The 'E' Type Forum

From today's Daily Telegraph:


What we have known all along. It is perfectly acceptable to re-stamp your numbers to match the car's records. Always said it is a nonsense but if that is what buyers perceive as important - make it so!

I don't see it as acceptable in my book its fraud. I know someone who paid a South west dealer ?5000 to turn his LHD converted car into a genuine RHD car, just stamped a few numbers here and there and off he went with an old log book and re-registered it.

Where is the line drawn?

Dave

Oxford English Dictionary definition of 'matching': "corresponding in pattern, colour, or design; complementary"

Why is it fraud? "Matching numbers" has no legal standing. The vendor is simply stating a fact - the numbers on the car match those of the Factory records; people repaint their car to match the way it left Browns Lane - is that fraud? Given vendors of two marques, whose car values are way higher than an E-Type, openly admit to the practice who are we to argue. The only time "matching numbers" are important is with American muscle cars where a base model was modified by the Factory using special parts and therein lies the heritage. But an E-Type 3.8 engine re-stamped with the number of another 3.8 engine of the same specification which it once had but cracked - c'mon.

Mucking about with the car VIN is of course wrong and fraudulent.

Anyone have a source for the exact die size and shape used to mark the cylinder heads....7 MM I believe.

It becomes fraud if it is intended to mislead......

I agree with Dave K and with Paul71A

Is it fraud just because a part had a number on it and that number has been changed?

How about if I had a very rusty RHD E Type, and found a rust free LHD rolling shell in a dry state, and built the mechanical parts and trim into the rust free shell? I would use the original picture frame of the RHD car, and the original chassis plate and body tag of course.

I'm not changing any numbers on any components.

Do I still have an original RHD car?

Can of worms here Mark. Back in the 70's I restored a 64 RHD FHC. It needed new everything apart from the roof and bits of the bulkhead. I didn't re register the car and it kept its original UK registration. How different is that to rebuilding a car with a Robey/Hutson body shell with new frames? Can an engine that has been rebuilt from a bare block with all new components still retain its original number? I think it can. Similarly when fitting new frames it is acceptable (IMO) to re-stamp the new one. What about re-trimming? it just goes on. The difference is that we don't think certain practices are acceptable.

Paul71a wrote:It becomes fraud if it is intended to mislead......

Nobody is misleading anyone if they use the term "matching numbers" because the statement is factually correct. Now if they said "the same engine and gearbox as the car left Browns Lane" that would be different. And as Mark points out what about all the other numbered components on the car that Jaguar could not be bothered to record e.g Marston radiator?

When we come to sell our pride and joy how many of us will claim the car is "Factory Correct", Concours", "100% original", Flat floor" etc etc when the spinners are dismal repros, the wheels are by MWS, the leather is not Vaumol, the Marston radiator is a clone, body panels have been changed, bumpers have been re-chromed, the paint is not Jaguar synthetic enamel, parts are not cadmium plated and the exhaust system is (for some reason I have never been able to comprehend) stainless steel! And without wanting to single out DaveK but his "matching number" engine bears little resemblance to what Jaguar produced thanks to the ministrations of Rob Beere. But the number is indeed matching.

I recently saw an OBL car whose cylinder head had become porous and was scrap. A replacement was found and the restored/replaced parts transferred across. Question: if this was YOUR car would you a) leave the new number on the head, b) leave it blank and try to explain it to everyone who asks or c) re-stamp the head with the original number?

"Matching numbers" was always customer bait so should we be surprised, if people are gullible enough to be suckered in, that restorations now include putting everything back to the way the car left the Factory including a few insignificant digits?

The digits are not " insignificant " . This is the trouble . If the wrong digits are applied to parts with the intention of leading a third party to believe that the part , and the vehicle , is " original" when it is not , or even worse, that vehicle "x" is in fact vehicle "y" then that is fraud, plain and simple. It is what the stolen car ringers do . With all due respect, I think that this thread is an unfortunate one which may give unscrupulous people ideas, and would be better deleted

I would tend to agree with David.

However when somebody resells the car with a non original engine but the original number restamped on it to claim matching numbers, that may justify a court case and claims for damage.

The issue seems to be much more common for american cars such as Corvettes and Camaros. Here is e.g. an enlightening report:
http://classiccars.com/articles/SCM_Num ... ntAdd.aspx

This is an indication that even if not considered a fraud, the seller should fully inform the buyer on the car's history.
And if the story becomes lost (e.g. barn's find)....

christopher storey wrote:With all due respect, I think that this thread is an unfortunate one which may give unscrupulous people ideas, and would be better deleted

Get the Daily Telegraph to withdraw their report first! I would also point out that "unscrupulous people" are way ahead of us.

We are not talking about changing a VIN or stealing anything, just re-stamping a replacement engine block with the correct number. To do otherwise would cause confusion to those that followed as they could end up ordering the wrong parts.

Let's say I have a car with a 9:1 head and install 8:1 pistons. And let's say I want to be absolutely clear and honest as to the configuration of the vehicle. Why would changing the 9 to an 8 be unscrupulous?

Also do I need to change the diff tag if I go from 3.54 to 3.07?

64etype wrote:Anyone have a source for the exact die size and shape used to mark the cylinder heads....7 MM I believe.

David,

Don't you have also the punch set for the blocks?;)

They are not the same than for the head.
From what I have seen, looking carefully at the stampings on the engine, the shape of the letters/numbers is different, with rounder profiles and shallower depths for the block compared to more triangular and deeper profiles (your punches) for the head!

Btw, somebody who would restamp the original number without erasing the cast date on the block would take a risk, cuz there is some correspondence between them...

These original Jaguar 3.8 stamps are for the picture frame - never checked if they are OK for the head. I know Jaguar used '1' as the dash and you will notice there are only nine punches - the same punch was used for the '6' and '9'.

The size of the die set for the picture frame is the same as for the head (7MM). The size used for the block is larger.

Did S1 have the body # on an extra Aluminium plate (like the S2)? On my S2 the body# was stamped from the back, thus a positive set was used for stamping. Mine has deteriorated / oxidated somewhat and needs replaced - with the original number of course.


"The size of the die set for the picture frame is the same as for the head (7MM). The size used for the block is larger."
[/quote]

Yes:


I don't believe they are available as reproductions though. The body number was also stamped on the RH bonnet reinforcing plate on the S1 cars.