Chassis # 2639 Mis-Classisched, sold $4.1million, leaves brokers and buyer searching

What really matters is the truth and as there are still some people who care about the truth of what something is or isn't and are willing to pay accordingly all is good.

 

Mike, with all do respect, sounds to me like you carefully avoided answering the question. Is the overstamped engine block the original engine block? If not, when was the switch?

+1.

Jim / et al,... where does $3M fit on the price curve for a SWB in todays market?

 

I believe this is the car in question:
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

For some people yes. But at times the truth and what Ferrari Classiche have to say can be two totally different things. This is the same Classiche department who were just about oblivious to some of their old racing cars having aluminum bodies mind you. With all due respect. there are at times more qualified Ferrari people on this earth than that of those in bella Italia at Classiche.

 

Sharp! Last U.S. Forty in the BG?

 

I don't know what "BG" is, but yes, that's the last US F40.

 

I, too, don't agree that Classiche's "papal blessing" means all that much, given what I know about and have seen of the programme. In general, I think it probably has some value, but they have made BIG mistakes in the past, which undermines their "opinion". To regain their credibility, Classiche will have to go back and correct the erroenous certifications. Good luck on that. Somehow, I don't see Classiche recanting and admitting that they certified cars that should never have been certified in the first place. If they do, I will be the first to applaud.

CW

 

+1 exactly

 

Which Ferrari dealer is that?

 

I think BG = background in netspeak. Do you know anything about the Maranello in one of the pictures?

Thanks.

Jack.

 

Correct, that's 93627.

 

Ferrari of Orange County.

Know how I knew? You posted it back on 23 August!

Which one? The red one reflected in the window in the first picture? Or the yellow one in the background of the fourth picture?

The red one, 134946, is a 575M F1, tan leather, Daytona seats with black inserts, tan leather shelf, shields, modular wheels, red calipers, 575M trunk badge, 3M, and tinted windows. It's currently privately owned, but was for sale through Miller back in January, 2007, advertised as Certified Pre-Owned, Tubi, Fiorano suspension, 13,163 miles. Then it was on eBay in April, 2009, in Westport, CT. In January, 2010, Mercedes Benz of Greenwich put it on eBay, advertised as a two-owner car with 49,349 miles. I saw it at Cars & Coffee several times this year: 09 July, 27 August, 24 September and yesterday.

The yellow one, 116985, is a '99 550, black leather, Daytona seats, yellow stitching, black carpets, black mats with yellow prancing horses, no shields, modular wheels, red calipers and just 9,657 miles. It, too, is privately owned; I first saw it on 13 March 2010 at Cars & Coffee, and then not again until yesterday.

 

^

Thanks. I hadn't even noticed the red 575M!

jack.

 

To be honest I can't really belive that this car has Classisch Certification - pics in post #54 seem to me quite significant.

Why should anybody do Classisch Certification in future?
I think there is no reason to do this anylonger.

 

IGM papers for GTE were issued in July 1961, so it is impossible 2423GT would have carried that number. I think IGM-classification was demanded for cars being registered in Italy starting in 1962, so very few cars with s/n in 2xxx-range carry it, those being very late ones at that. By all means 2639 should not have one. Best wishes, Kare

 

I've seen in the past where many, many F-Chatters have kept quiet while listening and learning from the elders/dinosaurs. I love that about the F-Chatters. That they listen and learn.

My thanks go to the people that willingly share their knowledge and love of Ferrari.

I'll take my coments on Classiche to that thread, but my hope is that those in power are aware of bitsas etc.

I'm a kibitzer and will remain quiet for the duration of this thread.


Now, back to your regularly scheduled programing.

 

A lot of sales happen without the need to advertise. This was one, the car has been available for about 6 months at least

 

I disagree. At least in the case of several early-1961 SWB Berlinettas and California Spiders SWBs I've observed, it seems the chassis stamping location was moved from the main frame member (i.e. 1960-and-earlier), to the cross-piece under the steering box, just around the time 1961 production commenced (i.e. 24XX - 25XX).

2639 GT's chassis stamping is located where it should be, and correctly contains a second line of alphanumeric characters beginning with 'IGM,' etc.

 

John wanted 3m net, sold 4.1m?

 

So, where's the OP?
Has he run out of ink...or?

Why are these flagrant accusations allowed to be posted, and then the mysterious disappearing act? There ought to be an automatic deleting feature. Censorship.
I know, freedom of expression, 94 posts and?
What a waste of everybody's time, and I am contributing also to the nonsense that inevitably develops into a lot of blah blah...

Set the world on fire, and everyone runs out with the extinguishers to put out a non existent fire. The guy cannot even spell, and everyone is too easily provoked, and react just how he wanted everyone to react.

Where I live, you (OP) would grammatically not last 10 minutes. Politics, maybe, that is your calling.
What a waste of bytes.

Regards, Alberto

 

And thats just about the whole deal.

 

Yes, chassis number was moved early in 1961 but IGM was added later that year.

I've looked long and hard but cannot see a 2nd row with IGM on 2639. Neither do I see a GT-suffix, which was dropped after serial number 2399GT. For me, this (=no GT-suffix, no IGM-number) looks 100% correct.

Best wishes, Kare

 

Those stampings were made in completely different parts of the factory in different phases of production - and they sure didn't share tools.

I also think in this case Classiche is right and this really is the correct and original block for this car, but also realize that the clearly visible remains of an earlier interno will not convince everyone. At these prices there is not much tolerance for things not being 100% what you expect them to be.

Best wishes, Kare