mk1 Cooper re-shell thought's.

81 comments

  1. Hey everyone, I'm new to the site…..happy I found a place that has people knowledgeable about early Cooper's/ Cooper S's.

    I've had a few mk1project cars over the years, a 997 cooper and a 998, and after some time of having nothing, I have bumped into someone once again. I've only heard of the car as of yet, but understand what it is. It's a mk1 Cooper 998 I assume, I'm not sure of the year yet, just mk1. It's tartan red/black, and said to be a complete car. Gold brocade interior etc is there as orginal. Apparently it's been sitting in it's current spot for around 20 years. Talking to someone about the car, he said the shell is completely rusted, in fact he said rust comes up the side of the body quite a way's. As I said, I have not seen it, so I cant say for sure.

    Anyhow, as it sit's it sounds complete, with original registration. The car is not up for sale or anything, but I can get my hands on it.

    My question to you guy's is, what are your opinions on a donar shell replacing the Cooper's original? Im not talking throwing it's engine, front brakes and a few other bits with the CA2/KA2 paper's into another shell/car and calling it an original, I mean using just the bare bones stripped donar shell(in need of many panels anyhow) as a replacement to the original, and restoring the car as per original and complete.

    I suppose I'm what you call an anal purrist, and wherever possible, regardless of cost or time reasons, would keep the cars original shell. I have no problem taking this Cooper on, and understand fully what a project of this size entails.

    I would like to know however, how some of you view this subject. I understand how many original examples out there have had a donar shell during restoration, and sometimes it cannot be helped.

    I should add, myself and the Cooper are located in Canada, so finding agenuine and true mk1 Cooper/S is no easy task.

    Thanks!

  2. imported post

    Welcome to the forum.

    Have a look at [url=http://mcr.mywowbb.com/forum30/1055.html]this topic[/url] with earlier opinions on the matter

  3. imported post

    If it is as original as it seems then I would try to reuse the shell, if your going to have to do work on a replacement shell I would do that bit extra on the original, mini-machine do some great panels which save a great deal of effort. I know the shipping of the panels will not come cheap but in for a penny as the say. Oh and welcome to the forum. Gray

  4. imported post

    I can only agree with what Gray has already said: welcome to the forum, and reshell IF there is no other alternative. I personally would rather see the car back on the road with another shell than never see it back on the road at all, but it is amazing what CAN be done. If you use the shell from another car, then THAT car never sees the road again…..

    IF you decide a re-shell is the answer, then try to find a shell of the correct age/specification and swap every part that you can from the original body. Reshelling has gone on since almost day one and is not a sin as long as you're open about it.

  5. imported post

    Personally I don't see the merit in spending an arm and two legs patching up a rot-box ( which is what yours sounds like)in order to proclaim it as the 'original' shell when most of it's new metal when it's finished ! . The re-shelling of Coopers is far more common than most think, no big deal, many would have beenbroken for parts long ago if they hadn't been reshelledbut preferable to use the right period donor shell if you can .

  6. imported post

    Thanks guys. Obviously I have to see it first, but we'll see. I've been known to take on some pretty ambitious projects, and rust doesn't seem to scare me like it does some other people. Nor does seeing a bodyshell on a rotiserie missing half it's panels, esspecially with all the panels that are available.

    Speaking for myself only here, I would choose to spend many more hours and money on panel work to the original shell. Even in the case of the shell having most panels replaced, in my opinion thats still the car's original shell, that was re-worked, and not replaced, regardless of how much metal is original.

    I will have to see the car obviously before I know. However, it is a genuine MK1 Cooper that was not messed with. It's a complete car, sounds like it was parked as one something like 20 years ago, and not be touched since. Original Tartan red/Black, complete gold brocade interior, original engine etc. You dont find them like that very often anymore. At this point I have to wait for the car to be collected, and all that stuff sorted.

  7. imported post

    Good luck with the project. At least by sticking with the original shell you will not have people sayingto you that it is OK to do so as long as your up front about it, which surely is another way of saying toyou it has been devalued in some way if your having to hide the truth. Post some pictures when it arrives.

  8. imported post

    I would reshell it. It sounds absolutely knackered. It's all very well banging on about originality blah blah blah but the ones saying 'keep the original shell' are not paying the bills. A 998 Cooper is not a car of immense value – somewhere around the cost of a new Kia Picanto. To fully rebuild a knackered shell and paint it costs around £6000.
    I don't have a problem with reshells, and no issues at all with cars built from a logbook, a restored 850 shell and all the relevant bits. I would far rather see a really nice logbook rebuild on the road and not sat in an envelope in a desk drawer.

  9. imported post

    £6k to rebuild perhaps if shopped out, if your up to the job as you sound nearer £2k if you don't put a price on your time, value is in the eye of the beholder at the end of the day.Rebuild not recreate!!:)

  10. imported post

    At the end of the day the answer to the original question is ..[b]do what YOU want to do ![/b]:dude: Which isrestoring the original shell by the sound of it, even if there's only the roof left, which begs the question : Why bother canvassing opinion in the first place? 😕

    Who cares as long as you have fun. 😀

  11. imported post

    Untimatey I will do what I want to do. I'm not looking for someone to tell me how a car is going to restored and built. However, I am curious to know opinions of those in the Cooper/Cooper S cirlce. I know there has been controversy over this topic before many of times, with many different car's and enthusiast's, and I enjoy hearing other peoples opinions.

    As I said, I will have to inspect the car's shell, and evaluate it's condition, structural integrity etc. Who know's, the shell could crumble upon movement, in such a case, I think the shell's fate is obvious. If the shell is rigid enough in certain area's, and I feel I can take it on, I know route I feel should be taken in that situation as well.

    Maybe I should explain, not very many people understand my passion and enthusiasm for the original mk1 Cooper and Cooper S. I know I am prepared to go to greater lenght's with these car's than perhaps the next guy, and my intrest run's deeper than alot of folk's, however I am confident most, ifnot allpeople on this forum understand. When I come across old basket case Cooper's(have not found an S yet) I feel obligated to that car, and what happens with it, even though I may never sell it.

    All this reminds me of a car I stumbled upon around 2002. I heard rumors of a mk1 Cooper, all original etc etc, that had been stood for many years. I suppose I eventually tracked it down as I bought it. It was a 1967 Austin Cooper, Almond Green/OEW. It was a very complete, very original car. In fact, I beleive someone e-mailed me from this web site asking me for theVIN, whitch I supplied. They wrote me back telling me the details of the car, build date, chasis/engine #'s etc, noting it should have the double skinned bootlid as it did etc.The only thing non original on it was the steering wheel, and a period wooden shiff knob. When I saw the car, it was sitting in a shop corner covered in thick dust and untouched for years. When we moved the car onto the trailer, it was obvious how rusty the body was, it was basicly crumbling in some area's. I had it stored in a garage for a while trying to decide what to do with it, and eventually decided at that time it was too much. Found a very serious buyer, and upon him collecting the car, the shell ..well it was just very bad, scared off the buyer and the car was mine for a while longer. Eventually I dont beleive I had a choice but to break it down. I gutted the shell, drivetrain, everything, the shell looked pitifull after it was stripped. Very sad really. The car was boxed and stored, and eventually sold on to a very nice man that wanted to restore it obviously using a donar shell. It was all there and ready. The car and doucuments minus the shell was off to be restored and introduced to the new metal box in whitch would hold it all together. To this day I regret selling it, and wish I had stored it in some corner somewhere and restored it myself, but at that time was the right thing to do.

    Ahhhh..If I had a time machine and could get my hands on some of the stuff and cars I have had….That would be an intresting thread now wouldn't it. lol…

  12. imported post

    I can understand both sides of the story. But I recently also stumbled across a 64 shell which was in really, really, really great nick. I decided to buy it as a donor for a re shell, but that is because i had the chance to do it, otherwise who knows.

    ps see my other thread for pictures of the shell

  13. imported post

    If the shell is saveable and it is definately the original then save it. If it's not saveable then the only answer is to reshell, as asignificant amount of Cooper's and S's have already had done so. If the shell is not the original then there's no point in struggling to save the shell if another, much better one is available.

    Personally I'd rather keep the original shell if possible but there is a point when you have to be realistic.

    As mentioned by other people, if you do reshell then make sure it's the same or as close to the original shell as you can get.

    Good luck with it whatever you do and don't forget to post up a couple of pictures of it. We love 'as found' pictures here, even if the Mini magazines don't !:D

  14. imported post

    Here's a question for you all, why does it seem that 'normal' mini (shells)seem to survive in better condition thanCoopers / 'S's, is it just that there were more made so the survival rate is higheras a percentage?, also to add to the debate, where are we drawing the line?, does a log book that has none of the original parts withit count as a reshell?, or isit a recreation?

  15. imported post

    I guess there were an awful lot more standard Mini's made and were less likely to be thrashed to death. A lot of the decent Mk1's around now seem to be those with one or two owners and have been garaged for most of their lives.

    I wonder if they do actually have a better survival rate, pro-rata, than the Cooper/S models?? It would be difficult to tell for sure seeing as many Cooper's have acquired an 850 shell, thus reducing the numbers of 850's surviving.

    I'd say a log-book with no 'original' parts isarecreation. A reshell is where the original car exists but the owner decides for whatever reason to change the shell. A replica is where a car does exist and it is altered to replicate another model.

    That's my thoughts anyway. I'm sure someone will disagree on this questionable subject:D

  16. imported post

    Pardon me if I beg to differ.

    Once you replace your Cooper's body with that from an 850 you have an 850 with a replacement engine, brakes etc etc.

    Here in Oz its illegal to alter a car's identity – ie apply non original numbers etc. There's nothing wrong with fitting Cooper bits to your 850 including badges etc. But, its still an 850.

    Should you later choose to offer your 'Cooper' (as opposed to modified 850)for sale you are into fraud.

    We had such a case a few years ago. One of our club memebers built up a very convincing S replica using an Oz Deluxe body and some spare bits he'd accumulated for his S rebuild (basically as a reheasal for his S restoration). When completed he sold the car, fully disclosing its history. The buyer was less reputable and passed on the 'genuine' S at a considerable profit. The new owner had a few questions about his car and was (entirely unwittingly) referred to the original builder; an interesting conversation ensued.

    Eventually he was awarded considerable compensation (from the middleman) at the resulting court case.

    Replicas are not originals no matter how much you may choose to dress it up.

    The art world has the concept of provenance. Maybe its something we should consider.

    Good luck, Ian

  17. imported post

    Ian,

    Your opinion is interesting and of course also valid. It does not however alter the fact that as far as a hell of a lot of Mini oficionados are concerned reshelling is seen as a prefectly respectable (all be it slightly legally dubious) option to keep an otherwise knackered Cooper or Son the road. If everyone in the Cooper world took your admirably high moral stand on the matter then there would be about 4 Cooper S's of any type in the UK. There are thankfully considerably more than that.

    Of course many Cooper fans dream of a matching number Cooper S with a full documented history from the day it was registered to the day they bought it, these cars are however almost impossible to find anywhere at any price, and don't even get me started on 'Works' cars 🙂

    You are of course legally correct (even here in the UK, more or less) but the fact is that MOST (not all) Cooper fans would rather see a 1963 1071 Cooper S reshelled into a good 1963 Mini shell that has been suitably modified than see it consigned to the scrap heap of history.

    M.

  18. imported post

    Ian with respect ..what a load of cobblers !

    The body shell is merely a replaceable part of the entire vehicle, as are the bootlid bonnet and doors, engine,subframes, glass, chrome, trim etc etc …Are you telling me a restored car which has hadreplacement bootlid , bonnet and doors, floors, boot floors, inner and outer sills, front panel, wings and A panelsetc, not to mention new trim, electrics, subframes, brakes, chrome …is still the original vehicle ?!!:? That's ludicrous !That would be less of an original car than the'65 Cooper SI sold last year which had a replacement shell butotherwise the rest of it was 100 %original ! You work it out ?

    It's an issue of perception, you percieve that the use of a donor bodyshell is basically a different car, and I don't. You think a restored original shell with 90% new metal is an 'original' car and I just can't see it. Yes I've always said if you reshell you should be upfront about it (which few are), not cos it devalues the car in my eyes but just because telling porkies isn't the way to carry on. [b]It's a shame there's such a stigma about reshelling, if there wasn't there'd be no need for sellers to be 'conservative with the truth' ![/b]It's worth remembering that ifnone of theseold Coopers had been reshelled over the years (most [b]are[/b] over here ! ) there'd be a lot of empty green fields at Mini shows like Beaulieu wouldn't there ?!

    At the end of the day you believe what you want to believe and allow others to do the same,but this whole 'originality' snobbery is ruining clubs like the MCR, even to the point where few take their cars along to shows anymore, and most will onlyrestore to the Heritage Certificate spec . I'm lucky I've got an original unweldedMk1 'S'and a nice honest 'S' replica and both still get the adrenaline going which is what it's all about, not politics !:D

  19. imported post

    Jesus only with Coopers do we get all this pandemonium about reshelling cars. For Pete's sake they are selling heritage MGB/Midget bodyshells by the bucketload and no-one gives a t*ss about the id's being swapped on them. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. :X:X:X. If you can't live with the guilt,then spend squillions welding up your basket case (M-Machine complete floor comes in at £500,that's just for starters) just don't expect anyone to think you're a hero for doing it. Think I'll go down the pub and spend mine ….

  20. imported post

    Here here. A Cooper s is for throwing around back roads, at naughty speeds – just like they were in period. Probably why so few have their origianl shell. But who cares – get your boot down man, by the time the concours grannys get their word in you will be but a dot on the horizon!

  21. imported post

    Android, you seem to miss the point. A Heritage shell is a brand new and available replacement part so no 'swapping' of an ID goes on and no deception – in factthe seller of such a car will generally advertise it as such and get a higher price for it. Thecar is rebuilt into a brand new shell which suits many people. Unfortunately new shells are not available for older Minis so we either have to repair the existing one or use the shell from another Mini which hadits own ID already….Doing thisdoesn't increasethe number of Minis does itbecausethat good secondhand bodyshell could generally be restored as the car it already was.

    The reshellingdebate does not only exist in the Cooper world I can assure you. It also exists with all the sporting Ford modelsfor example. I have no strong views about the rights and wrongs of it but was simply pointing out that although the practice is widespead the legal situation is really no different in this country to Australia.

    For the record, Iam far from a concours man but am glad that some people are, as their cars are an important part of the broad church of Mini owners. I agree that Minis are here to be enjoyed and driven the way they were intended. They are also a classless car andtruly all things to all men. I do not think that anyone here would try to impose their own ideas onto other people's cars, the variety of which makes Mini events so much fun!

  22. imported post

    Ian's point about the law in Australia is just as valid here in the UK. When these cars were new, if the bodyshell was deemed too badly damaged to repair, a brand new shell could be obtained and was regarded as a replacement part. the repaired car therefore kept its original identity. It would be almost impossible to find an unused Mk1 shell now of course so the only option is to use a secondhand one from another car. However, a used bodyshell already carries an identity. That is what makes fitting another shell quite different to fitting another bonnet/door/boot etc.which is the norm in a major restoration. It is the shell that the identity of a car is fitted to and so a secondhand shellalready has the identity of another car. It therefore follows that THAT car will then be lost forever… One thing that differs between UKand Australian Mk1s is that the UK ones do not seem (as far as I know) to have the chassis number stamped into the shell and simply rely on a plate held on with self tapping screws!

    I am not taking the moral high ground and I do not think that Ian was either. We all create what we choose from the parts we have around us and if I had a completely rotten Cooper S and a good 850 shell I too would probably build a car from them. I think we also have to be honest though and admit that it is largely about money. A restored Cooper or S is worth a lot more than an 850.

    As has already been discussed, The Cooper and S suffered from accident damage both on the roads and in motorsport and if owners had never re-shelled them , few would now be left. I'm not sure that this would mean that Mini shows would be less well attended because the good bodyshells that people used to rebuild Coopers would perhaps have stayed as good 850s…..a car which is getting more rare by the day! There are of course only so many good shells to go round and demand is high.

    Another more sinister thought regarding good shells is this. I know several Mk1 owners whose treasured cars have been stolen over the last few years and an attempt was made to steal my own 998 Cooper a few years ago. What happens to these cars? Some are perhaps exported. Some maybe live on under another ID. Others are probably broken for valuable parts. What happened to the shells? Once parts have changed hands a time or two it is almost impossible to know their origins.

    I personally don't have any problem with reshelled cars and know that many Coopers have been reshelled. However, that is what they are – Coopers rebuilt using the body of ANOTHER car. I do feel that a car restored around the original shell – even if many parts of it have been renewed, can be more correctly regarded as an 'original' car restored simply because its bodywas not previously ANOTHER car. And….because the owner/restorer DIDN'T use a donor shell, the shell he didn't use can be restored by someone else asthe mini it was and join us all on the road and/or at the shows:D! Surely if a cars original shell can be repaired properly that is the better option?

  23. imported post

    1963S wrote:
    “Pardon me if I beg to differ.

    Once you replace your Cooper's body with that from an 850 you have an 850 with a replacement engine, brakes etc etc.

    I would say you are correct, but ONLY if you retain the ID from the 850 'shell.

    Don't forget that in the UK it is easier to re shell because the Chassis plate is only held on with 2 screws, and in Aussie there are chassis and body numbers stamped into the various parts.

    See thread titled Mk1 Coper S[b][/b]

    So in Australia you would have to move various panels like the rad cowl and the firewall in order to be correct, and in the UK you would only need to move the body number and F numbers, that are on plates, and not stamped into panels like in Aussie.

    And where does this leave cars that have had a brand new replacement 'shell when they were a few years old as a result of an accident?
    I have a friend who has a car like this, and he even has the receipt for the 'shell!
    In my opinion it is just a car, with a (very large) replacement part.
    So now that we can't buy 'shells from BMC anymore, we have to get them from 850 minis.

    And if the donor shell is the same year, and all the ID is moved over, i can't see a problem.

    A Cooper 'shell is just a modified 850 shell anyway, it's not as if you are re sheling an MGA into a MGB or anything!

    It all depends on what, in your opinion constitutes a cars 'soul' Is it the 'shell? Is it the papers and ID tags?
    Is it the original trim etc?

    I would say that if you are in possession of the papers and ID tags then you have the 'licence' to re build that car, it's just that the finished article might be lacking in soul.

    J

    Minorparts, I have just read your post, and realise i have repeated much of what you said.

  24. imported post

    [b]1963S wrote: [/b] “my friend did absolutely nothing wrong in doing what you all advocate (a re-shell) and he recieved what he considered fair value for his effort.[b] The problem occurred when the unscrupulous second party cashed in on the S premium at the expense of the final buyer.

    That's what I object to.
    [/b]
    ” “” “Well we can agree to agree on that at least ! 😯 We can't account for unscrupulous sellers. Anyone who wishes to spend a substantial amount of cash on an 'original' (in your book not reshelled )car should do his homework before parting with the cash, which is where we come in quite handy.If he doesn't he's only himself to blame.” “There's a very expensive Mk1 for sale at the moment with a dealer that was built from a log book and nothing more.It's a beautiful car rebuilt to a high standardusing original parts( ie not repro),to original spec (rolls eyes) and cost a bomb to build. The eventual buyer of the car may not give a hoot that it's been built from 'nowt' because it's such a rare and lovely car and he just wants to drive and enjoy it, on the other hand he may butnot bother to do his homework, not ask to see it's history (which it can't possibly have !) and be sold a pup in his eyes. However I see little difference between that car and one rebuilt from an original project where 90% of the car has been thrown away during restoration. Discuss….:P” “Anyway bugger'originality' , I'm offto reshell myCooper S into this so I can get to work 😯 [img]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e347/porgy6/6658713.jpg[/img]” “”

  25. imported post

    minorparts – I totally agree with you on the 'patina'. For me as well I like a carthat show's signs of life and history, charecter, personality.

    I'm not into the concourse deal, where the cars look new. In fact I think many of them look too new, and not 'original' at all.

    I prefer original interiors that show wear and a little sagging, to bright new Newton Commercial stuff. Orginal paint with nicks, to paint that is ten times better quality than the original, and sometimes looks slighty odd.

    I spotted a mk1 Cooper locally in a car park. I dont know what this car's deal was, but it was very original, what wasn't appeared to be period and suited the car equally. Original Almond Green/OEW, orginal green gray interior, seat bases a little worn and flattened(although nice), and original paint with a bit of fading and minor nicks. This car was awesome, the sliders were open and I peeked in, the interior smelled period!:cool: and the worn spots and used appearance just made this car even sweeter. It was parked in a little sea side town and I felt like I was in the 60's for a moment. I regret not waiting for the owner to come back to find out about the car, but I had to leave.

    Thats what I strive for with my project's. Idont plan to enter any concourse shows, my car would not be suited and thats what I want. That's just me however.

  26. imported post

    I suppose it all depends on what you want. They are only cars after all but speaking for myself, I like an old car to have a bit of history – a bit of 'patina' as the antique dealers say and to have retained as much of the original car as possible. As we all know, this is particularlydifficult withsuch cars asthe Cooper S. When I was looking for a Mk1 I did look at a couple of completely rebuilt cars and found them lacking something. Yes, they looked like new, but that was the problem. They also had no checkable 'history', no 'soul' if you like, and the sellers were evasive. Lovely looking cars if that's what you want, but re-creations. Eventually I found the car I have now which was basically invery soundoriginal condition but displaying wear and tear, battle scars etc and having a traceable known past. It needed some restoration but at least I'll know what is under all the paint and that is worth something to me. It probably won't have cost much less than buying one of those 'rebuilt' cars in the first place but it will be what I want from an old Mini Cooper.

    Anyone buying one of these cars does need to do their homework as Glen says, and make sure it is the car for them. Whoever buys the car he mentions will hopefully be pleased with it and will enjoy it. I'll also be happy to see it and admire it on the road or at a show. I just prefer to own something more authentic for myself. Perhaps the car Glen knows will acquire that authenticity or patina as the years go on!

  27. imported post

    It seems as though there are more surving 850 shells around, due to the nature of the Cooper/S. Cooper's and S's were bought up for race cars, shell's hacked up taking panels off to lighten them, smashed up, rolled,discarded etc…

    Where as maybe 850's werent bought up for motorsport as much. Why start with one, when you could have started with Cooper's and S's. How many of these car's were bought up 25 or 30 years ago, their interiors thrown into a bin for some bucket seat's , front end's hacked off for fiberglass, wheels well's cut…whatever.

    I see them for sale from time to time, you can see that the car is an original Cooper or S, original bodyshell remaining, but the car has very little remaining original, as some dude hacked the thing up in 1978 to go racing and cruise the beaches with his orange paintwork and fiberglass bucket seats.

    On the topic of 're-building' a car from a V5 or log book, I think thats's rediculous. A proper re-shell is one thing, but building a car from paperwork is nuts. That car is long gone, the paperwork is for that car……without that car, the paperwork is just paper and ink, that belonged to a car, whitch is no longer…………. un-less of course it still exist's whitch makes this even more rediculous.

    In the case where a re-shell is required, me personally, I like to see the job done properly. Using a bare steel shell of simular vintage. These 're-shelled' cars that you see, seemas thoughthe engine/tranny/brakes and Paperwork were swapped intoa completelydifferent car. Thats a joke to me.

    If I reshell, the donar shell I select will come into the project as bare steel shell, no bits no nothing.The project car is complete, everything is there. Just a baremetal replacementshell would berequired. In fact I would keep the car's original shell, even if I never intendedto sell the car, I would just liketo keep it. Perhapsjust to see where the project started.If I were everto sell the car though, I'd liketo show any potential buyers the car'soriginal shell, and why is was replaced.

    I know in any caseit's nice to see an original mk1 justbrought back to the road, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't the least bit anal about originality and details with my projects. I'm sure many of you here can agree with me on that, judgingby some of the post's on this forum. If I simply wanted to have fun in a mini deatails and originality notimportant,be it any MK, it would be a whole lot simpler. But I know myself, my intrest and enthusiasm for the mk1 Cooper and Cooper S is a little more complicated than that.

  28. imported post

    If a Heritage shell was available, and used in a rebuild, no problem -a brand new part is simply replacing an old, worn out one. The finished car perhaps couldn't claim to be 'original' but what old Mini Cooper is? A car with a new shell wouldbeMORE attractive tosome people and not to others, which is fine. It depends on what you want. The legal/fraud/ringing ID arguments would not apply. A secondhand shell is different in that it has or has had an identity already and legally that identity stays with it.

    I'm not suggesting that it doesn't go on, or even that it shouldn't go on, just that, as Ian and Mark Mk1 have already pointed out, It is legally 'dubious' to say the least because a bodyshell previously used and having had a chassis plate attached is regarded as a car.

  29. imported post

    Hi Ian,

    Below is your quote:

    Re-read my story… my friend did absolutely nothing wrong in doing what you all advocate (a re-shell) and he recieved what he considered fair value for his effort. The problem occurred when the unscrupulous second party cashed in on the S premium at the expense of the final buyer.

    We need to make an important distinction here, you say that your mate did a re-shell:?
    It sounds to me as if he made a replica.

    A re-shell is when all your Cooper stuff AND the ID goes onto another 'shell

    A replica is when you put cooper stuff on an 850 with 850 ID.

    So what was it that he did?

    James.

  30. imported post

    you're right. It probably was a replica in that while it had S badges etc. I don't thing he was too fussed about numbers as he was really only practicing bodywork/painting etc for his S restoration.

    Don't forget Oz cars have different ID systems to UK cars. Some don't have any plates just numbers stamped on the shell.

    It was some time ago 🙂

    Cheers, Ian

  31. imported post

    [align=left]:XI believe that trying to pass off an 850 as an s is naughty,:( however as others have stated you can not buy a new shell, so you either keep the roof and scrap the rest as mini machine or re shell.I personally love a nice used mini if i spent the kind of money some people do i would be scared to drive it and to me that is what they are for.:D:D[/align]

  32. imported post

    What an emotive subject. This and works 'replicas', which every man and his dog seem to have a view on (why does Mr Young insist on not only publishing a letter in the magazine on the subject, but also the response, from a chap who brings nothing new to the table and by replying makes the MCR look soooo guilty and on the offensive) seem to be coming close to defining the club! I notice even Graham Robson has a dig in this months 'minimag' at reshells / replicas / fakes.

    If one starts nit picking, the average 'concours' restoration of a Mk1 – 3 Mini in the country relies on throwing masses of the original parts away. Obviously not the major components, but how many of us reuse wheel cylinders, all the chromework etc, master cylinders etc. The temptation is to replace with NOS, as these are only service parts, but then as other bits become available you buy those, and before you know it you are reassembling the car with all boxed bits and the only original items are the
    shell, engine and subframe if you are very lucky. So where DOES one stop?

    Personally i feel the reshell debate will continue for one reason, and that is so folk can knock others cars.

  33. imported post

    That's my beef… I think I'd much preferr a Cobra replica then the real thing…but if there was a nice 250LM going….

    I have to admit to heresy though. A few years ago I lucked in and a nice lady gave me a Traveller body – so I reshelled the S.

    I suppose that's not really true… but if you've ever tried to fit a hay bale in a Mini saloon you'll wondefr why Travellers are so few.

    So basically I have a 1071 with a MkII engine and gearbox, a Traveller body and a few aftermarket bits and bobs where necesary.

    Meanwhile some of the 1071 waits in the shed… I've often thought of selling – but my Daughter would kill me.

    Cheers, Ian

    C

  34. imported post

    Yes this one will run and run.

    I think the sooner some folk stop looking down their noses at a reshelled car the better. Yes I love to see an original untouched car, don't we all, but if you look at what owners have done with their Minis over the last nye on fifty years it's understandable if not expected that many have had a 'base unit change'.It was nothing to stick on arches, paint the interior black, cut a hole in the roof to stick your head through, repaint the car metallic purple, deseam it, cut the front end off, rally it ( not in metallic purple hopefully :P) race it, roll it or let it rust to bits !! Most Coopers were 'subjected' to this treatment and nobody batted an eyelid !

    I think it's folly to become pre occupied with 'originality' after all this time,re writing history to a degree cos nobody drove bog standard shiny Coopers in the 60's did they ? They were too busy having fun ! Which is what we should be pre occupied with doing not griping how 'my car's more original than yours'. Let's celebrate some of the rare original untouched cars that still crop up, but let's not forget these buzzboxes were built to drive !

    As for 'works cars', don't get me on that one, I'm in a good mood 😛

    (Put it this way, at leastwhen I've reshelled acar in the past I've actually had the original car to start with ! )

    😯

  35. imported post

    [i]'So basically I have a 1071 with a MkII engine and gearbox, a Traveller body and a few aftermarket bits and bobs where necesary.'[/i]

    Basically you have a bag of bits on a Cooper S logbook. You have in someones opinion no doubt created a fake sack of cack 🙂 (ho, ho, ho)

    Just as a matter of interest while you are so obviously taking the moral high ground, howdo you reconcile having a 1071S logbook on a Traveller shell as far as I am aware there was never a 1071 Cooper S Traveller. This would cause far more problems regarding legality in the UK than reshelling your 1071 into a similar year & spec shell. I'm not saying what you have done is wrong, I'm just trying to illustrate that condemning someone out of hand is never an easy position to take.

    I'm not looking for a fight, I don't have a strong opinion either way on this, but your moral absolutism does raise a few problems for you driving a reshelled car, or at least it shoiuld do.

    [b][i]Each to their own is what I say, I'm off into my Franken shed to create another monster :-)[/i][/b]

    M.

  36. imported post

    One word springs to mind 'INCLUSIVE'

    The MCR is a public club, and as such, it needs to be inclusive.
    Or more precisely, it's members and leadership need to be inclusive.

    If you have a group of mates, then you can pick and choose who you associate with,you hang out with like minded people, this defines EXCLUSIVE.

    In order to be inclusive, you just don't knock people for doing things their way.

    I have a mate who is really into originality and concours, i am fascinated by his lust for perfection, and see the enjoyment he gets from doing things this way.
    Who am i (or who is anyone else) to tell him not to get so caught up in the originality of stuff? and that He should drive his car in the rain?

    I have another friend who drives his Cooper a lot, He loves to experience the thrill of giving it a damn good seeing to.Who am I to tel him that his car is too precious to treat like that?

    I know another, who is going to chop His Cooper into a sprint,i think this is a great idea, but if i didn't, who am I to tell him not to modify his car so much?

    I have still another friend who loves to modify his Cooper S, He has never had a standard one, the list of non original parts on his car is huge, the roof is the wrong colour, and one of his cars had porcelain green seats with silver brocade, as a special order from Newtons,
    Who am i to tell him that it's wrong, and he shouldn't??

    I think you all get the idea.

    Anyone for a group hug?

    J

  37. imported post

    Interesting reading if you stick it into wikipedia. Who would have thought the MCR forum would take such a philosophical turn!:D:D

  38. imported post

    mk1 wrote:
    “[i]'
    Just as a matter of interest while you are so obviously taking the moral high ground, how do you reconcile having a 1071S logbook on a Traveller shell as far as I am aware there was never a 1071 Cooper S Traveller.  This would cause far more problems regarding legality in the UK than reshelling your 1071 into a similar year & spec shell. 

    I suppose its a bit like wearing fake diamonds – perfectly acceptable as long as you have the originals 😉

    We don't have logbooks but my rego papers identify my car as a Traveller; calling it a Cooper would be patently ridiculous. However, using the logic presented her, I could suggest that my Traveller is as much a Cooper as any of the 850 bodied 'reshells' people are defending (Obviously neither is – but only one's a fake) .

    I don't think my 1071 ever had a logbook either as it was shipped to Oz within days of manufacture.

    Years ago I could never get my head around the round nosed '1275GTs' that were advertised in various UK magazines. The concept is somewhat alien to us because of the way bodies are marked. While a UK swap means undoing a few screws, here you need to cut a chunk from both cars and then weld in the pieces containing the serial numbers – and then smooth over the surgery so the subterfuge is not obvious.

  39. imported post

    Well folks I thought I would add my tuppence worth as well.

    My car is a 1965 S which I found locally a number of years ago. The car having been laid up since 1973ish. The shell was in remarkable condition and only required minimal work to bring it back to life.

    After the shell had been blasted in became apparent that in its early life it had been in an accident as the front panel had been replaced as well as the inner wings back as far as the bulkhead stiffener. I contacted the owner who I purchased the car from and he had no recollection of the car being damaged when he owned it so it must have been during the first owners time.

    Anyway back to the restoration of the shell. The car had lost the body number and the FE number when repaired by the local bodyshop in the 60's. What wasI to do? Well idecided that the car would do without these little bits and if any smart arse was to point them out then I would poke him in the eye. The car has its history and I want to keep it that way.

    Honesty is the best policy. If it has been reshelled then so what!!!!!!

    graeme

  40. imported post

    [b]tim64 wrote: [/b] “So in conclusion is it best to keep the original shell or re-sh……;)


    I think the Titanic will need reshelling 😀

  41. imported post

    Possible donor shell :D[url=http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/45-FT-NARROW-BOAT-CRUISER-STEEL-SHELL_W0QQitemZ380015770473QQihZ025QQcategoryZ121900QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem]http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/45-FT-NARROW-BOAT-CRUISER-STEEL-SHELL_W0QQitemZ380015770473QQihZ025QQcategoryZ121900QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem[/url]

  42. imported post

    [img]http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd197/776vde/thread_direction.gif[/img]

    and not for the first time – I have a special one of these for Taffy 😀

  43. imported post

    Andrew1967 wrote:
    “[b]tim64 wrote: [/b] “So in conclusion is it best to keep the original shell or re-sh……;)


    I think the Titanic will need reshelling 😀

    I'm sure our Canadian friend will take it on,he's bolder than most apparently ….:D:D:D

  44. imported post

    Seeing as tangential discussion is 'de rigeur' a similar analogy can be applied to the myth about Titanic and it's almost identical sister ship Olympic. Olympic was severely damaged by the infamous Capt Smith at Southampton when he collided with a naval vessel,which meant insurance costs couldn't be recovered. This,as you can imagine,put the White Star Line in a serious financial predicament. There are theories out there that the Titanic was not in fact the Titanic at all when it sank on it's maiden voyage.It was 'Olympic' with a id swap which was then sabotaged to recover the insurance money. :shock::shock::shock:

  45. imported post

    [b]android wrote: [/b] “Seeing as tangential discussion is 'de rigeur' a similar analogy can be applied to the myth about Titanic and it's almost identical sister ship Olympic. Olympic was severely damaged by the infamous Capt Smith at Southampton when he collided with a naval vessel,which meant insurance costs couldn't be recovered. This,as you can imagine,put the White Star Line in a serious financial predicament. There are theories out there that the Titanic was not in fact the Titanic at all when it sank on it's maiden voyage.It was 'Olympic' with a id swap which was then sabotaged to recover the insurance money. :shock::shock::shock:” I bet the chassis plate was a bugger to change.:D

  46. imported post

    haha, ya, I dont think i'm any bolder than anyone else. I'm certaintly not claiming to be, just choose to do things the way I want it done, with my personal projects. My car, my spec, my headache and hangover;)Whatever that is, I dont know….But I am not comparing, or competing with anyone. Come on by sometime, I'll pour you some canadian whiskey……

  47. imported post

    Gray wrote:
    “[b]android wrote: [/b] “Seeing as tangential discussion is 'de rigeur' a similar analogy can be applied to the myth about Titanic and it's almost identical sister ship Olympic. Olympic was severely damaged by the infamous Capt Smith at Southampton when he collided with a naval vessel,which meant insurance costs couldn't be recovered. This,as you can imagine,put the White Star Line in a serious financial predicament. There are theories out there that the Titanic was not in fact the Titanic at all when it sank on it's maiden voyage.It was 'Olympic' with a id swap which was then sabotaged to recover the insurance money. :shock::shock::shock:” I bet the chassis plate was a bugger to change.:D”

    Nah,just two crosshead screws.

  48. imported post

    [b]android wrote: [/b] “Gray wrote:
    “[b]android wrote: [/b] “Seeing as tangential discussion is 'de rigeur' a similar analogy can be applied to the myth about Titanic and it's almost identical sister ship Olympic. Olympic was severely damaged by the infamous Capt Smith at Southampton when he collided with a naval vessel,which meant insurance costs couldn't be recovered. This,as you can imagine,put the White Star Line in a serious financial predicament. There are theories out there that the Titanic was not in fact the Titanic at all when it sank on it's maiden voyage.It was 'Olympic' with a id swap which was then sabotaged to recover the insurance money. :shock::shock::shock:” I bet the chassis plate was a bugger to change.:D”

    Nah,just two crosshead screws. ”
    I saw the conspiracy theory documentary on the Titanic/Olympic (I like a good conspiracy theory…..what moon landing!!) and it looked to be quite compelling until they announced one big difference between the Titanic and Olympic…..Titanic had ashtrays with lids on :P.

    Seriously, it was something to do with a different port hole arrangement on one part of the hull which proved that it was Titanic that sunk.

  49. imported post

    I've just bought a Rover Mini Rio. 39K miles. very pretty in a camp carnival kinda way. As it looks a little bit like Teal Blue, has anyone got a V5 for a Teal Blue Mk3 S? I'd like to increase its value somewhat and stick it on ebay.

    😉

  50. imported post

    Well it won't be the first time.

    Joke,… it's a joke !:P:P:P

    There's a lengthy article about Cooper reshells in Mini Mag this month by Graham Robson.He's particularly scathing about works cars too saying that if a car's been reshelled it should be called a replica, it's just carrying the old number platebut the true identity (ie the bit that's got all the ID numbers stuck to it) has been lost. I think that's too simplistic an argument.

    Well I have to say when it comes to works car I can barely decipher the difference between a so called works car and a works replica, surely most 'works' carshave actually been built as purereplicas from boxes of bits and then a registration applied to it.In fact some works replicas are much more accurate than the so called 'works car' they're based on ! ( and have as much right to the reg number in some cases !) That could apply equally to a road car though, whether reshelled or not if the majority of the restored car is NEW !

    The best bet is not to worry about it, we all drive the cars we want to drive, if we want to dream our car did a famous rally then why not, who's to say you can't. Some want a car with a documented history from new, others couldn't care less if the history has ominouslylarge gaps in it. Do what you wanna do , it's your car, I doubt Graham Robson even owns a Mini ! 😉

  51. imported post

    Graham Robson is absolutely correct though – the DJB car has nothing (and I mean NOTHING) in common with the original. It is an absolute fake created 15 years ago when an enterprising soul applied for the V5 and got it.

    But if someone is daft enough to pay that kind of money for a car (car, not number plate) which has as much competition history as a Mondeo Minicab then more fool them. What he's actually bought is a Maroon B 1964 850 Mini with loads of nice bits and a famous number plate – it's not even an S shell and I saw that car being built. Stuart Turner is also well known to be very scathing about these 'discovered' works cars.

    The same thing happens with Escorts too – very few are really the real thing but clever copies.
    'You can take a country Boy, make him look like Elvis, make him sing like Elvis. But he ain't Elvis'

  52. imported post

    DJB is still in competiton use – it was on last years Rally of the Tests.

    [url=http://www.classicrally.org.uk/rott2007/pictures/c84_leg3.jpg][img]http://www.classicrally.org.uk/rott2007/pictures/c84_leg3.jpg[/img][/url]

  53. imported post

    Who cares what it sold for, or what it's used for, it's not my money or my car. One thing is for sure though and that's the press love a story so don't be surprised to hear that 'DJB' is the real thing, in fact that's happened plenty of times already with this car and others, in fact the auction sales blurbonly went as far as describingthe car as 'rolled into retirement' which is cute sales spiel for 'totally destroyed' 😉

    The previous owner made no bones about it's history though, or should I say lack of it but it's very rare you'll ever hear any owner of a car such as this use the word [b]replica[/b]. Which is unfortunate cos I doubt the percieved elitism would exist if they did !

  54. imported post

    [align=left]:)There is a man who lives not far from me who built himself a works replica, and to be honest it looked fantastic.It took him 8 years to get all the parts and assemble the car. I think this kind of dedication to do the job so well is admirable' the value is unimportant on such cars its all about how much you want it.[/align]

  55. imported post

    In a recent Classic and Sportscar DJB was advertised as having sold for over a 100K while elsewhere in the same mag CRX90B and OBL45F are reported as going to auction but are expected to only raise about 40K each.

    Why the huge disparity?

    Cheers, Ian

  56. imported post

    “I've just bought a Rover Mini Rio. 39K miles. very pretty in a camp carnival kinda way. As it looks a little bit like Teal Blue, has anyone got a V5 for a Teal Blue Mk3 S? I'd like to increase its value somewhat and stick it on ebay”

    Putting a Mk 3 S logbook on it is unlikely to increase its value given Mk 3 S prices at the moment. 😉

    “In a recent Classic and Sportscar DJB was advertised as having sold for over a 100K while elsewhere in the same mag CRX90B and OBL45F are reported as going to auction but are expected to only raise about 40K each.

    Why the huge disparity?”

    Because DJB is a faithful reproduction of the 1965 RAC Rally winner – after the Monte the RAC is one of the biggest events in rallying – especially for us Brits. CRX didn't have much of a competition record and OBL has no significant competition history and neither was to the standard of DJB or some of the works replicas that have appeared at auction recently.

    “DJB…… is an absolute fake”
    The definition of fake is to make something that appears genuine, in order to deceive. A reproduction is made to imitate the style of an earlier period.

    I think it quite likely that one thing that allowed the car to make its money was the fact that the seller and auctioneers (see the disclaimers attached to any 'works' car description) never sought to obfuscate the history or hide behind clever verbiage when describing the car. DJB therefore = reproduction.

    As such, I can't see why the DJB selling price seems to so raise the ire of some people;

    1) two people wanted the DJB in the auction

    2) two people were able pay for the DJB in the auction

    3)two people were prepared to pay forthe DJB in the auction

    '3)' is what every seller hopes for at an auction.

  57. imported post

    Undoubtedly the selling price of DJB did get up a lot of people's noses, but the fact is that it was the sellers absolute honesty about the 'heritage' of his incarnation of DJB that helped to sell it. It never had one of those cock and bull 'found in someones tool shed in mint condition' stories given to it.

    The seller who was no mean slouch in professional motorsport, saw DJB in the mid 60's as a lad and promissed himself that one day he'd be a rally driver.He did after many years of professional international competition became very successful eventually running various successful rally teams. When he knew that the DLB numberplate was available he had a replica of the car he remembers as a lad made, including the numberplate.

    DJB was / is a fairly close recreation of the original it is however also totally motorsport legal, something that can't be said about the run of the mill works replicas.

    As I say, I am certain that the sellers total honesty regarding the history played a part in the altogether remarkable price he received for what in my book is one of the best works replicas / recreations or whatever you want to call it about.

    M.

  58. imported post

    For 100 grand I would want something that Paddy Hopkirk farted in, not a pretty copy and as you've said, that car is a copy no matter how nice it is. That car has zero history – it was probably more significant when it was an 850 Mini.

    As for the description, I wonder if the new owner knows exactly what went into that car and how the number plate was aquired?

    To me, it's a fake. It is not the real thing. A Hong Kong £15 Rolex watch says 'Rolex' on the dial and the better ones look very much like the real thing – but it's not real. It's the wristbound equivalent of an imaginary friend.

    The 100 grand price tag proves that there were two born on that day, nothing more. I mean, what would you do with it? It's probably too nice to use as a rally car.

    The direct opposite of that car is the one talked about with the back corner of the roof punched down. That could be straightened out and made presentable and you would have a very proper works Mini, one that did events 40+ years ago. I'd much rather look at that at a Mini event than DJB93B.

  59. imported post

    Mk 3 S Meister wrote:
    “DJB is still in competiton use – it was on last years Rally of the Tests.

    [url=http://www.classicrally.org.uk/rott2007/pictures/c84_leg3.jpg][img]http://www.classicrally.org.uk/rott2007/pictures/c84_leg3.jpg[/img][/url]

    You mean the number plate was used in competition. The real car certainly wasn't. The real car is now a Breville Toaster and a Smeg fridge.

  60. imported post

    “You mean the number plate was used in competition. The real car certainly wasn't.”
    The car you see in the photo wasnt, but is identical in all respects to the one that wore the plate in the 60s. It was not advertised as anything other than that when it was sold -it is common knowledge that the caris an accurate representation of DJB andno- one was fleeced.

    Whats the problem? 😕

  61. imported post

    earlycar wrote:
    ” And with the most signifigant plate ever sported by a works car, bar 33 EJB,

    Apart from GRX5D which has never made 100k yet is a car with some provenance.
    About the most flattering description you could say about DJB is that it is the latest in a long line of cars to display that numberplate. But it's not real. It wasn't built from a new Cooper S at Abingdon.
    You talk about 15 grand bitsas based on 850 shells with scorn one moment, and look upon a 100k bitsa based on an 850 shell with reverence just because it sports a numberplate…….

    What would 618AOG be worth if it were in the UK, fully restored to 1960 Monte Carlo spec? Significant? It was the first ever Mini to score a class win, 1960 Geneva with the Morley twins…and I paid £30 for it.:P

  62. imported post

    [b]618AOG wrote: [/b] “earlycar wrote:
    You talk about 15 grand bitsas based on 850 shells with scorn one moment, and look upon a 100k bitsa based on an 850 shell with reverence just because it sports a numberplate…….

    The scorn wasn't aimed at the car but the vendor. My point was that anybody interested in purchasing DJB should know what they're getting, it's well documented in the public domain. Determining what's happened to the £15K car in it's past is much more difficult. This is made even worse by some members of the vehicle retail trade who have no qualms about purchasing a replica, at a commensurate rate, doubling it's price and 'forgetting' it's a replica when it's sold.

    All Coopers are great, and peoples personal interpratations are no problem with me, as long as you've bought what you think you've bought at what you think is a reasonable price. Meeting a fellow enthusiast 6 months after you've bought a car who tells you it was built from parts he bought on Ebay really annoys and reflects badly on the whole hobby.

  63. imported post

    earlycar wrote:
    ” “You mean the number plate was used in competition. The real car certainly wasn't.”
    The car you see in the photo wasnt, but is identical in all respects to the one that wore the plate in the 60s. It was not advertised as anything other than that when it was sold - it is common knowledge that the car is an accurate representation of DJB and no- one was fleeced.

    Whats the problem? 😕

    I don't have a problem – but I haven't paid 100 grand for a number plate!

    £100'000 would have bought a real one so I don't quite follow the logic.

  64. imported post

    I don't think there is, or ever will be, a problem with DJB. The story has been told time and time again so it doesn't take a lot of research to find. The problem comes when the 'original' £15K Mk1 you've just bought turns out to be a bitsa built in an 850 shell.

    £100K? It strikes me if you want a period prepared historic rally car to use this year then you'll have to pay it or set your sights lower. Otherwise commit to the long slog of finding all the correct parts to build your own – not likely to be finished this year though!

  65. imported post

    Precisely. Not only one of THE most accurately detailed cars, buteminently useable to boot. And with the most signifigant plate eversported by a works car, bar 33 EJB, it looks almost a steal when you consider a good replica will be (30 – 50K) on the right day.

    As for bitsas, its buyer beware – if you go headlong into this sort of purchase without doing your homework, well……..

  66. imported post

    I don't have a problem – but I haven't paid 100 grand for a number plate!

    £100'000 would have bought a real one so I don't quite follow the logic.

    If that the case, why the harping on? Do you not think this subject has been exercised to ad nauseum?:(

  67. imported post

    AMS wrote:

    I don't have a problem – but I haven't paid 100 grand for a number plate!

    £100'000 would have bought a real one so I don't quite follow the logic.

    If that the case, why the harping on?  Do you not think this subject has been exercised to ad nauseum?:(

    It's called 'having a discussion'.:P

Leave a comment