The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

I get that. But still, if Ferrari refuses to recognize the car, doesn't that mean this car is forever something other than a Ferrari? Would any third-party authority be willing to defy Ferrari on this point, even if they thought some #0846 DNA existed in the car?

 

I don't know what the fuss is about. I've seen the car at Amelia, it's incredible. Not much at stake here but about 40mm and pride of ownership. That said Mr. Glickenhaus has 40mm many, many times over. I'm sure he would like to have this cleared up, but it sure has been a very interesting thread-no make that Novel. Fchat is the very best reality show on the planet. It's about Ferrari, money, pride, humility, caring-thinking of Bull Fighter, and everything else in between. I was thinking today how brilliant Rob was to come up with it, and then I just casually stumbled into this. Brilliant.

 

Amen

 

Most unlikely. Pipes was trying to sell it me before that and he said back then it was a replica chassis

 

You should read Rob Lay's post 8027. It applies to you.
Have you not looked at the photos and detail that has been posted lately?
As Napolis said - the answer is in the metal.
Nathan

 

...........YAWN,.............HEAVY SIGH........!!!!!!!

 

MF's words seem to be spun to suit. If it isn't what has been said in letters, its what has apparently been stated in emails that may or may not actually exist.

MF's words are only interesting when they are read in FULL and not cherry picked for quotes to suit an agenda.

 

Ing. Forghieri's emails exist I assure you.

I have not cherry picked anything whatsoever.

""the modification of the chassis with vestigial mounts etc." "of course" could have been done by Ferrari.""

What have you got to say about the above statement that Jim made up from words said and words not said by Ing. Forghieri to form a sentence he absolutely did not say?

 

When you post the full MF emails that you cherry picked from (if they exist) I will tell you.

 

as 3500GT said.............................

 

Oh, my!!! I have not thrown out any standard of proof. A bit of advice for you: before launching an attack on someone it's usually a good idea to be in possession of all the up to date facts. Clearly you are not and you have not read the thread lately at all. If you had you would have known that Ing. Forghieri has come to a different conclusion about Mr Glickenhaus's car than the one you state above.

He made the statement that he recognised a front portion of the chassis, the percentage of which he did not know, to identify it as the lone car he took for testing at Daytona in December, 1966 and therefore the Daytona winner merely by a "tourist's glance" at Amelia Island a few years ago. Also at this time he stated that the rear part of the chassis was not from the Daytona winner but from another P3. He had not thoroughly examined the chassis as Mr Glickenhaus has stated at all and he had received no documentation at all from Mr Glickenhaus.

Please allow me to provide you with an update. Since Ing. Forghieri wrote the February and March letters to Mr Glickenhaus I sent him pictures of the chassis including the front portion of it. On looking at the pictures of the front end he has stated that the Glickenhaus car is not the one that he took for testing at Daytona, 1966. Therefore it is not the Daytona winner. It is not the number 23 car. it is not the "famous P3" and it is not 0846.

As I had noticed some differences between Mr Glickenhaus's chassis and the authentic chassis from different cars from this group, I sent Ing. Forghieri some additional photographs including those of the rear end. After examining these pictures he replied to me in an email the following:

"The rear portion of the Glickenhaus’ fake P4 is completely new and these details couldn’t have been missed by coachbuilders that built real P4s. It’s in the front section, that has not been restored, that I believe there are the biggest differences from a real one.”

As a practising attorney you should know better than to write posts as you have done above.

 

Nathan, You should read my posts before commenting on them. My point is entirely lost on you. I'm careful in what I write, and I haven't offered an opinion on any portion of this car. But I do happen to have a qualified background to assess the credibility of "experts."

Any my comments, if you bother to read them, are regarding the credibility of the professor, and the fact that he offered a standard (that many found absurd-the recollection of an old man about the condition of the metal 50 years ago), touted it as absolute proof of the metal, and then quickly abandoned it when the standard (which he shouldn't have subscribed to) led to a conclusion of the metal he didn't want.

 

Steve

Yes, I am a litigation attorney, and I'm pretty careful about what I write. My point isn't about what this car is or isn't. My point is entirely different and you know it quite well as this thread has, as a major subject, your credibility. And you know it.

You were very quick to hold up MF's recollection as the ultimate unassailable proof of this chassis. Many thought this was absurd. The recollection of an old man about very minor details in metal tubes from 50 years ago. Yet you, being confident MF would support your conclusion, hailed this as the ultimate proof. As soon as MF gives a clear statement that at least part of the chassis was original from Daytona, you start back peddling. At that movement You proved unequivocally that you are not an unbiased historian, previously or at stage bc it was obvious you were not following evidence to whatever conclusion it lead you. Instead you then start questioning his method, time of inspection and memory. The fact that you may now say you go back to MF and now stand with MF, further proves my point.

There's a famous saying among those analyzing the results of a method, garbage in, garbage out. Yet my point has nothing to do with whether this car is a genuine or fake. My point has everything to do with whether you are.

 

I read it and I understand it. You are attacking the credibility of the professor.
If you had bothered to read Rob's post 8027 you would read the following: "thread is full of too many posts like yours that attack the poster and not the post, provide nothing to the discussion, counter lengthy quantitative posts with short qualitative/opinionated blurbs. This thread is full of about 75% of users and posts that don't deserve to be here, they are just a waste of space."
Your post attacked the poster and provided nothing to the discussion, by your own admission "I haven't offered an opinion on any portion of this car." This is exactly what Rob was talking about and the point I made too.
Nathan

 

Nathan

Once again you miss my point entirely! I've read Rob's post, and while I'm not obligated to agree with Rob, I agree with him partially here. Yet you haven't either read my multiple posts on this thread or you are still missing my specific and nuanced point. I am not attacking the poster for the purpose of proving the car as one thing or another. I am not attacking the poster at all. I'm analyzing the method. I am unmasking the opinion, and the shifting basis for the opinion. My point is not entirely different from Robs. It's obviously long not been a search for the truth about what the car is or is not. And that is a shame. The posters pick and chose whatever shifting standards of proof they can find to come to a pre determined conclusion. they set up standard of proof that they declare as conclusive proof, only to abandon the standard if further evidence on such a point provides support for another conclusion. I agree with Rob that there is a fan boy camp of Jim, and the fan boy camp of his detractors, and neither really cares about an honest search for the truth, they just want to win. The truth about the car, or its parts, and a good faith search into that truth is lost. Pick up this thread at any point and you see this displayed. The advocates lack credibility because of the obvious pre-determined bias.

 

Rob I agree with you. I've said time and time again relying upon the recollection of MF is absurd either way. My point is different.

 

Total BS. My quest has always been to find the truth and nothing but the truth. I have not back peddled at all. If I have found something out that questions any conclusions I have made then I will post that information regardless. I have no pre determined bias whatsoever. Your bias is clear which is to discredit me.

A question to keep your analysis balanced as you claim to be a credibility expert if I may: How do you rate Mr Glickenhaus's credibility and how that credibility was affected by his concealment of the letter to him from Ing. Forghieri in Italian and English dated the 23rd of February, 2016?

 

How you use MF as your proof is crystal clear from the record on this thread.

As For your second question, ill repeat myself once more before going back to life,
Anyone who holds out MF's recollection as gospel is absurd. You or Mr. G. It was a joke to begin with. Someone hoisting another on such a petard, and seeing them twist, only unmasked bias. Does Mr. G have a bias? Absolutely, unequivocally because it is his car and he's personally invested a decade on the theory. Your categorical denial of any piece of evidence lending credibility to the theory, your shifting standards of proof, hoisting MF recollection or Ferraris declaration as proof when it suits your conclusion, and semantic distinctions of what is officially the serial number, unmasks whether there is truly a scientific historical search. You were given many opportunities to at least take a consistent position on your method of inquiry and standard of proof, yet you passed on those. The lack of intellectual honesty is a shame on both sides of those supporting your conclusion or Mr G.

 

Your reply speaks volumes.

 

Your Reply is straight out of the Mr.G playbook.

IMO Houghtaling is right and Piloti is not getting why, he is not attacking the user, he is clearly defining why the users method of investigation is a fraud. Just because someone is holding a hammer, that doesn't make them a carpenter, you have to use the hammer correctly to do that.

However though, I am glad the discussion has flipped to the real issue at stake, the chassis and how it was built.

I do believe a real answer would require the viewing of several bare chassis by several qualified people. Some 412 chassis, Piper's chassis 900, Wakefield chassis, Stroll mobile Etc.

By one of Miura's own theories, the factory rebuilt 0846 to P4 Aft of the firewall, so if it is indeed proven to be P4 aft, then here we are still on the search for if it is 0846 built the proper Ferrari way with an obvious mod with no explanation.

IMO much more to look into, but at least the search is in the right place. The construction of the chassis.

 

One day John Hajduk Jr., MetalKraft Noblesville,Indiana., the person who was fitting the
NOS Alloy Allegretti coupe body to my car called me and said: " I was reading a book about
P4s which talked about the 1967 TARGA Floria crash of 0846. You can see the result of
that crash and the repair to the original chassis tubes ." "See them? See them where?" I
asked. "In your chassis. You can also see where it was modified at different times by different
welders..." Another thing you could see was that the section that likely was
burned/destroyed in Amon's 1967 Le Mans incident had also been replaced with tubes of a
different dimension and character by a different welder as well.


So what did Jim know when he bought it?

 

When I spoke to John Hajduk Jr he had no recollection whatsoever of the above. He told me about some tubes he removed that had been welded on the chassis in a different way to how they were done by Ferrari.