genuine or repro ??? That is the question !

[shaun]

As an engineer and a restorer of military vehicles since 1981 I am fully in favor of repro parts to complete a project (infact i have just made the top Armour that was missing from my current project). And yes engines, transmissions, running grear all get changed while in service. But in all my years in the Road Transport industry, Military and now the museum world the chassis or Hull (lower hull in carriers) has always been "the Vehicle". If you make a new chassis that is a different vehicle to the one you are restoring, Reparing the chassis is one thing but replacment ???? After a massive landrover show near Peterbobrough last year the Police and DVLA were stopping landrovers and checking chassis, Vins and components. When they found rebuilt vehicles on old reg numbers (upgraded to coil spring and desiel engines )they were conficated and crushed (any vehicle manufactured before jan 1973 is road tax exempt ). Having a used a few old spares on a new chassis does not make it a 1942 vehicle etc.

The other thing to take into consideration are "Safety critical" parts. Brakes, steering, tracks etc. do the parts that have been "reproduced" or repaired meet the construction and use standards ? This area is such a mine field (no pun intented) as any bad publicty due to a poorly built vehicle, involved in an accident and then inspected by VOSA could end up with our vehicles becming banned from the road.

With todays technolagy it is possible to re-manufacture anything, as has been proved with WW2 Jeeps. But is a "repro" Jeep the same value or interest as one that has seen service and been places ? to me a major part of the value is in the object history, sitting in behind the armour or in the hull of something that was used in 1940 is part of the thought provoking experence.

Why are my views such, there are so many good restores out there rebuilding real vehicles and then there are the few who are in it for the money or the glory.

I realise this will touch a nerve with people, but you either have a real Jeep / carrier etc or a repro.

TTFN

[RichardT10829]

personally i am all for repro parts but only because if they are there it will prevent further carriers being pilfered or chopped (my romantic imagination says so) i do believe that these mods should be declared for sure and it is very much down to the owner to do so. i am involved in a reconstruction project at present whereby all of the non salvageable parts or parts new to the boat have been left coated bright green, luckily there is around 98% of that vehicle which is original....now in MV terms this is not really possible as it spoils the asthetics of the machine so what do we do ?

i beleive there is no point stamping the component unless its visable and then by doing so you could ruin the component.... perhaps if this was to be done the MLU family could devise a symbol all be it small bit like the broad arrow which we could spot if we looked for it which would advise of repro or not.


just a thought

I don't believe folk should be passing stuff off as something it is not.... as they say "It is what it is" mind there are very very few carriers out there that can say they are 100% original even during the war

[ajmac]

All vehicles should be 100% original and nothing added to them since they were disposed of postwar.
Great intention, but the simple result would be very few vehicles out there for anyone to see! Virtually no German vehicles at all, that is why the restoration of many Axis vehicles are so shrouded in mystery, it's because all they had was a pallet of bits. In my opinion it doesn't really matter, so long as it looks 100% correct and is based on one particular vehicle that is fine. There is a points system (or was) in the UK for cars and IIRC there used to be some guideline about 15% original parts to keep the ID of a warbird.
Forget our hobby for a moment and look at the wider picture. Take classic / vintage cars which dwarfs the MV hobby.
There are only a small number of original 60's sports cars out there, take a TR6 for example: normally new outer panels, new floor, boot floor, bottom of the A and B pillars, sills, front and rear valence, rare to find the original engine and gearbox by now. New hood, carpets, seats, new chrome trim. That's why 'originality' is such a grey area.
If there were to be a regulation which decreed that all none original parts to that vehicle had to be painted pink, most, if not all wartime vehicles would look hilarious
If you are one of the old boys (like Shaun) who got into the game when wartime restoration projects were cheap and you could find a clutch of them on a farm and buy them for scrap money all well and good. Today is a different story, unless you have pots of money you can't get anything like a carrier on a budget of less than £10k for a wreck (five years ago you could, shows the incredible inflation ATM in the MV world). There was a 100% original Carrier owned since the 1960s going in Lincolnshire not long ago. It needed work but it went for £30k!

I'd much rather see a largely reconstructed range wreck, like my Loyd, out and about than to have to read about them in a book alone....that would be sad.

Having said that I respect everyones opinion and if I had the money I wouldn't have started with such a poor project, I'd have brought the 100% original 'Barn find' Loyd from the Farmer down the road and left the Belgian wrecks to the cutting tourch....would it have made me a better man? I'll never know!

[Lynn Eades]

Shaun says an original lower hull or its a repro. How much of the lower hull?
What about a replacement floor? What about a division plate as well? My "Vehicle" will consist of as many original bits as I can resonably resurrect. the rest I will have to make.
The rules of the various transport authorities in different countries are not the same, and with a carrier, one may even choose not to make it road legal. Personally I dont care what some else thinks. I'll do mine, my way, for me.Thats because it's mine!
I dont have to please anyone else other than my Wife. If I ever choose to sell it, I'll declare what I have done, and I guess if someone does not like what I have done, They won't buy it. Someone else probably will.
I did see an email about an original car once, but was the petrol in the tank original?

[shaun]

All good points guys, My concerns are those who make the things from scratch - and claim they are something than a replica using some genuine parts. like i said im all in favour of repro parts and replacement pannels and i am not out to discredit anybodys work, but to build a vehicle from scratch using odd parts it is still not the same as saving a vehicle

The VOSA / DVLA only have to read some of the post on here and they would see vehicles being maunfactured from scratch in the UK. If these were landrovers and you carried out the same rebuild programe and then fitted a age related number (claiming it to be 1960 say) it could be confiscated and could be crushed. I believe DVLA looks for at least 50% of the original vehicle to be present to be clasified as the original.

One point to learn is we should all becareful what we publish on the internet.

We do need to save as many of the vehicles as possible, but not lets just go out there making new ones. Im sure if i was to make an exact copy of a MK4 WW1 male tank (even incorperating some genuine parts) it would be viewed by all collectors as the "replica". Yes it would be nice to have a WW1 tank for all to see touch and experence move but like Richie says "it is what it is ". it does not detract from the quality of the work but its "not" a WW1 tank at the end of the day and would not be worth the same as a real one. And if it was to be ever road registered it would need a "Q" plate.

Yes Alec, carriers are not laying around in scrap yards these days (well not as much) and they are greatly sort after. Yes i was lucky enough to find some many years ago, but i would like a real Spitfire, at the end of the war there were plenty of those in the scrap yards as well, unfortunalty thats life, i have to put up with a replica but i do not pass it off as real one.

Its one thing to restore a vehicle, its another to make a replica.

I know the carrier in Lincolnshire, not sure what work was needed. it was in very good order when i last see it at Christmas.

remember, just keep smiling and carry on !
(targets up !)

[ajmac]

There used to be a points system for retaining the reg on a vehicle in the UK, it went something like this:
Body: 0 Points
Chassis / Unitary Body: 10 Points
Axles: 8 Points
Engine: 1 Point
etc...
You had to reach 20 Points of some figure in order to retain the ID. However I think that has gone now...

The DLVA state:
Vehicles that have been rebuilt using a mix of new or used parts
In order to retain the original registration mark:

cars and car-derived vans must use:
The original unmodified chassis or unaltered bodyshell (i.e. body and chassis as one unit - monocoque); or a new chassis or monocoque bodyshell of the same specification as the original supported by evidence from the dealer or manufacturer (e.g. receipt).

And two other major components from the original vehicle - ie suspension (front & back); steering assembly; axles (both); transmission or engine.

So, we can summise from this that if a fabrication shop builds an entirly new Carrier monocoque for you from an original pattern this would still enable you to retain the vehicles details and register it as such, so long as you have the axles and and steering gear!

If that's the case for cars (do tracked vehicles sit in a loop hole?) then all the road legal Carriers in the UK ATM are in the clear.

[colin jones]

A replica is a replica because sometimes there just is'nt even a wreck left. But I repro'd my mortar carrier because of that. It may be a reproduction but it is still a mortar carrier. My number is after the last known production.
Colin.

[chris vickery]

Is it original if its made up of parts from 10 different vehicles??? Some would say yes, some no.
Is it a restored original if it has some repro parts on it?
What if I have to cut out some old sheet metal and weld in a patch with newly made 2011 Taiwanese steel???
Unfortunately today, the only mvs left in existance for restorers are the left over scrappers. It is a pleasure to see the enthusiasm some guys still have to ressurect such items, albeit with repro parts, salvage, scrap or what-have-you.
I often thought about this very question on my first truck; 1941 15cwt Ford 12cab. I rebuilt it from the ground up and almost made myself crazy trying to justify using new steel to rebuild the rusted out box (tray). The choice would have been real simple; either I rescued the truck and restored it for future generations to appreciate or let it go off to become a new Honda...

[Mike Kelly]

I am more worried about restored vehicles that are offered for sale as being ex-military, when I know that particular car was never in the military . This is a vague area as we know that many civvy models were taken into army service . But when it comes down to individual cars... I mean you can drag out uncle Joe's 1940 chevy car and paint it army green and the buyer has no idea it was never a army car. Here , most of the surviving wartime era cars were actually owned by : taxi companies, doctors or other essential users who obtained a permit to buy the car. Almost nil, actual genuine military staff cars survived.

I know a case in point .. won't mention names of course.

[chris vickery]

Mike, I do agree whole-heartedly with you on this point. I was speaking tongue in cheek so to say, being a S**t disturber.
I have often seen the same scenario over this side of the pond. Typically I believe that the poor fellow often taken by this is the newbie collector or the guy who just wants an Army Jeep and who could really care less about provinance.
This is especially rampant in the old muscle car hobby in Canada and the US.
With the prices being commanded on old vehicles there is plenty of room for fakes and very lucrative business opportunity.
Personally, I have always photographed my restoration work through progression as well as kept detailed documentation and receipts for parts and services. At least in this way I can show a buyer to the best of my ability and honesty when, where, how and why things were done. It puts all the cards on the table.

[shaun]

Thanks for that research Alec, as the man has says to me in the past that is down to interpretation. but it still leaves the question is the end product a genuine vehicle or a reproduction (replica ).

Mike there seem to more and more 1940 civiy cars here in the UK being passed off as staff cars. i have a 1938 Morris 8 ser E civiy car, they were never supplied to the war department but i have a photo of one in REME coulours being used in the UK in 1941, its in brown and green cammo with the markings for the BEME (thats a REME officer in charge). now i could put mine in those colours but i would make it very clear as to its genuine civiy history.

Chris, i dont see a problem with replacing pannels or parts of pannels, using parts from other doner vehicles or repro parts but to remake the entire vehicle to me defeats the idea of "restoration" .

now as i have said earlier , i am not out to "pooh pooh" (good old British saying) anybodys hard work but is a Repro worth the same as a genuine vehicle. And at what point does does a restoration become a repro ? I have 2 wheels and a barrel for a 17 pdr, so can i make a genuine WW2 17 pdr ?

I feel the old story of the guy who had the same broom 35 years applies here, he only had to replace 3 handles and 8 heads in that time but it was the same broom.

"Targets up and hold, they will not fall when hit !"

[oztankboy]

Some time back I posted a similar question in our club forum and mainly refering to jeeps.

For instance I recently heard of a "WW2 jeep" up for sale. Fitted with a new Philipineo body and chassie! Some may argue but to me this is more a repro jeep than a "WW2 jeep". But the seller did not try and hide the point that it did infact have these repro parts... to his credit.
I guess its a bit like the issue in EU with the French jeeps being sold as "WW2 jeeps" too.

Dont get me wrong I am all for repro parts as in many cases it may be the only way to finish off a restoration. Be it not available or for cost or safety reasons. I had to get several repro parts when I was restoring my M3 Stuart tank. But I plan to replace the repro with original if or when they turn up and if I can afford them (crikies has tank parts gone through the roof!)

But for me I posed the question more to do when vehicles were being judged at a event. But thats a issue for the judges and if they can see through straight new pannels and shiney or drab paintwork...

Phil...

[Hanno Spoelstra]

This is a never ending discussion. Everyone should do what they think is right for their vehicle and themselves. As long as they are honest about what they did to the vehicle!

Personally I feel French archaeologist A.N. Didron drew up a great dictum in 1839:

“It is better to preserve than to repair, better to repair than to restore, better to restore than to reconstruct”

Just my EUR 0,02 worth. . .

Hanno

[RichardT10829]

I suppose in my situation i have to ask ? am i reconstructing or restoring ? that question goes to all those who have carriers with armou chopped out (most of us) I have retained everything that was there at the begining of the project and anything i have cut off has been put back into the carrier when during rebuild. but it still i have introduced new metal.....

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by RichardT10829

I suppose in my situation i have to ask ? am i reconstructing or restoring ? that question goes to all those who have carriers with armou chopped out (most of us) I have retained everything that was there at the begining of the project and anything i have cut off has been put back into the carrier when during rebuild. but it still i have introduced new metal.....

Adding new metal is reconstruction, re-using old parts is restoring.

H.

[RichardT10829]

never mind..... still at least everything from the track guards down, etc is original

[shaun]

richie at least you will be sitting with a lot of real carrier around you.

[ajmac]

Originally Posted by RichardT10829

never mind..... still at least everything from the track guards down, etc is original

You're just fine Richie, when is it to be rolled out? I hear Martyn has been trying to get you down to Lincoln for a day of hot riveting!

At work we have to follow international guidlines for export control to unfriendly countries - who happen to have oil - the interpritation of the rules (at least there are some) is quite open. We were only allowed 25% USA contant in parts to be exported to Iran and Libya (this was around 2003/4), however it didn't say how that 25% was to be judged. 25% by number of components, 25% by weight or 25% by value, even by choosing the best case we were still over the 25%, so the part in question was slipped into a chassis made in the UK and retained by a little stainless steel bar, thus it could be shipped as 'as a component' the 25% had not been exceeded. That little story must also be considered in the restoration field, if an 'originality criterion' was to be made law, how would it be worded? It would make a huge difference. A bare hull from a UC would be enough to give you a big chunk of the wight based criterion, change that to a 'component' based criterion and it would be just one small part. Obviously the government went through the same discussions when issuing the road going 'originality' requirements. It's mighty interesting.

I managed to dig out the old points system:
The vehicle must score eight or more points to retain the original registration mark.

The following values will be allocated to the major components used:

chassis or body shell (body and chassis as one unit - monocoque ie direct replacement from the manufacturer) (original or new) = 5 points
suspension = 2 points
axles = 2 points
transmission = 2 points
steering assembly = 2 points
engine = 1 point

I suppose the greyest of grey areas comes into play concerning the parts themselves....
If you have a T16 axle grafted onto the back of your regular UC then the 'none originality' is plain to see, however one from another carrier of the correct type would pass with flying colours and yet wouldn't be the original one fitted to your vehicle. Because of this grey, I expect the detail of the above regulations, say 'of the original type' or some such weasel words!

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by RichardT10829

never mind..... still at least everything from the track guards down, etc is original

Indeed, never mind, you are resurrecting a wreck into a driving piece of history. That is a big accomplishment! After 70 years or so, it is to be expected the vehicle you started with is not complete and parts had to be remanufactured. At least your carrier will have many more original parts than the average flying warbird with so-called "provenance" (only because they saved the ID plate from a wreck. . .)

I think it is important to differentiate between what road authorities requires for registration, versus what the collective collectorship deems appropriate. The former is written down in all sorts of legislation, the latter is often up to personal taste. I know people who replace original metal because it is "too pitted" and they prefer that "factory fresh" look.

H.

[eddy8men]

hey man if it's green and puts a smile on your face just go with it. we ain't professionals we're enthusiasts doing what we can.
the bottom line is this, all the complete original vehicles are long gone or in museums the only way to obtain original kit is often to take it from another vehicle which then renders that one less complete. don't get me wrong i'd love to find a wharehouse full to the rafters with carrier spares but that's not likely, just do the best that you can and try to enjoy it and just remember if it all gets too much and you lose interest in the hobby you could always buy a jeep

eddy

[Hans Mulder]

If you have a T16 axle grafted onto the back of your regular UC then the 'none originality' is plain to see, however one from another carrier of the correct type would pass with flying colours and yet wouldn't be the original one fitted to your vehicle. Because of this grey, I expect the detail of the above regulations, say 'of the original type' or some such weasel words!

As the owner of a frankencarrier with a T16 axle and more mods, I'm more of a "50ft test" fan: Is it a MV? Does it look like a MV from 50ft? Does it operate more or less the way an MV is supposed to?

Rivet counting is fun if someone is trying to pass off a replica or reproduction as the real thing, but if it is the real thing and has been resurrected from a butchered state to running condition, I'm not going to count rivets or note the lack of a period fire extinguisher or the non-original cloth used to cover the seats. Think of your MV more as living history: whatever it takes to make it "presentable" and running benefits more people than if it is rusting away in the yard pending the find of an original light or factory seat or NOS gauges.

When I got my frankencarrier I took it out as is for Remembrance Day. Despite its configuration two vets, (one WW2 NW Europe, one Korean War) both instantly recognized it for what it was and enjoyed every minute riding on it. While it does not at present meet my own test, it sure passed their test.

[chris vickery]

Everyone has their own individual opinion, taste and financial status.
As pointed out by previous postings, there is a vast array of ideas as to what is right or wrong etc.
Bottom line, enjoy what you do to the best of your ability.
I think that overall, the main issue here is in regard to those who pass off, or try to pass off, items that are less than 100% authentic. This is nothing new.. It has been done for centuries, passing off fakes for the real deal.
If a fellow is happy with his Jeep, carrier or tank, so be it. Just be upfront when you go to sell it and you'll never go wrong...

[George McKenzie]

I am restoring a 42 WLC It is now ready for paint .I was fortunate to be able to do it with all original parts This is very important because with motorcycles if you are stopped by a traffic police and the numbers don't match they can keep the bike till they can prove that it is not stolen parts . I will be happy with my carriers, that they will have some oiriginal numbers on them and the parts will be from original or close to original parts .That way they won't be sitting beside another carrier with the same numbers on them and only a few will know the difference in what was not original . My neighbour is old and has been restoring a modle T Ford .He now wants to sell it but to a guy that knows about the T's it is built from parts 1918-1927 .Someone will buy it and have a great time with it as long as it works .My 1928 Modle A Ford has the original spare tire but the other ones have been changed once so there is very few things that are original . We will have more of a problem putting on proper decals as to where it was in the army .

[shaun]

I was discussing this thread with another collector today, he rarely reads this forum but is quite prolific on others, he pointed me to a recent HMVF Thread ( i am already registered on there) might i surgest all concerned parties read it. it backs up one of my recent comments about DVLA watching the web !

http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread...-what-you-post!

[Lynn Eades]

This is where I am at. Have you ever gone into one so far?

[shaun]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

This is where I am at. Have you ever gone into one so far?

Holy S**T batman ! now thats a strip down.

[super dave]

Wow Lynn, and I thought I had a lot of work I had to do

[super dave]

Sorry, This would be a better response

[RichardT10829]

crikey ! Shaun has hit the nail on the head... full strip down or as they say over here a "Nut and Bolt rebuild" credit to you Lynn.....bring it back to life !

Shaun i have agreement with some of the comments on that thread in that VOSA and DVLA have been of great help to me. I agree what you post should be worded carefully so not to be taken out of context as it were.

[Lynn Eades]

No credit yet, until its done.