73 RS fraud must read

[RatBox]

Fryardds,

I would have to go look through the library for an exact year. But that particular 6/9 font stamp is most often used Post 1973 MY. The generally used 1973 MY 6/9 digit chassis font stamp tool was this one , with a longer tail and smaller o :

[paulgtr]

"He even has a neat trick where they take the engine out from under a 911 to save time and to save having to cut off the rear wheelarches. Apparently it takes ages and is very fiddly to take flat 6s out via the engine-lid opening as Porsche designed the car with that particular aperture too small. "
you're joking right?

[RatBox]

loach,

Come back anytime. I like you.

And we can all ...always use some good humor. I'm going to go try the Ginsing tea.


"and no-one threw any fruit."

[ScottKelly911]

Originally Posted by loach

Wow. Just holy, god's annointed, fuchs-a-doodle wow at this whole thread. It took me 3 hours or so from start to finish, but... amazing, and a monument to the fantastic levels of expertise and knowledge within PP. Also to the levels of civility - you guys were way too kind to some of the villains in this piece. Hardly a boo or a hiss throughout, and no-one threw any fruit.

AP is going to do some work on an engine for me shortly, and though he hasn't done himself many favours here, and whilst... well I guess I'm happy he's not working on my gulf blue 1973 RS LWT (though that's largely because I can't remotely afford and therefore don't have one).... in his defence, I have found him nice to deal with and his workshop is (it seems to me) testament to a guy who has very high standards and is exceptionally, even obsessively fastidious in all aspects of his work. He's not even THAT expensive, though I could be back on here in a while ruing those words and choking on an aneurysm-inducing bill the length of Donald Trump's combover.

Some of what went on here was a bit depressing and maybe I have an inflated opinion of Andy, but he knew my engine was in the back and correctly identified it as being air cooled and everything so I'm sure it'll be fine. He even has a neat trick where they take the engine out from under a 911 to save time and to save having to cut off the rear wheelarches. Apparently it takes ages and is very fiddly to take flat 6s out via the engine-lid opening as Porsche designed the car with that particular aperture too small.

Sorry - I have the 'flu and think I OD'd on ginseng. Anyways... good thread, and thanks for the infotainment therein.

Loach, it's your car, so do what you wish. However, I personally would NOT use him as a mechanic. He may be very well regarded as to his expertise in mechanics (I'll take your word for it. Personally until this thread, I'd never heard of him, but then again, I'm across the pond), but he obviously also has dirty hands in this particular car. I wouldn't trust ANYONE who's been involved in such doings. He's probably a very nice guy and likeable. Probably comes off as very knowledgeable and that he's there to really help you out. I've got news for you, most con-men don't look Like this guy from Gary's Mattress YouTube - ‪THE MOST RACIST COMMERCIAL EVER!!!!!!!!‬‏ They look just like your ordinary good neighbor down the street who's more than willing to help you move a couch into your house as they survey all of your belongings. If your car's already there, I'd move it out based on principle alone. He's done an amazing disservice to the Porsche brand and those of us who enjoy them. I don't care if he was just a pawn in a larger scheme, he either took money to give false information based on his "expertise" and knew it was false, or if that's not the case, then his "expertise" isn't as well versed as he thought proving him to have a backyard mechanics knowledge at best. This guy should be avoided at all cost. Just my two sense, er cents.

[gridgway]

Well a word of humble caution if I may. The fact (useful word that) of the matter is that we don't know anything about that law suite, nor AP's role as expert.

Until we do, I think it would be unwise (and possibly even unfair) to publically besmirch AP's reputation.

So if one has facts to hand, fire away, until then, prudence would suggest not holding forth.

Graham

[ratpiper71T]

Quote de ratpiper71T

Please show outside source where this is verified. I'll agree with 911novice and call bull$hit on everything pesto said. Suppositions, fabrications, lie speak and all to convince a buyer or potential victim-(workup another sucker).

Read page 38 (& most specifically post # 751) . Someone who had read this thread slightly earlier , read about the 'expert' (Mr. Andrew Prill) being hired by someone involved and testifying regarding his 'expert' inspection ...and the conclusions he determined from it. AND wrote to Mr. Prill pointing him to this thread.



Mr. Prill wrote back a responce , it was posted in post # 751 by the person who had written to him. It's fact (the court case) , this so-called 'expert' Mr. Prill ...got someone else stuck with this car. Or at least caused them to not get a judgement in regards to it's (non) authenticity. I believe a later buyer after pesto (who was probably the plaintiff in this case..but I am not positive where he actually fits into the chronology) even has chimed in on this thread briefly. Although , I believe it was prior to the court ruling. So nothing regarding the 'expert' inspection / testimony was provided . And i do not think he ever came back. You would have to read the thread from that point back to find his posts.



SO , that is why in MY book . There is a large grey cloud hanging over Mr. A. Prill's ability as to being an 'expert' in 1973 RS 2.7. . Which will be floating over him until it's proven to me that ANY major portion of the current 1316's main shell is from the original chassis. Maybe there is , maybe not. But knowing how lazy most people are (or unwilling to spend the funds required). And especially knowing the work was apparently done long ago. I highly doubt the body was taken apart and had major sectioning surgery done like a competant restorer of a damaged RS would do today (or maybe I will say SHOULD) .

I agree with your logic and have read all the posts in this thread. But again I say where are the links to this case there has to be some record of at least where or when it happened,---court dockets- showing the occurrence if not the details or content of the case. Without that you have only posts on car forum, unprofessionally placed Internet ads, companies and so-called experts that no one has heard of. Quite a few people on this thread including some of the aforementioned have never posted on another topic in ths forum...until some one can point to official sources... I call bull$hit on it all.

[andyt11]

Is this the longest thread in the history of PP? I have spent my spare time over the last three days reading it.
Finally finished.

There is a dull spot in the latter third but the rest was kind of interesting.

What is the deal with the original owner Mr Rauh? Did anyone ever figure out if it was he that butchered the RS? Or was he just a scape goat?

[davidbir]

And about to get much longer...

M'Lud, in the history of Motorsport (always capitalised), there have been many cases of cars with a significant history or value being questioned as to the originality of their components. Some, indeed, appearing to have only the air in their tires as original.

However, Harrumph, it is unquestionable that in some cases, but unquestionably not all, that despite many, and possibly most, of the mechanical components being replaced in the day to day maintenance of a highly stressed mechanical contraption such as a racing car the original entity remains and continues as said entity.

In support of said statement we give you (And you are welcome to it M'lud) the story of Bentley "Old Number One"-and God save all who sail in her...

The Case of the Bentley Old Number One

When questioning the integrity of "experts" from England it is always wise to remember this case, M'lud, since it influenced the outcome, attitude and wherewhithal of so many fine dealers, collectors, fettlers and punters in that fair land.
Harrumph!

[JGalt]

Great court opinion. I think a distinction may need to be made when considering some production cars. It's impossible to apply a standard of authenticity that may for example be used in fine artwork to a device that at the time of its construction may have been repaired.

[t951]

any updates on this case? We need the conclusion to this tale!

[platas]

The car has surfaced in Spain.

[fryardds]

Hi San,

I believe you are mistaken. The car in this thread was fraudulently, 'turned' into RS 1316. The car you mentioned on the Early S board is RS 1331.

[porwolf]

This thread is a soap opera! "RS1316" It never ends! And it always entertains.

[platas]

Brian,

thanks, upssss.

[davidbir]

This isn't going to help with future cases like this:

Judge rules £425,000 1930s Bentley is NOT a fake despite only original features being its chassis | Mail Online

[paulgtr]

yeah, but the chassis is not original in the RS. there is nothing original of the RS in the replica being passed off as the original.

[davidbir]

If that is true then you have more information than anyone else who has posted on this thread!

[paulgtr]

I just read the thread over time. just an opinion. if you have vested interest in making money from this car I'm sure it's all on the up and up.

[fryardds]

Originally Posted by paulgtr

yeah, but the chassis is not original in the RS. there is nothing original of the RS in the replica being passed off as the original.

You are correct. There is not one part of this car, including the chassis, that can be proven to have come from the original RS 1316.

[davidbir]

Originally Posted by fryardds

You are correct. There is not one part of this car, including the chassis, that can be proven to have come from the original RS 1316.

So far as we know---that was my point.

It may be a case of the chassis plate being lifted up and another car being slid underneath it ,or, it may be that the engine, then the body, then the gearbox, etc were replaced over time..only one person knows. According to the ruling above if even the ashtray from the original car was swapped over then there may be a case for "originality". If not one single part was swapped over there may still be a legal claim if "continuity" can be established. Whether we approve or not!
Or, it is just a case of fraud...

My point in posting the judicial ruling from England was that this resets the bar for proving/disproving "Originality" as we view it.

I very much doubt we have heard the end of either of these two cases.