People should read and know this

[Edward M.]

Re: People should read and know this

There is legal precedent for this, I just can't find it again.

Many years ago, one person owned the body with VIN plate of some Italian car (make escapes me too, getting old sucks).

Someone else owned the frame with VIN number stamped on it.

Court ruled that the frame constituted the "basis of the vehicle", and therefore the VIN belonged to the frame.

Not saying it is right or wrong.

I would be very careful when selling the frame of a vehicle, assuming your are maintaining rights to the VIN because you still have the body / VIN tag.

I would cut the VIN part of the frame out and weld in a replacement piece of metal before I sold it.

Frames are replacable units. Body panels are also replacable units. For a while, VIN tags were replacable units.

Eventually, all of these duplicate VIN cars issues will get decided, most likey by a court of law.

[Clark K.]

Re: People should read and know this

Roy, is this problem why NCRS goes to such lengths to verify the VIN and Trim Tag plates on those cars that have them?

I have heard that there are more Z/28 Camaros now than were ever built by the factory. Your information gives us the "how". -Clark

[Robert B.]

Re: People should read and know this

Well, I have belonged to the NCRS for one year now and have enjoyed reading all the great questions and responses on this board. I have learned a great deal for all of you, so thank you. Now, I finally feel like I can post something because I have something to contribute!

This issue has been discussed on other forums (especially the Ferrari forum because of the values of the “original” cars, and because it is especially relevant to vintage racecars. Racecars are commonly raced, crashed, are rebuilt, and raced again. For a great racecar, this is usually repeated many times. Then, with age these racecars with provenance become very valuable. First, what constitutes the "original" racecar, since most if not all parts including engines have been replaced due to either upgrades to stay competitive or repaired due to damage, raises this very question (think the original Grand Sports). Second, after crashes, some parts are salvaged to be used again on the original car, while other parts are used for other cars, while most of the damaged parts need to be refabricated. So, the end result is an amalgam for the “original” car as well as the recipient cars.

Therefore, as I understand it, the answer to the original question is the VIN stamping on the frame defines the “original” car. In fact, if one cuts out that section of the frame with the original VIN stamping and welds it into a newly fabricated frame, and all other parts were refabricated, that would still constitutes the “original” car.

Sincerely,

Robert

[Art A.]

Re: People should read and know this

"That # 003 frame is interesting, but like already stated - it was documented to have been scrapped by GM period."

Jim or ANYONE, Could you be more specific about the GM documents that show that the 003 frame was scrapped?

[Roy B.]

Re: People should read and know this

Vettcityman on the CF gives more info on the 55 Corvette with the 003 frame

[Art A.]

Re: People should read and know this

Vettcityman on the CF gives more info on the 55 Corvette with the 003 frame

I don't do CF.

However some one here made the statement that GM scrapped the 003 frame and i just wanted to see the documentation or is it just hear say?

[Jimmy B.]

Re: People should read and know this

Art,

If you can reach Johm Amgwert he was the one who dug into GM archives and broke the story about the 53 # 003 frame. I don't have his contact info but perhaps someone else does.

Jim

[Art A.]

Re: People should read and know this

Jimmy, I know the story of 003 very well, I might suggest that you re-read John's article in the Restorer.


Respectively
Art

Art,

If you can reach Johm Amgwert he was the one who dug into GM archives and broke the story about the 53 # 003 frame. I don't have his contact info but perhaps someone else does.

Jim

[Loren S.]

Re: People should read and know this

Frame swap detailed on page 48, no mention as to what ultimately happened to the 003 frame:

http://homepage.mac.com/kirsch_california/CORVETTES/PhotoAlbum29.html

[Art A.]

Re: People should read and know this

Loren, Thanks for posting the article.

And it makes my point......................some people have been ASSUMING that the 003 frame was destroyed and therefore it becomes fact.

I know that John, intentionally, did not mention the status of the 003 frame for reasons that I cannot go into here.

I will say that it does not surprise me that the 003 frame has surfaced and I'm sorry but that is all the detail that I can give you on this subject, for the same reasons that John couldn't elaborate.

Frame swap detailed on page 48, no mention as to what ultimately happened to the 003 frame:

http://homepage.mac.com/kirsch_calif...toAlbum29.html

[Roy B.]

Re: People should read and know this

Copyed from CF


John Howard and his brother-in-law, Brad Hawes were the ones who discovered the frame on #003 under their 55. The 55 had a unique history, being sold originally by GM as a 1955 that was a used company 'test or courtesy car'. It was sold by the factory at the time as a "body and enough parts to build a 1955 model with title." I believe, if I remember the scenerio that John told me, the "car" was used as a courtesy car by GM in the mid-50's and sold through a used car lot in Detroit as a 1955 once well used and no longer needed. I wish I knew more about the 1955 that it was found under.....was a a six or eight cylinder, what was the VIN of the car, was the tag affixed to the door jamb or the firewall (like 'test' cars). I do know that they did rebuild the car with another frame (supposedly from a 56) and keep that car as a 1955 model.

I remember the frame when it appeared at Cypress Gardens, I think it was in 1982(?). John told me that he and Brad several times tried to buy Thiebauld's #003 and put the two together, but Ed refused. John even offered a coin toss, 3 out of 5, and the winner would buy the other one out, but again, Ed refused.

When #003 sold at auction, it was short knowledge that it was selling and John and Brad did not know about it until it was too late. John told me that, had he of known, he would have bought #003, period!

John actually titled 1953 E53F001003 under his name in the state of Kentucky, so technically,there are TWO #003's!!!!! I talked to John when he listed the frame on Ebay, and he told me he doubted that it would sell, but just thought he would list it "for the fun of it" and to see if anyone would actually be interested in buying it. John had a wonderful collection of Corvettes, but he's sold them all off now.

I know that Roy told me a fascinating story of Ed, Noland, and himself about #003...only wish I had been there!

I remember at the NCRS show in Bowling Green in 1983 there was a person there who stamped replacement VIN's (poor quality and easily detectable) from the Northeast. He actually made two while he was there, one was made for Roger Williams and I don't know who the other one was for. He told me that he had stamped the same number twice for different people on different occasions, and one "set" was for a 1955serial number. He laughed that one was on the east coast and the other one was in California, and he hoped that they never showed up at the same show!!! Also, to note that the original tag "may" be out there somewhere, so there is the potential of 3 1955's all with the same number!!! I would give a buck and a quarter to see those show up at a show!!!!!