Accepted Practice for Dating Re-Bodied Classics?

[Tatra_Man]

Hello,

I have a question about what the accepted practice is for dating re-bodied classic automobiles.

Over the years I have seen many legitimately re-bodied classics at concours events. One thing that has always puzzled me about these cars is that the chassis date is the only year stated when the automobile is displayed. The newer body doesn?t seem to bear any significance when dating the car, despite the fact that it is often the newer body and not the chassis that makes the car the masterpiece it is. Is this the accepted method for dating a re-bodied classic?

The reason I ask this is because I am very interested in the evolution of automobile body design (styling). I enjoy studying where certain features first originated in the business. Yet, sometimes this becomes very difficult to do because of the apparent practice of using only chassis dates for re-bodied automobiles.

A recent example has particular meaning to a Tatra-lover like myself. The "round door" Rolls Royce owned by Mr. Petersen is a 1935 body constructed on a 1925 chassis. The rear end of the 1935 Jonkheere body built for the 1925 Rolls chassis is obviously inspired by the 1934 Tatra T77. Yet, if a 1934 Tatra T77 were sitting next to the Rolls at a concours event, nearly everyone would assume that Tatra copied the Rolls nine years after the fact because the Rolls will be labeled as a 1925 rather than a 1935.

So, why isn?t the Rolls labeled as a 1935 instead? Or, perhaps more appropriately, why isn?t it considered a 1925/1935 automobile?

What is the CCCA's take on this issue?

[bob joynt]

The CCCA observes both the automotive industry's practice and that of the hobby in general of dating cars, rebodied or not, from the date of construction of the underlying chassis. Today. the chassis is considered in most cases to be the key determinant of whether or not a given vehicle is recognized as a Full Classic. The body basically is an attachment to the chassis and can either enhance or detract from the overall appeal of the car.

When the Classics were originally manufactured, the builders identified each vehicle with a Serial Number which in most cases was the frame or engine number. To my knowledge, a body number was never so used. In addition, many Classic manufacturers, both domestic and overseas, did not build bodies but contracted for them from outside coachbuilders i.e. Duesenberg, Rolls Royce, Locomobile, Bentley, Isotta, Hispano etc. In many cases, currently existing Classics are carrying their 2nd or 3rd body, all which were mounted within the Classic era. It was also customary for dealers to transfer bodies around to different chassis' depending upon the market demands. Clearly, the only thing of consistency in all of this for identification purposes is the underlying chassis and when it was built.

[West Peterson]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clearly, the only thing of consistency in all of this for identification purposes is the underlying chassis and when it was built. </div></div>

Or, more accurately, when it was initially sold.

[Tatra_Man]

Thanks for your interesting and informative replies.

While I understand and agree with your comments, I still feel that something is missing by not being made aware of the date of the coachwork on a rebodied automobile - if that date is known.

I'm not sure about CCCA events, but at someplace like Pebble Beach it is the coachwork that decides whether a vehicle is a possible contender for Best of Show. From there it's just a matter of the quality of restoration. In such instances, the coachwork is deemed the most significant element of an automobile In reality, the maker of the chassis is of little consequence (although it will certainly be that of a Classic in the CCCA's sense of the word).

As there's a huge difference between a body made in the 1920s and one from the 1930s, wouldn't it be a more historically precise to list both the chassis and coachwork dates of a rebodied car (such as a 1925/1935 Rolls)?

Has this ever been considered an issue within the CCCA? And do you think that owners of rebodied automobiles would consider doing such as possibly damaging to their automobile's reputation?

[Rusty_OToole]

You have a point. But for any car in the collector car world the date of the body and other details will be published if known. In the case of the round door Rolls we know when the chassis was built, and who built the original body (now long gone) and who built the replacement body and when.

Some of this information is from Rolls Royce archives. Some from other sources.

So we know the origin, and the car was well publicised in the US from the forties on. There are some gaps in its history. The point is, whatever is known is available to the public including details of the replacement body's history. This is true of all the significant collector cars.

[West Peterson]

I wrote that 3 years ago. I think I was referring to the fact that some states titled their cars according to the year in which it was sold.

[Dynaflash8]

West, that is true, and Maryland was one of those states.

[West Peterson]

... which means you could have a 1919 title for an early-production 1920 car, or you could have a 1920 title for a leftover 1919 car. Or, as in the case of WWII, many titles show cars as being 1943, 1944 or 1945, when we all know that cars weren't built then.

[Dynaflash8]

In fact, a friend in Virginia has a 1944 Ford pickup truck and refuses to believe it's really a 1942 Ford pickup truck, lol