Researching any info re: Paul Cunningham, Competition Cobra privateer

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by peterpjb

if you compare the CompClassics pictures of the chassis in #5 and Nedsels pictures of the wrecked car in #38, there is no doubt that the chassis is from 2049, the rocker panel cover of the drivers side has exactly the marks of the accident, Connie Moore found that chassis in a Long Beach wrecking yard around 1970, these chassis remains are consistently trackable to David Harts car. I just read the whole story in the new book from Robert D. Walker which dedicates 2049 an eleven pages story.

I was wondering how you got the book, since Amazon says it will be available in January.

Then I googled a bit more and found this statement: Availability: Available now for Continental Europe and will be available in the UK December 1 and USA in January

[peterpjb]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

I was wondering how you got the book, since Amazon says it will be available in January.

Then I googled a bit more and found this statement: Availability: Available now for Continental Europe and will be available in the UK December 1 and USA in January

yes, amazing that it is available in Germany before UK and US.
I was on an interest list and got a mail from Dalton Watson that the books are available, I ordered them and received them within three days (!). No custom fees were to pay, sometimes there is some luck…

[Nedsel]

I don't think "merging the two" would accomplish much, given that the bulk of the original car is long gone. Having the original VIN-stamping (assuming it still exists) on the reconstructed car would likely be of minimal value to an owner, given that 99% of the rest of the car is new. And it goes without saying that even if the two were combined, it would have no effect whatsoever on the supposed Paul Cunningham ownership claim.

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[Nedsel]

It was said the original frame was bent in the accident, and what was acquired by Connie Moore was roughly the front 60 - 70% of the chassis. I know from photos of the car in the Netherlands that it uses a rack and pinion steering setup. Hence major frame replacement is a given. There appears to be a superfluous bracket from the original worm and sector system welded to the left front of the chassis, and since this is the piece that would have the original VIN on it, its existence here is not that surprising. I believe the Bauerle organization in Addison, IL supplied the chassis, and possibly they could recall how much of the original they mated to the chassis they built.

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[peterpjb]

(2009 is actually reconverted to w+s)

[Nedsel]

Originally Posted by CompClassics

Just how much of the frame was acquired by Moore is viewable in post #5, the condition can be seen in the photos as well. There are pieces that have obviously been removed and it looks as though the slight upward bend may be attributed to the section that had been removed?

Getting back to my previous question,
1) Why would someone provide a frame for inspection if the frame was stolen?
2) Why would you provide a frame for inspection when the frame is something other than what you are claiming it to be?

I believe the car in the Netherlands needs to be inspected to understand how much or how little of 2049 was used in the reconstruction. The front spring tower could easily be of the correct early type for worm and sector steering but adapted to rack and pinion use.
Yes, the car in the Netherlands is or has been converted to rack and pinion, there are at least a couple of early worm and sector cars that have been converted during their life, CSX2001 and CSX2009 come to mind.

What Connie Moore acquired was actually less than what is shown in post #5. What he had in the back of his pickup at SAAC-4 was a lot less, with the rear of the chassis missing.

As for the frame inspection, who knows. In any event, it has no effect on the link between 2049 and Paul Cunningham.

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[Nedsel]

The chassis remains of 2049 that I saw at SAAC-4 in Downingtown, PA in the back of Connie Moore's pickup truck were nowhere near as complete as those in your post #5.

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

The chassis remains of 2049 that I saw at SAAC-4 in Downingtown, PA in the back of Connie Moore's pickup truck were nowhere near as complete as those in your post #5.

Maybe the pictures in post number #5 are pictures taken earlier than the SAAC 4 timeframe? Like before the frame was cut up into the smaller fragment seen at SAAC 4?

If the pictures from post #5 are from a later time than SAAC 4 then perhaps more pieces of the frame were found after SAAC 4 and reassembled for a later picture (which seems unlikely).

Or (Micheal might be inclined to go with this possibility) there is a forgery wrecked 2049 frame and a real wrecked 2049 frame. After all it would be simple to get some old folk in merry old England (who coincidentally have a 1960s typewriter) to build a nice replica of 2049 that you could wreck on a racetrack and then remove all the other bits to get a fragment of a wrecked frame . When big money is at stake, someone could make a wrecked frame forgery.

Or is it just much more likely that the pictures from post #5 were taken at a timeframe earlier than SAAC 4?

[peterpjb]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

The chassis remains of 2049 that I saw at SAAC-4 in Downingtown, PA in the back of Connie Moore's pickup truck were nowhere near as complete as those in your post #5.

The pictures from #5 are from the Connie Moore collection. Isn’t it evident that they show the frame when he discovered it at the junkyard? Why should he have cutted away parts of the frame before showing it at SAAC4? Or why should he have added some random parts after SAAC4 for some crappy pictures?

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by CompClassics

It was brought up in a previous post and I will post this again as a direct comparison purposes, this is the first registration card with Hasselrig’s name on it that has anything to do with 2049. This is a blown up view of the one Ned provided in an earlier post…..the Barris registration is one that I pulled from the internet, there is roughly 2 months difference for the date of issuance between each……are there any discrepancies? I will add that the Hasselrig document was used as evidence in the court case regarding the title.

The Barris one off the internet looks like it was printed by a computer with a plain "font". The Hasslrig one looks like it was done with a typewriter with a fancier "font", like the double vertical lines through the dollar sign, curved downward line on the 7, small down line on the left top of the 7, small up line on the top right of the 5, etc. The Barris one has a space between characters on the license plate number, but the Hasselrig does not.

Could there be an explanation for the difference in these styles? Perhaps the Barris one was printed by computer for a mass mailing from the DMV while the Hasselrig one was a one off generated at a DMV office? Or does this fit into Michael's forgery idea?

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by CompClassics

Keep looking, your almost there, understand that the basic card without info would be the same either way. Then there is other discrepancies too.

On the Hasselrig version:

The state of California seal is almost entirely faded away and more to the right.

What's up with the black line through the word CALIFORNIA on the registered owner address? Looks sort of like the crease line on the Barris registration.

Is the red printing missing or it just cropped out?

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

The Barris one off the internet looks like it was printed by a computer with a plain "font". The Hasslrig one looks like it was done with a typewriter with a fancier "font", like the double vertical lines through the dollar sign, curved downward line on the 7, small down line on the left top of the 7, small up line on the top right of the 5, etc. The Barris one has a space between characters on the license plate number, but the Hasselrig does not.

Could there be an explanation for the difference in these styles? Perhaps the Barris one was printed by computer for a mass mailing from the DMV while the Hasselrig one was a one off generated at a DMV office? Or does this fit into Michael's forgery idea?

The Barris one was printed on a line printer. The wavy lines and sometimes irregular character spacing point to a "chain" printer, like a IBM 1403 that needed some PM.