Another mystery car
Discussion
Conjecture, definitely. But isn't that how Einstein's theory of Special Relativity started? As a conjecture. (Not that I'm making any serious comparison between our efforts and what Einstein achieved, of course, except to say he would tell us not give up too easily).
I am, however, certain that there are only three figures in the number. The white-stripe alignment convinces me of that.
And whilst it isn't possible to say what that middle number is, if Alpinweiss can work his magic again on what I think was a sharper scan, then it should become more legible.
And going on a previous discussion here about tracing old numbers, we may then have enough of a partial (and unusually short/distinctive) number to request a DVLA search. Even if we can only narrow down the choice to three or four possibilities (for the second number), that could be enough.
I am, however, certain that there are only three figures in the number. The white-stripe alignment convinces me of that.
And whilst it isn't possible to say what that middle number is, if Alpinweiss can work his magic again on what I think was a sharper scan, then it should become more legible.
And going on a previous discussion here about tracing old numbers, we may then have enough of a partial (and unusually short/distinctive) number to request a DVLA search. Even if we can only narrow down the choice to three or four possibilities (for the second number), that could be enough.
The HPI on the vehicle shows the vehicle was purchased in 2006 and after 1-month-old had the plate T33 transferred onto it, it is still on the vehicle today, it would suggest it is a 1 owner vehicle after 13 years, if this is the plate on the mystery car, would the owner know anything? could he/she be the person who built the car or even a descendant and the plate has stayed in the family?
Edited by piper on Monday 11th March 18:18
Unfortunately, from this 'booklet', if I'm reading it correctly, it seems that the only source of London licensing data would now be the DVLA.
https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/londo...
From what I can see online, it now also seems unlikely, in light of the new data protection legislation, that they would be in much of a position to help, although the rules do not seem to be applied consistently and some people have been given selected information.
Of course, having a number (even if there is some guess work involved) may also tie-in with information from other sources.
This question (and some may recognise the enquirer) got an answer from somebody that knew an owner of the registration number...........
https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/londo...
From what I can see online, it now also seems unlikely, in light of the new data protection legislation, that they would be in much of a position to help, although the rules do not seem to be applied consistently and some people have been given selected information.
Of course, having a number (even if there is some guess work involved) may also tie-in with information from other sources.
This question (and some may recognise the enquirer) got an answer from somebody that knew an owner of the registration number...........
We're only interested in the car's owner/builder around 1962. I thought that was the whole point of everything that has been contributed to this thread over the past three years.
The primary purpose behind all this privacy legislation is to limit the reach of global corporations and marketing companies. Not to prevent historical research.
However, I suppose we could give out a private e-mail for replies if any personal details are forthcoming.
The primary purpose behind all this privacy legislation is to limit the reach of global corporations and marketing companies. Not to prevent historical research.
However, I suppose we could give out a private e-mail for replies if any personal details are forthcoming.
I had been wanting to test my Austin Big Seven based scale drawings against the original image, by using a technique called photo matching. This involves the creation of a CAD model, and the creation of a viewpoint within the CAD package that allows it to be matched against the desired background image, in this case the mystery car photo'.
Attempts to provide a cloud of 3-D data points for Sorted to try fitting to the picture proved inconclusive, so I decided to have a go myself.
Here is a comparison between the original, hand drawn blueprints and the same model as re-worked to fit the original image.
New photo-matched CAD model
Original drawings from about a month ago
New drawings based on the CAD model
CAD model as adjusted to fit the image
The small black line and dot (just visible), on the centreline of the CAD model, and aligned with the boot handle can also be seen on the side-view in the first image, and give an indication of the length of the car's tail.
This proved to be a very interesting exercise (as I've never used photo matching before), and has undoubtedly made the model more accurate.
The biggest differences were the length of the nose, the wider spacing of the headlamps and an adjustment to the angle of the B-posts.
ACE WHEEL DISCS
Frustratingly, information on Cornercroft Ace 'Mercury' wheel discs is scant.
I have found that the Jaguar MKII, 420G, MGB, and some Triumph models could be fitted with them as optional extras. These all had custom made centres with the manufacturer's badge, but plain versions were also available as accessories. This appears to be what the mystery car has.
It soon became apparent, however, that there were different types and styles, not just sizes, of the Ace 'Mercury' discs.
They range from as small as 10” through to 15”. However, I have been unable to find any 16” Ace 'Mercury' discs, so it is uncertain whether they were made in this size or above.
The items found on the Jaguar MKII were of a different style to the MG and Triumph type. But both cars feature 15” wheels! The number of ventilation slots differed, and even a set of Triumph discs sold as a single lot on Ebay had a mixture of 47 and 49 ventilation slot divisions, which made the possibility of a positive identification of the parts seem somewhat problematic, to say the least!
Ace 'Mercury' 15" from a Jaguar MKII
Ace 'Mercury' 15" from a Triumph
I tried to count the number of divisions on the mystery car wheel, but only the front halves of the discs were clear enough. I initially estimated 46 divisions at the front, but if I were just half a division out (because of a tiny inaccuracy in where you draw the centreline on the wheel), then they could match those 47 division Triumph items.
I printed two copies of a front-wheel close-up, and cut and matched one to the other, and 47 seemed plausible if not conclusive. So I tried using the centreline from the photo matched CAD model, and eventually became convinced that both front and rear wheels has 47 divisions. Exactly like the Triumph 15” items.
Paper cut-outs
Centreline from photo-matched CAD model
If this was correct, then my theory about the Austin Big Seven would be on shaky ground, as I had used it's 16” wheels to calculate the wheelbase ratio……..
So, rather than continue to estimate sizes, I contacted a seller with a set of Triumph-branded items, which are intended for 15” wheels, and he kindly measured them for me.
The actual overall diameter is 15 5/8”, or 397mm.
This was somewhat smaller than either I, or Sorted, had used for our calculations, which was a bit of a surprise and would make our calculated wheelbase measurements somewhat inaccurate! And as Sorted already noted, a small difference in the diameter of the wheel disc would be multiplied many times over when calculating the wheelbase.
Unlike the Jaguar MKII 15” Ace 'Mercury' discs that Sorted scanned, these discs do not cover the wheel rim. Instead, like these MG branded ones, they fit inside the outer rim. I'm guessing that the wheels on the mystery car are painted black, so simply blend into the tyre wall in the picture.
15 inch discs on an MGB - note how the outer rim of the wheel is still visible
I had also by now figured-out that the 47 division Ace 'Mercurys' were left-handed (the vents are tiny cooling scoops), and those with 49 divisions were right-handed (and the scoops point the other way). I bet nobody has ever, in the past 60 or so years since they were made, noticed that before! But then, as Sorted said, we were both proving ourselves to be quite mad………..
However, for the first time, we finally had a concrete measurement to work with.
By now, I had also realised that I could measure the mystery car dimensions far more accurately when enlarged on the computer monitor, rather than from an A4 printout.
There were now also two ways to approach the accurate calculation of the mystery car wheelbase. I could simply place my new, soft, flexible ruler straight onto the enlarged screen image, and use the diameters of the wheels and the wheelbase directly, scaling the full size wheelbase from the 397mm wheel disc as though using a technical drawing. Or, I could measure the sizes on the CAD model directly (which in-theory, should be a little more accurate as it accounts for perspective effects), and then adjust to fit the 397mm disc.
I tried both. However, the measurements taken from the perspective plane in the CAD model proved problematic, as it was telling me that the rear wheel was about 50mm larger than the front. This is almost certainly due to a difference between real-world perspective through the spherical surface of a camera lens and the construction of perspectives using graphical or calculated methods. In other words, what the camera sees isn't exactly the same as what the computer calculates. From what I have read recently, I had learned that when photo-matching, is is always good practice to have the object in the centre of a photograph, as the differences here are tiny. The outer edges can become progressively more divergent.
Unfortunately, the only image we have runs right to the corner of the picture!
Fortuitously, however, when simply measured flat, straight from the image, the two wheels are almost exactly the same size. In effect, the camera lens distortion has cancelled-out the perspective effect!
Measured directly from the photo', the calculated wheelbase was 1979mm (6' 5.9”), and using the slightly suspect perspective based calculation, the figures were 1944mm (calculated using the rear wheel disc/ wheelbase ratio) and 2000mm, using the same technique with the front wheel disc. The average for the two being 1972mm.
Now, as suggested previously by Sorted, I was able to run an advanced search on the Carfolio website to see what possibilities might come up. Allowing a margin of error of 2mm either side of the disc measurements, and the wheelbase being about 6.8 times the wheel disc diameter the calculated wheelbase should be accurate to within 6.8 x2mm, so about 14mm either side.
Searching for a wheelbase between 1942 and 2008 gives a wider margin for error (plus or minus 30mm) from the above calculations.
From this we get a list of, essentially, six basic models.
1928-1934 Morris Minor – 1981 or 1997mm wheelbase, 19” wheels (18” for 1934 only)
1928- MG M-Type Midget (which shares the chassis, engine and wheelbase of the Morris) – 1981mm wheelbase
1935 Datsun 14 – 1980mm wheelbase
1936 Datsun 15 – 2005mm wheelbase
FIAT Topolino 500/500A/500B/500C & 500C Giardinetta – 15” wheels, 2000mm wheelbase
1947 Tama (Nissan's first electric car, apparently) – 2000mm wheelbase
1953 Moretti – 1980mm wheelbase, though other dimensions have been quoted elsewhere
Of the mathematically closest matches, and by far the most readily available, has to be the Morris or MG (which are essentially the same car).
The FIATs have their engine ahead of the front axle, and the engine would need surgery to fit under the low bonnet. They were a rare sight in Britain, too.
As the Datsuns, the Tama and the Moretti all seem highly unlikely, the Morris/MG seems to be the most likely option.
By re-scaling and fitting the Austin based CAD model to the drawings, I think the Morris engine would be a tight fit, but that the taller overhead valve version used in some Morris Minors and the MG, by my best estimate, would be too tall. The shaded area shows the smaller wheels of the mystery car. The MG has different spring profiles, so I presume sits a little lower, which would mean the chassis and engine would be a little lower in relation the the outline above. This could give extra clearance under the bonnet.
1930 Morris Minor with mystery car body drawing superimposed - the other images are different versions of the FIAT 500 'Topolino'
I have made an attempt to fit an adapted version of the Austin based CAD model to some Morris and MG pictures, to assess the best I can the engine/bonnet clearance. I clearly still need to do some work on this, to get more reliable results.
MORRIS FLAT HEAD....
MORRIS FLAT HEAD....
MORRIS OVERHEAD VALVE...
MG OVERHEAD VALVE...
MG OVERHEAD VALVE...
Off-the-shelf MG parts could have been used to give a lower steering column, and 15” road wheels would have been readily available.
The 15 5/8ths dimension for the wheel disc tells us that the Austin Big Seven CAD model is larger than the mystery car by a factor of about 12% (in side-profile, not width, which will remain very close to the Austin based model).
Taking a (less precise) measurement of the Hillman Minx rear window, the depth on its' centreline (including chrome trim) from Sorted's CAD model printout, it is around 415mm top to bottom. The same measurement on my Austin Big Seven based CAD model, after careful photo matching, is 469mm. A factor of around 13%, so in very close agreement to the 12% calculated from the wheel discs.
Based upon the new information, I would say the mystery car started-out as a 1920-1934 Morris Minor, most-likely with a side valve (available 1931-1934), rather than overhead valve engine. It could also be an overhead valve model, either Morris or MG, if the bonnet clears the taller head.
1928-1934 Morris Minor
MG M-Type Midget
Attempts to provide a cloud of 3-D data points for Sorted to try fitting to the picture proved inconclusive, so I decided to have a go myself.
Here is a comparison between the original, hand drawn blueprints and the same model as re-worked to fit the original image.
New photo-matched CAD model
Original drawings from about a month ago
New drawings based on the CAD model
CAD model as adjusted to fit the image
The small black line and dot (just visible), on the centreline of the CAD model, and aligned with the boot handle can also be seen on the side-view in the first image, and give an indication of the length of the car's tail.
This proved to be a very interesting exercise (as I've never used photo matching before), and has undoubtedly made the model more accurate.
The biggest differences were the length of the nose, the wider spacing of the headlamps and an adjustment to the angle of the B-posts.
ACE WHEEL DISCS
Frustratingly, information on Cornercroft Ace 'Mercury' wheel discs is scant.
I have found that the Jaguar MKII, 420G, MGB, and some Triumph models could be fitted with them as optional extras. These all had custom made centres with the manufacturer's badge, but plain versions were also available as accessories. This appears to be what the mystery car has.
It soon became apparent, however, that there were different types and styles, not just sizes, of the Ace 'Mercury' discs.
They range from as small as 10” through to 15”. However, I have been unable to find any 16” Ace 'Mercury' discs, so it is uncertain whether they were made in this size or above.
The items found on the Jaguar MKII were of a different style to the MG and Triumph type. But both cars feature 15” wheels! The number of ventilation slots differed, and even a set of Triumph discs sold as a single lot on Ebay had a mixture of 47 and 49 ventilation slot divisions, which made the possibility of a positive identification of the parts seem somewhat problematic, to say the least!
Ace 'Mercury' 15" from a Jaguar MKII
Ace 'Mercury' 15" from a Triumph
I tried to count the number of divisions on the mystery car wheel, but only the front halves of the discs were clear enough. I initially estimated 46 divisions at the front, but if I were just half a division out (because of a tiny inaccuracy in where you draw the centreline on the wheel), then they could match those 47 division Triumph items.
I printed two copies of a front-wheel close-up, and cut and matched one to the other, and 47 seemed plausible if not conclusive. So I tried using the centreline from the photo matched CAD model, and eventually became convinced that both front and rear wheels has 47 divisions. Exactly like the Triumph 15” items.
Paper cut-outs
Centreline from photo-matched CAD model
If this was correct, then my theory about the Austin Big Seven would be on shaky ground, as I had used it's 16” wheels to calculate the wheelbase ratio……..
So, rather than continue to estimate sizes, I contacted a seller with a set of Triumph-branded items, which are intended for 15” wheels, and he kindly measured them for me.
The actual overall diameter is 15 5/8”, or 397mm.
This was somewhat smaller than either I, or Sorted, had used for our calculations, which was a bit of a surprise and would make our calculated wheelbase measurements somewhat inaccurate! And as Sorted already noted, a small difference in the diameter of the wheel disc would be multiplied many times over when calculating the wheelbase.
Unlike the Jaguar MKII 15” Ace 'Mercury' discs that Sorted scanned, these discs do not cover the wheel rim. Instead, like these MG branded ones, they fit inside the outer rim. I'm guessing that the wheels on the mystery car are painted black, so simply blend into the tyre wall in the picture.
15 inch discs on an MGB - note how the outer rim of the wheel is still visible
I had also by now figured-out that the 47 division Ace 'Mercurys' were left-handed (the vents are tiny cooling scoops), and those with 49 divisions were right-handed (and the scoops point the other way). I bet nobody has ever, in the past 60 or so years since they were made, noticed that before! But then, as Sorted said, we were both proving ourselves to be quite mad………..
However, for the first time, we finally had a concrete measurement to work with.
By now, I had also realised that I could measure the mystery car dimensions far more accurately when enlarged on the computer monitor, rather than from an A4 printout.
There were now also two ways to approach the accurate calculation of the mystery car wheelbase. I could simply place my new, soft, flexible ruler straight onto the enlarged screen image, and use the diameters of the wheels and the wheelbase directly, scaling the full size wheelbase from the 397mm wheel disc as though using a technical drawing. Or, I could measure the sizes on the CAD model directly (which in-theory, should be a little more accurate as it accounts for perspective effects), and then adjust to fit the 397mm disc.
I tried both. However, the measurements taken from the perspective plane in the CAD model proved problematic, as it was telling me that the rear wheel was about 50mm larger than the front. This is almost certainly due to a difference between real-world perspective through the spherical surface of a camera lens and the construction of perspectives using graphical or calculated methods. In other words, what the camera sees isn't exactly the same as what the computer calculates. From what I have read recently, I had learned that when photo-matching, is is always good practice to have the object in the centre of a photograph, as the differences here are tiny. The outer edges can become progressively more divergent.
Unfortunately, the only image we have runs right to the corner of the picture!
Fortuitously, however, when simply measured flat, straight from the image, the two wheels are almost exactly the same size. In effect, the camera lens distortion has cancelled-out the perspective effect!
Measured directly from the photo', the calculated wheelbase was 1979mm (6' 5.9”), and using the slightly suspect perspective based calculation, the figures were 1944mm (calculated using the rear wheel disc/ wheelbase ratio) and 2000mm, using the same technique with the front wheel disc. The average for the two being 1972mm.
Now, as suggested previously by Sorted, I was able to run an advanced search on the Carfolio website to see what possibilities might come up. Allowing a margin of error of 2mm either side of the disc measurements, and the wheelbase being about 6.8 times the wheel disc diameter the calculated wheelbase should be accurate to within 6.8 x2mm, so about 14mm either side.
Searching for a wheelbase between 1942 and 2008 gives a wider margin for error (plus or minus 30mm) from the above calculations.
From this we get a list of, essentially, six basic models.
1928-1934 Morris Minor – 1981 or 1997mm wheelbase, 19” wheels (18” for 1934 only)
1928- MG M-Type Midget (which shares the chassis, engine and wheelbase of the Morris) – 1981mm wheelbase
1935 Datsun 14 – 1980mm wheelbase
1936 Datsun 15 – 2005mm wheelbase
FIAT Topolino 500/500A/500B/500C & 500C Giardinetta – 15” wheels, 2000mm wheelbase
1947 Tama (Nissan's first electric car, apparently) – 2000mm wheelbase
1953 Moretti – 1980mm wheelbase, though other dimensions have been quoted elsewhere
Of the mathematically closest matches, and by far the most readily available, has to be the Morris or MG (which are essentially the same car).
The FIATs have their engine ahead of the front axle, and the engine would need surgery to fit under the low bonnet. They were a rare sight in Britain, too.
As the Datsuns, the Tama and the Moretti all seem highly unlikely, the Morris/MG seems to be the most likely option.
By re-scaling and fitting the Austin based CAD model to the drawings, I think the Morris engine would be a tight fit, but that the taller overhead valve version used in some Morris Minors and the MG, by my best estimate, would be too tall. The shaded area shows the smaller wheels of the mystery car. The MG has different spring profiles, so I presume sits a little lower, which would mean the chassis and engine would be a little lower in relation the the outline above. This could give extra clearance under the bonnet.
1930 Morris Minor with mystery car body drawing superimposed - the other images are different versions of the FIAT 500 'Topolino'
I have made an attempt to fit an adapted version of the Austin based CAD model to some Morris and MG pictures, to assess the best I can the engine/bonnet clearance. I clearly still need to do some work on this, to get more reliable results.
MORRIS FLAT HEAD....
MORRIS FLAT HEAD....
MORRIS OVERHEAD VALVE...
MG OVERHEAD VALVE...
MG OVERHEAD VALVE...
Off-the-shelf MG parts could have been used to give a lower steering column, and 15” road wheels would have been readily available.
The 15 5/8ths dimension for the wheel disc tells us that the Austin Big Seven CAD model is larger than the mystery car by a factor of about 12% (in side-profile, not width, which will remain very close to the Austin based model).
Taking a (less precise) measurement of the Hillman Minx rear window, the depth on its' centreline (including chrome trim) from Sorted's CAD model printout, it is around 415mm top to bottom. The same measurement on my Austin Big Seven based CAD model, after careful photo matching, is 469mm. A factor of around 13%, so in very close agreement to the 12% calculated from the wheel discs.
Based upon the new information, I would say the mystery car started-out as a 1920-1934 Morris Minor, most-likely with a side valve (available 1931-1934), rather than overhead valve engine. It could also be an overhead valve model, either Morris or MG, if the bonnet clears the taller head.
1928-1934 Morris Minor
MG M-Type Midget
Hi Dugmaster,
apologies as I've been sitting on this reply from The London Transport Museum for a few days now.
Thank you for your enquiry to London Transport Museum, I have looked through our collections database at both our photographic and ephemera collections (in case it was used as a postcard or in print) and I cannot find the photograph that you have included below. If you would like to search our photography collection you can do so here:
https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections...
You can try TfL Corporate Archives in case the photograph was part of a publication such as the ‘Staff Magazine’ www.tflcorporatearchivescatalogue.co.uk
Good luck with your search.
Best Wishes
Georgia Morley
Curator
apologies as I've been sitting on this reply from The London Transport Museum for a few days now.
Thank you for your enquiry to London Transport Museum, I have looked through our collections database at both our photographic and ephemera collections (in case it was used as a postcard or in print) and I cannot find the photograph that you have included below. If you would like to search our photography collection you can do so here:
https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections...
You can try TfL Corporate Archives in case the photograph was part of a publication such as the ‘Staff Magazine’ www.tflcorporatearchivescatalogue.co.uk
Good luck with your search.
Best Wishes
Georgia Morley
Curator
I haven't followed up on the e-mail yet.
The TfL Corporate Archives might be worth a look. Would you like to have a go at that?
If there's still no luck there, then I can always get back to the Maddrens and see if there were any other possible sources. It'll give me the excuse to ask about the re-touching under the rear-wing on the original picture - didn't think to ask about it the first time around.
The TfL Corporate Archives might be worth a look. Would you like to have a go at that?
If there's still no luck there, then I can always get back to the Maddrens and see if there were any other possible sources. It'll give me the excuse to ask about the re-touching under the rear-wing on the original picture - didn't think to ask about it the first time around.
I really appreciate the work Sorted and B72 have done on this thread and hope it doesn't degrade into the usual PH 'slag off'. However, if you guys can come up with a definitive set of measurements that would be ace. If not, the only way to resolve the issue would be to build 2 cars to each of your specifications and race them is a Top Gear style jaunt across Europe. Bagsy the co driver seat.
Sorted,
I am sorry if you feel I have wasted your time. That was certainly not my intention.
You have contributed much to this thread, and I do not want there to be any ill-feeling between us or anybody else on here.
I created my CAD model so that I could test it against the original image and so improve its' accuracy. This should not be taken in any way as criticism of the quality of your own work and other contributions. You yourself stated that your model was 'an opinion' and openly invited criticism. However, I believe I have the right to express my opinions also.
I have set-out, as clearly as I can, everything I have done. It is all open to examination and criticism in the hope that any errors or misinterpretations on my part may be identified and corrected.
I suggest we continue in the spirit of mutual support and co-operation that has so marked-out all the contributors on this thread since the very start.
I am sorry if you feel I have wasted your time. That was certainly not my intention.
You have contributed much to this thread, and I do not want there to be any ill-feeling between us or anybody else on here.
I created my CAD model so that I could test it against the original image and so improve its' accuracy. This should not be taken in any way as criticism of the quality of your own work and other contributions. You yourself stated that your model was 'an opinion' and openly invited criticism. However, I believe I have the right to express my opinions also.
I have set-out, as clearly as I can, everything I have done. It is all open to examination and criticism in the hope that any errors or misinterpretations on my part may be identified and corrected.
I suggest we continue in the spirit of mutual support and co-operation that has so marked-out all the contributors on this thread since the very start.
uk66fastback said:
The amount of conjecture on this thread lately is interesting to say the least!
It's all gone slightly surreal hasn't it. The only way this is going to go forward is either massive media coverage, which might throw up some information, or the data crunching thing I suggested but which wiser people have pointed out would be be impossible/inconclusive.
borrani72 said:
Sorted,
I am sorry if you feel I have wasted your time. That was certainly not my intention.
You have contributed much to this thread, and I do not want there to be any ill-feeling between us or anybody else on here.
I created my CAD model so that I could test it against the original image and so improve its' accuracy. This should not be taken in any way as criticism of the quality of your own work and other contributions. You yourself stated that your model was 'an opinion' and openly invited criticism. However, I believe I have the right to express my opinions also.
I have set-out, as clearly as I can, everything I have done. It is all open to examination and criticism in the hope that any errors or misinterpretations on my part may be identified and corrected.
I suggest we continue in the spirit of mutual support and co-operation that has so marked-out all the contributors on this thread since the very start.
Hear hear, you've both been amazing on this chase. It would be sad if we had a falling out. I know that folks have been fascinating following both of you as I've had messages from all over the world. I am sorry if you feel I have wasted your time. That was certainly not my intention.
You have contributed much to this thread, and I do not want there to be any ill-feeling between us or anybody else on here.
I created my CAD model so that I could test it against the original image and so improve its' accuracy. This should not be taken in any way as criticism of the quality of your own work and other contributions. You yourself stated that your model was 'an opinion' and openly invited criticism. However, I believe I have the right to express my opinions also.
I have set-out, as clearly as I can, everything I have done. It is all open to examination and criticism in the hope that any errors or misinterpretations on my part may be identified and corrected.
I suggest we continue in the spirit of mutual support and co-operation that has so marked-out all the contributors on this thread since the very start.
I'm amazed how this car has foxed everybody.
Yertis said:
It's all gone slightly surreal hasn't it.
The only way this is going to go forward is either massive media coverage, which might throw up some information, or the data crunching thing I suggested but which wiser people have pointed out would be be impossible/inconclusive.
I think you might be right. What newspaper do you suggest I contact? The only way this is going to go forward is either massive media coverage, which might throw up some information, or the data crunching thing I suggested but which wiser people have pointed out would be be impossible/inconclusive.
Telegraph?
Times?
Daily Mail?
Sun?
Mirror?
The Morning Star?
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff