Lov 1

[john]

You want to know what others think?
Well I think this is another advert (hot on the heels of that last one which didn't quite "add up" for the chassis and parts....)
attempting to dress something dodgy up as legitimate.
As you say CJ, legitimate car or not, getting rid of the patina which tells us a story is tantamount to sacrilege.
I guess in the Chequered Flag days, whether the car had a dodgy identity or not was not very significant. When you are asking a lot of money for something it IS.
I don't believe that consideration of import duty had anything to do with what chassis number went on that car.
Another case of buyer beware, but in saying that I'd still LOV1(t) if I could afford it!

[ProtoTipo]

You want to know what others think?
Well I think this is another advert (hot on the heels of that last one which didn't quite "add up" for the chassis and parts....)
attempting to dress something dodgy up as legitimate.

Hi John,

This car is absolutely 100% the original CF3 car. The information on the advert is accurate and very honest.
As you say, it's the getting rid of nearly all of the patina that's the bad thing.
At least all the dashboard items are retained, even the original gear stick knob and the Moto-Lita steering wheel. The seats are new. It used to have Paddy Hopkirk 'Billover' seats.

If the older colour scheme (which I'm sure this car never had) was done correctly, as far as CF2 goes, the 'Chequered Flag' lettering should be in a gentle arc on the rear sides. It used to follow the arc of the top of the panel. It was straight on one version of CF1 though, but this isn't CF1.

[john]

Oh yes, I realize this is CF3. The point I'm making is that CF3 was probably dodgy!
In those days, even if not quite legal, it really didn't matter. Now it does.
It's could be no better than a kit car with a dodgy registration history in the eyes of the DVLA.
Whoever owns it or will own it in the future is unlikely to have any problems though. It has an established identity even if it is, as I say, somewhat dodgy initially.
Great detail knowledge by the way!

[ProtoTipo]

Oh yes, I realize this is CF3. The point I'm making is that CF3 was probably dodgy!
In those days, even if not quite legal, it really didn't matter. Now it does.
It's could be no better than a kit car with a dodgy registration history in the eyes of the DVLA.
Whoever owns it or will own it in the future is unlikely to have any problems though. It has an established identity even if it is, as I say, somewhat dodgy initially.
Great detail knowledge by the way!

Yes, you mean the chopping and changing of IDs back in day isn't helping to establish the car as being pukka today?
This car is the opposite of some of the 'works' Minis and Escorts that exist only on paper, but have come back to life. For example, there is no disputing the copper bottomed provenance of the three Monte winning Minis currently on display in Gaydon museum, but there are a good few 'log book only' works Minis out there. People who know, know which is which, but you're a brave man to start pointing the finger. People get very upset, even though they've really no right to.

[john]

Yes, you mean the chopping and changing of IDs back in day isn't helping to establish the car as being pukka today?

That's absolutely what I mean Chris, thanks.
And I also reiterate that it's not likely to be a problem for either current owner or future owner.
I wonder why it's for sale in Malta.....?
I know of one 1960/70's Ford specialist breaker who is allegedly living a happy retirement in the Med somewhere on the proceeds of the sale of a whole batch of log books.