of the transaction for it to be worth their time investigating the car's history!!!!!

Peter

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by grice80

The car was purchased at the Coys Monaco auction 2006 lot number (277) The owner is listed as a MR P.Rizzi of Padova Italy.But this gentleman has proved impossible to find.
It should be noted that Coys Euro office that conducted the sale is also in Padova Italy !
As per Mr Luptons comments we believe the car to be a genuine Brabham and would like to rebuilt it to it original specification ie:BT14/15/16/etc so any informationon its history would be most appreciated.

We cannot use the car in Australia unless we can prove its history to be 100% true and correct.

That Coys would a totally unrelated company to the one that failed to pay the vendors after one of their auctions, or were caught out misrepresenting an F2 Lotus.....

I'm sure the car is a genuine Brabham, the problem will always be identifying which one it is.

It should be possible to identify the model - upright and angled engines had the engine mounting points on the chassis in different places for example.
BT14/15/16 had the drivers bulkhead made from pairs of tubes, the later version (BT18) used rectangular section tubing.
BT14/15/16 used a shorter upright with the lower radius rod picking up part way up the chassis - later models had taller uprights picking up on the lower chassis rail.
etc.

Finding out which chassis number it is will be dependant on tracing the previous owners - and if you can't find the seller then that is tricky (a lawyer's letter to the auction house suggesting they at least find valid contact details for the seller (they should have his bank details and his bank might know where he is) should not cost a fortune).

If you need to know the complete ownership history of cars before you are allowed to run, I suspect you will find that some cars in Australia might have somewhat artificial histories.
It would be more sensible if the authorities just insisted that the car is to original specification - in an ideal world everyone would know all the histories but that doesn't happen, the rules should be based around reality rather than some eutopian fantasy.

[grice80]

Dear Peter,
your comments may be quite valid,however thats the way it is here in Australia.
You are required to have a complete and documented history of a vehicle before you can get a log book to race it in historics.This history needs to include,signed statements from previous owners/mechanics etc,photographic history/magazine articals etc etc etc.The vehicle must also race in the identical specification that it raced in in the period,eg;motor gearbox wheel width etc.

So as you can see and as we want to race this car,without any history it is worthless to us as it sits in the corner of the shed and cannot turn a wheel.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by grice80

Dear Peter,
your comments may be quite valid,however thats the way it is here in Australia.
You are required to have a complete and documented history of a vehicle before you can get a log book to race it in historics.This history needs to include,signed statements from previous owners/mechanics etc,photographic history/magazine articals etc etc etc.The vehicle must also race in the identical specification that it raced in in the period,eg;motor gearbox wheel width etc.

So as you can see and as we want to race this car,without any history it is worthless to us as it sits in the corner of the shed and cannot turn a wheel.

When you bought the car it presumably didn't come with the requisite documentation (very few cars would), were you going to have to trace the history before they would accept it anyway?

The principle behind these rules is wonderful, but they don't reflect reality and certainly don't mean the cars in Australia are all genuine.

Many years ago a friend was surprised when helping load (for NZ) a well known historic race car to discover that the paint on the chassis was still wet!! The paperwork would have been well and truly dry though.

If you turned to forgery (or cloning) I doubt you'd be the first!!

[grice80]

Please understand ,I did not buy this vehicle. It was purchased by a client/friend of mine who has no history in vehicles such as these.
He was given a complete history of the vehicle by 'Coys', the history for FL-8-65!
It all appeared kosher to him,in his own words to me he had complete trust in 'Coys' and their reputation. That was his first mistake.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by grice80

Please understand ,I did not buy this vehicle. It was purchased by a client/friend of mine who has no history in vehicles such as these.
He was given a complete history of the vehicle by 'Coys', the history for FL-8-65!
It all appeared kosher to him,in his own words to me he had complete trust in 'Coys' and their reputation. That was his first mistake.

Would the Aus authorities have accepted the car on the basis of the supplied documentation?
Or was it the authorities who raised the question about its identity?
If they haven't raised the matter (e.g. read this thread!) will they stop him using it??

If Coys are being unhelpful, it might be worth telling them that you will report the facts to all the magazines that they advertise in (most will be happy to report a story that could be of benefit to their readers) - if you are careful to only report facts then you can't lose a court case, if they then wanted to start proceedings against your customer that would avoid him having to bear the costs of starting the case.

[Andrew Fellowes]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

Would the Aus authorities have accepted the car on the basis of the supplied documentation?

No.

Or was it the authorities who raised the question about its identity?
If they haven't raised the matter (e.g. read this thread!) will they stop him using it??

They simply will not grant the paperwork needed.

The documentary evidence gets circulated to state registrars, so the evidence is very carefully checked by a lot of people. Its no good just to claim that this is the truth because Joe Bloggs told me so. The problem lies in the fact that here they don’t run the car to comply with the formula rules in which it participated originally, rather it has to run in the exact spec it did, but not necessarily in its first year, you can pick the year, or do as I did and pick two years and have an “either or” situation.
Now that makes life difficult for some, and on occasions like this car, impossible. Until it can be established how the car ran at some stage in its competitive life it won’t be granted a Certificate of Description. (I don’t mean to confuse everyone but there are two documents this car will need, the C of D and a Log Book, the latter is used to record every race and any mechanical infringement.)

Will ‘they’ read this forum? Yup you bet, in fact one helped start this chassis section of Ten Tenths.

If Coys are being unhelpful, it might be worth telling them that you will report the facts to all the magazines that they advertise in (most will be happy to report a story that could be of benefit to their readers) - if you are careful to only report facts then you can't lose a court case, if they then wanted to start proceedings against your customer that would avoid him having to bear the costs of starting the case.

Magazines are always looking for good copy, this is a very neat idea and surely well worth a try.

Andrew

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Andrew Fellowes

No.

They simply will not grant the paperwork needed.

So the buyer was always going to have to go through the process of establishing the car's history.
The big difference now is that he doesn't have a clue where he is starting from.

Finding the vendor would be easiest, or someone who worked on the car recently - there has to be a limited number of possibilities in Italy.
Could be worth asking Monaco if they did receive an application for this car, if so who was it from.....
And check with the Italian RAC who applied for the papers, where was the car at the time etc.
HGPCA are another organisation that might have received an entry from it.

Alongside that, trying to embarass Coys into being more helpful should at least make the buyer feel a bit better.