A question of identity: Real or Replica
We begin this page with an apology:
Some time ago we mistakenly suggested that a 'scrapped part' of an ex-works D-type Jaguar might possibly be recognised by some Jaguar historians as a legitimate part for use in the re-creation of another car. We are grateful to historians Terry Larson, USA, and Paul Skilleter, UK, for pointing out this error.
In a nutshell if Jaguar racing workshops scrapped a part - that part stays scrapped and cannot be legitimately be resurrected for future use or to add provenance to another car.
Paul Skilleter looks at how cars are identified in law and by custom
To preface this item, I would say that the following remarks are not my opinion or invention (unless otherwise stated) but are what has long been established in British law. So if you don't like what you read, don't blame me - get onto your MP and agitate for a change in the law!
The legal identity of a motor vehicle is not difficult to define, and is the same whether the car be a £2,000,000 ex-works D-type or a £2,000 Austin 7 Ruby. Two main factors are taken into account. The first is the identification number given to the vehicle by its manufacturer. When cars had separate chassis frames, this number was normally stamped on that. Later, when most passenger cars had unitary (or monocoque) bodies with no real frame, this bodyshell carried the serial number (today known as the VIN - Vehicle Identity Number). The second factor is the continuous history of that number as it passes from owner to owner.
Originality and identity
It may come as a surprise to some, but these factors take precedence over the physical constituent parts of the vehicle. This is because the law is not interested in "originality". Provided the right paperwork is completed, it couldn't care less whether all or even none of the original components which the vehicle left the factory with are present. "Originality" is an aesthetic; it is irrelevant in law and is merely a topic for enthusiasts to savour and discuss.
If you think about it, there can be no other way of determining identity. If identity were somehow buried DNA-like in a new car's metal, then that identity would immediately die if that component needed replacing. So: old cars could never have their chassis frame replaced, and modern cars could never be re-shelled. They and their identity would cease to exist when frame or shell became unserviceable.
Fred and Cuthbert
Probably the most authentic D-type evocation in the world. Only the petrol feed pipes are not genuine D-type.When compiling a feature on this topic for my own magazine (Jaguar World), I provided an extreme but not unrealistic illustration: supposing the owner of a fine, low mileage, unrestored D-type - though in principle it could be any car - unfortunately rolled it. However, not to be deterred the owner, who we will call Fred, decided to rebuild it (and we will call the car XKD 407, which we will also pretend won the 1958 Mille Miglia, so it was historically important).
Fred, something of an eccentric, reckoned it would be cheaper to have a new body made in glass fibre and, for the same reason, elected not to repair the original frame but use another - having been lucky enough to find a secondhand one from a scrapped D-type (or was it a reproduction frame, nicely aged? He didn't care; it did the job).
Because the engine had been upside down, he lost faith in that and also in the transmission, so these were discarded in favour of an American V8 for more power along with a Borg Warner automatic gearbox. As for the suspension and brakes, this was a fine opportunity to fit an E-type independent rear suspension, together with a fabricated wishbone coil spring suspension of his own devising at the front. As for the interior - well, he had some excellent Recaro seats in the garage and his old mum was a dab hand at sewing Vinyl...
Pleased with his rebuild, Fred takes pity on a young enthusiast, Cuthbert, next door and tells him he can have all the old bits he has discarded. Cuthbert is delighted and within six months has the original D-type body and frame reunited, together with the rebuilt D-type engine, transmission, suspension, brakes and interior. Beautifully finished in British Racing Green, and composed entirely of genuine all-matching-number D-type parts made by Jaguar, the car now sits in his drive next to the metalflake painted, V8-engined, E-type suspension device next door.
So now who has XKD 407? Absolutely and positively, Fred does. What does Cuthbert have? Not a Jaguar D-type, not even a Jaguar, merely a collection of Jaguar parts. Even the original Browns Lane frame, stamped XKD 407, can form no part of any legal claim to the identity of the Jaguar motor car chassis number XKD 407.
To make his car into a true D-type Jaguar, the only thing Cuthbert can do is acquire another D-type which (in pieces or not) does have a continuous history. Then, as the owner, he can 'rebuild' this with the assembly of parts he has and adopt its number. The result will then be a 'real' D-type. Otherwise he will have to register it as a Cuthbert Special.
Ridiculous? Unfair? Maybe - but that's the only way it can be. Consider: when a modern car is re-shelled after a major accident, you wouldn't expect anyone who acquires that discarded damaged factory shell to claim that car's identity - even if the original VIN is still stamped on it. Anarchy would reign if this could happen.
So clearly 'originality' and 'legal entity' are two entirely different terms and may not always coincide. What constitutes a superbly original car in a rally field might not be the legal possessor of an identity.
Purloined E-type
In fact, the fictitious example I have given is not far from what has happened in real life. I know of at least one instance where the owner of a rusty 3.8 E-type roadster did essentially what Fred did: he rebuilt his E-type using a new shell and a new subframe, and threw (or gave) away the originals. Someone then acquired these and built up a car around them - and, discovering the chassis number stamped on the frame, registered the car with the authorities using that number. Whether he knew that the 'proper' car existed elsewhere I do not know, but it certainly caused all sorts of problems for the rightful owner of that identity. The moral is, if you discard major components that physically carry your car's identity, keep them safe or ensure they are totally destroyed. They are legally irrelevant but could nevertheless cause you problems!
Conversely, is it legitimate to build up a car from just a few unchallenged parts and then claim the identity? Legally, this centres around whether or not the collection of parts have a continuous history - that is, no matter how bad their condition or whether some items had gone missing, the various owners over the years have always considered them to be that identity. If there is a gap in that chain of ownership, who or what was the last owner of that identity when it was unequivocally a car? Without evidence to the contrary, such a person or company must own that identity still - unless they declared to the authorities that it was broken up. In that case, the identity has ceased to exist and cannot be recreated.
Just occasionally, the chassis frame suddenly emerges of what is claimed to be a historically important car - be it XK 120, C-, D- or E-type in Jaguar terms. Again, the first step in assessing the validity of such a claim is the chain of ownership from new of the remains.
If there is a gap in this chain - particularly in more recent years - then the claim must be regarded with circumspection, especially as anecdotal evidence ("the previous owner told me he bought it from a little old lady in Alaska who has since died") will not do. I don't think I have ever come across a case of an historically important genuine car where the line of ownership has not been traceable over the previous 30 years - if not from new.
D-type construction
Some confusion has arisen over the years about what constitutes the identity-bearing part of a D-type Jaguar, as unusually this car combines a tubular frame with an aluminium monocoque, and both are load-bearing. However, the matter is perfectly straightforward: Jaguar allocated the identifying serial (or chassis) number of the car to the tubular frame, not the monocoque.
This frame, therefore, constitutes the D-type's chassis and the description is accurate. The structure runs from front to rear of the car with the front portion carrying the front suspension and engine; the rear part is secured to the rear bulkhead which carries the rear suspension. So it fulfills essentially the same function as a conventional ladder-frame chassis, or a tubular frame such as the C-type's.
But as mentioned, the D-type's construction is unusual in that some of the load is borne by the body which is penetrated by the frame. However, although it is load-bearing, this aluminium centre section is clearly defined as the 'body' by Jaguar, as also evidenced by the factory build schedule and the workshop manual. It carries only a body number tag, not the chassis number.
Clearly, this means that a D-type identity does not lie with this body, and an accredited D-type cannot be built from it alone if there is a chance that the frame survives. Most people understand that a legitimate XK 120 roadster can't be built from purely old bodywork if the chassis frame does or could exist elsewhere, and exactly the same applies to the D-type.
Sometimes, 'ownership' of an identity is claimed where even the chassis frame is missing. This is a huge setback for the claimant as there is always the danger of the missing frame turning up. The absent frame may well have legitimately lost that identity but if this cannot be comprehensively proved, then the owner of the other parts needs to have a solid, cast-iron case of succession of ownership if the claim is to take precedence over any other claim from a possible owner of the frame, should it reappear.
Sometimes a genuine frame appears that comes from a car never sold by Jaguar as a legal entity. One such in circulation is XKD 544, commonly known as the 'glass fibre D-type'. I personally am convinced (though absolute proof has yet to emerge) that this frame and other D-type parts were used by Jaguar's experimental department to produce an experimental glass fibre monocoque XK-SS. Minus its engine, the car in this form appears to have left the factory in the late 1950s or very early 1960s, but not under cover of an official invoice. In the 1970s the frame and other parts were built into a conventional production D-type and it has been successfully raced with FIA papers ever since.
In my opinion this car is a 'proper' D-type, having an unchallenged number, incorporates the original chassis frame and, so far as I am aware, has a continuous history as that car. However (and this element is not mere opinion), its provenance must also include the fact that it was never provenly sold as a legal entity by Jaguar Cars Ltd, which thus still technically owns the motor car identity XKD 544 - if it exists. Indeed this has been reflected in its price whenever it has changed hands, as it usually fetches some 20 - 25 per cent less than would be realised by a conventional production D-type. This is a perfectly satisfactory situation as the circumstances are appreciated by everyone.
Buried treasure
The debate on this website was sparked off by the remote possibility that the original frame of the ex-works D-type XKC 403 (the 'C' designation was used by Jaguar before the car came to be called D-type) lies buried in a field. They were discarded when Jaguar rebuilt the car after an accident for its then owner, Jack Broadhead. The Browns Lane-rebuilt XKC 403 has been owned by Terry Larson in North America for a good many years and it has, unquestionably, a continuous history since new.
So, if you have read this article properly, you will appreciate that even if discovered, XKC 403's original frame no longer has a legal connection with XKC 403. If anyone tried to 'rebuild' it into a D-type and call it XKC 403, it would be a simple act of fraud. On the other hand, if its condition permitted it would be quite legitimate to use it as a spare part to repair another D-type. In that situation, it would assume the identity of that car.
In conclusion, while these remarks concern the law on vehicle identity in the UK, the situation appears to be much the same in most other countries. But even where some peculiar local vehicle licensing regulations differ from the UK's, when it comes to important cars like the C-type or D-type being offered for sale, I have not known the international historic vehicle community deviate from the continuous history convention as outlined in this article.
© 2002 Paul Skilleter. Not to be copied or reproduced without written permission.
Paul Skilleter is a lifelong Jaguar enthusiast. He has written several standard works on the subject (two of them gaining the Montagu Award for the best-researched motoring book of the year) and in 1988 he founded Jaguar Quarterly (now Jaguar World), a magazine devoted entirely to he marque. This he still edits today. Since he bought his first Jaguar and started writing about the car company n 1966, Paul Skilleter has interviewed many of the people who were responsible for Jaguar's great competition successes of the 1950s, and later those involved in the "modern" era of Le Mans and Group C racing. On the practical side, he has owned most key models of Jaguar sports car, has track-tested C-, D- and lightweight E-types, plus Lister- and Cooper-Jaguars. He has also enjoyed several seasons of "historic" motor racing with an aluminium-bodied XK120. Paul Skilleter lives in Hampshire with his wife June and son Eben.
|
|
Nothing Beats a Good Rant!
The Gentlemen Ranters site is a brilliant compendium of reminiscences of the great days of Fleet Street. – The Times, August 2007 |
|
Evocation 