<VV>Re-Vin

[Bill Elliott]

I have no intention of getting into it again, but this practice is the 
rule vice the exception in the really high dollar cars... where 
virtually nothing of the original car remains... like your grandfather's 
hammer... head's been replaced twice and the handle 5 times, but it's 
still your grandfather's hammer. Most countries in Europe have very very 
specific rules on how this is properly done... while we in the US just 
say "you can't do it" despite the fact it's so commonly done in the 
world of restorations...

If the VIN and body plate say you own a 1966 turbo convertible, then you 
do, regardless of what the car actually is...  ;-)

A 1966 turbo convertible is still a 1966 turbo convertible even if it's 
attached to a body that began life as a 1965 Monza... while a 1965 Monza 
is still a 1965 Monza even if it is fitted with all the right bits to 
make it appear to be a 1966 turbo convertible... one is a restoration 
and the other is fraud... but in the US we treat them both as illegal.

There was recently a case where two Shelby owners claimed that they both 
owned the same car. One guy actually had the car itself with the correct 
hidden VIN. The other guy had the VIN and body plates attached to a car 
that did not have the correct hidden VIN. It was decided legally that 
the guy with the plates had the "real" car... and the "real" Shelby body 
was now worthless....

Bill.

Padgett wrote:

>
>> > 1. He "re-vin'ed it".
>
>
> Must admit I have mixed emotions here. When you take two or three cars 
> and make one, which VIN should be used ? Whatever car's piece the tag 
> is on ? I grew up often seeing "brass era" restorations that began 
> with one wheel and a pile of rust. Or did the world change when Toby 
> Halicki showed how easy it was ?
>
> Yout want to know.
>
> Padgett 
>


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.14/578 - Release Date: 12/7/2006