Replica or real? [help request from Switzerland and Italy]

[Buzz]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Folks, the forgone conclusion is that the car is indeed a Kirkham.


What more really needs to be said.


Bill S.

Figuring out that it's a Kirkham was the easy part. The gentleman has paperwork that shows the car's origin as 10 years before Kirkham built it. He is looking for help in finding the truth, and in the spirit of this great forum, he is getting that help. What could possibly be your beef with that, mr.mustang?

It appears there's been some creative titling going on and it would be wise to learn as much as possible before becoming part of the chain by trying to sell the car as is.

[MOTORHEAD]

MM: just trying to help, plus playing detective is interesting. Sure, I'd rather be out driving mine, but between the rain and the traffic, that doesn't happen that often.

Davide: i would write Mr Phillipps as he must have had something to do with the title when he imported it.

I'll see what I can do about your other questions later today.

Ted

[DavideG]

...edit...

[bret a ewing]

Davide,

Put an extra throttle return spring on the carb. Dont want to scratch the little fella.

[LMH]

Could the title be from the year of the engine?
Larry

[MOTORHEAD]

Larry : No. The first year for the 260 cu" was around 1961/62. the 351w came later.
The 427 W I think requires an aftermarket block, which is a fairly new product.

[LMH]

Yeah, as best I can find out, it came out about 69. 427 CI can be achieved in a production block using a long stroke crank. I can't remember what the stroke is... 4.040" or something like that. High piston speed for sure though.
Larry

[MOTORHEAD]

Before the standardized 17(?) digit vins were adopted (1973?) here in Fl, vins were much shorter, don't think there was any standard. Fl will recognize a vin with any number of digits if the car was built before 1973 (again, not sure of exact year)

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by MOTORHEAD

Before the standardized 17(?) digit vins were adopted (1973?) here in Fl, vins were much shorter, don't think there was any standard. Fl will recognize a vin with any number of digits if the car was built before 1973 (again, not sure of exact year)

You do mean in 1981, right, before that the standard was a 9 digit VIN for Florida and all other states in the Union.

[DavideG]

...edit...

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by DavideG

Dear Friends, my english is not so good so maybe I have not correctly understand the point of your latest messages.
I cannot understand what I've done wrong, if I done.
I was only asking your opinion about our Cobra, both its documentation and its his body.

I'm grateful to everyone who participated or simply read this thread.
You helped me a lot and I am in debt with all you.

I'm interested in understanding and investigating what's happened before, because what's next, by hook or by crook, its our problem.

About the US Title, it's very difficult for me to think that it's counterfeit.
Maybe it contain not perfect data, but from that to say that it is done with a LaserJet printer, I think it's a long way

OK, let's say that the US title is NOT a fake. Then what would the title be for if it is a real title? It would be a US title for a 1961 Bristol last registered in the US in 1996. Your car is NOT a 1961 Bristol and that title cannot possibly be for your car if "your" car was manufactured 10 years after 1996. And then there is a Swiss title replacing the US title in 1997. Once again, that title cannot be for "your" car that would not exist for another 9 years.

So what could that mean? That there was a 1961 Bristol that was registered with a Swiss title in 1997. You have a title for that car. So you own a 1961 Bristol. Where is "your" 1961 Bristol? Did it get crushed and recycled? Your title is NOT for the 2006 Kirkham you have in storage. Can you see how that might mean you have a 2006 Kirkham in storage that you do not actually own?

Let's say the 1961 Bristol was crushed and recycled into beer cans and such. But someone still had the Swiss title. They buy a 2006 Kirkham and cover up the Kirkham serial number with an aluminum plate with the 1961 Bristol's serial number. Doesn't that sound illegal to you? That Swiss title really has nothing to do with the 2006 Kirkham. That title does not say you own the 2006 Kirkham you have in your possession. It says you own some other car, that might not exist anymore. What if there is some paperwork somewhere for the 2006 Kirkham? Couldn't a person with that paperwork say you have their 2006 Kirkham in your storage garage and demand you return it?

I think you should get a lawyer before attempting to sell the car with the paperwork you have. I am not a lawyer, but your lawyer might suggest going after the person you got the car from instead of you trying to sell it.

[1ntCobra]

Let's think about this a bit differently. How about a story like this. There is a guy named Fred who has paperwork that says he owns the Mona Lisa painting, but he let's the Louvre display it for him as it is too much trouble to keep the painting at his house. And in an unfortunate accident while the Mona Lisa was out for cleaning one day the truck that it was in catches on fire and the painting becomes a pile of ashes and Fred collects the insurance money. Somehow Fred managed to keep the paperwork that says he owns the Mona Lisa painting and goes out and buys a copy of the Sports Illustrated magazine Swim Suit edition. He cuts out one of the pages of an attractive young woman and has it framed. Then he takes a magic marker and forges Michael Angelo's signature in bottom corner. He then declares that his framed picture of the girl in the bikini is the Mona Lisa based on his paperwork. In a real estate deal Fred gives the Mona Lisa paperwork and the picture of the bikini girl to some guy named DavyZ. DavyZ not being familiar with the Mona Lisa does not realize that it should not be a girl wearing a bikini, but manages to sell the paperwork and the new "Mona Lisa" for $20 million Euro to some art museum in China that is also unfamiliar with the Mona Lisa. After a while the Chinese art museum realizes that the picture is not really the Mona Lisa. They have some irrelevant paperwork for a painting that no longer exists and an unrelated picture of a girl in a bikini. Further the museum does not even have proof that they own the picture of the girl in the bikini. Don't you think the museum is going to get its lawyers to sue DavyZ and try to get him thrown in jail?

[cobra]

Dear Davide

I saw the ad on Auto Occasion Schweiz, Autos kaufen, verkaufen - AutoScout24 in Switzerland and hope that you didn't paid the desired price. The way the seller has described the vehicle, you notice immediately that he has no idea and everything just goes about achieving the highest possible price.
I had thought that it in times where everyone has Internet, should no longer be possible so to tell a crap.
Be Careful with the Swiss road traffic authorities, otherwise your card will immediately be declared invalid. In Switzerland it is almost impossible to officially put a Cobra replica on the market. As it is in Italy, I do not know.
I would definitely turn a lawyer and the previous owner to teach him a lesson. Such people cause huge damage.
Good luck and excuse my bad English

[DavideG]

...edit...

[cobra]

Dear Davide
The ad was from your previous owner from Canton Graubünden.
Unfortunately, I had not saved it, the price was about sFr. 180'000.00 and he spoke of an original Cobra with a 7 liter engine etc.

[DavideG]

...edit...

[cobra]

Dear Davide
Unfortunately, I do not remember exactly but I think it was something a year ago.
Good luck.

[DavideG]

...edit...

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by DavideG

Dear cobra, one year ago I think it's quite impossibile that there was an AD for our cobra. Two year ago it's more probable, but was the previous owner. Someone as said me that he tried to put and ADV also for 250.000 CHF, but obviously he doesn't sold the car for that price, and more obviously we didn't pay any of that two price for the car.


Dear 1ntCobra, I think to have understand your reasoning / metaphors, but I think that the issue is more simply:
if one of the first owner has done such a equivocal thing with the documents, why he gave them to the next owner, and the next owner gave them to another, and so on.
That US Title is completely useless for me or for every other, because it's a document in addition, total superfluous.

If the first owner made some witchcraft with documents, it would be better for him to destroy or put in a strongbox that paper, and not hand it over to the next owner because it's complete senseless,

I have no idea what anyone is talking about anymore, but the one thing that is clear to me is that a Kirkham Cobra produced in 2006 is NOT a 1961 Bristol. And a 2006 Kirkham Cobra couldn't have been registered in 1996, 10 year before it was made. It's as simple as that.

But if the CA title is superfluous at this point, then toss it. The chances of that car being reimported into the US is probably zero. And the chances of the car being reimported into CA specifically is less than zero.

[Harley753]

I have been reading with interest your new cobra ownership journey - and if it were me I would need to disclose all the information I have for any future buyer. I don’t understand the laws outside of the US – and only understand some of them here - but I would be contacting a lawyer to find my legal recourse. It appears that the paper work presented does not represent the automobile that was purchased. I think the seller needs to be held accountable for the sale – and they may have been simply repeating what they thought to be true.
It seems like there must be a process to move through the history of the original 0469 from 1996 and find out what happened. There might be someone out there that still believes they own the Kirkham 0469 but it was stolen or sits in the old barn outside. It seems like the car you have purchased is a Kirkham 0469 and now the question is who owns that car.