Jump to content

XYY 332F - 250 posing as a 5


Recommended Posts

UPDATE: The DVLA has supplied me with the information I requested - there are 17 taxed fake TR5's and 12 Sorn'd fake TR5's - 'fake' defined by the commission number/vin number NOT starting with CP. He is also going to email me the name and address of the head of Registrations, and asked that our Registrar write in to them. I also pointed out the issue with modified vehicles and the new MOT regulations, of which he took interest too.

 

 

So nearly 10% of the ORH 5s on the roads.

Edited by MikeThomas
Link to post
Share on other sites

If we could keep this thread on topic please that would be great

 

Thanks guys :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, while in the shower this morning, I have a missed personal call from a David Morgan from the DVLA, wanting a call back as soon as convenient!

 

Updates later....

 

 

UPDATE: The DVLA has supplied me with the information I requested - there are 17 taxed fake TR5's and 12 Sorn'd fake TR5's - 'fake' defined by the commission number/vin number NOT starting with CP. He is also going to send me the email address of the Vehicle Policy Group for Registrations, and asked that our Registrar write in to them. I also pointed out the issue with modified vehicles and the new MOT regulations, of which he took interest too.

I am not the owner of a TR250 or TR5, but I do find it surprising that the TR Register (as an organisation) has not taken the lead on this either in the past or present but rely on the buyer beware advice, sound though it is.

Obviously the members most concerned either financially or otherwise are TR5 owners. Some people may take the view that the TR5 has become overpriced and an investment, but like it or not some people are entering into TR ownership with the view that they can enjoy the pleasures/pain of ownership and it can also be a sound investment. The benefits are that more cars have been restored and maintained to a higher level ensuring the longevity of the models.

 

I would be very twitchy about raising the modified vehicles and the new MOT regulations, my understanding is that TR250 engine mods (injection) would be acceptable anyway, if the drains were up then a different view may be taken on LHD to RHD conversion which to most people could be interpreted as substantially changed vehicle, that of course does not stop at TR250.

 

That could become a whole can of worms.

 

Just my view,

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, while in the shower this morning, I have a missed personal call from a David Morgan from the DVLA, wanting a call back as soon as convenient!

 

Updates later....

 

 

UPDATE: The DVLA has supplied me with the information I requested - there are 17 taxed fake TR5's and 12 Sorn'd fake TR5's - 'fake' defined by the commission number/vin number NOT starting with CP. He is also going to send me the email address of the Vehicle Policy Group for Registrations, and asked that our Registrar write in to them. I also pointed out the issue with modified vehicles and the new MOT regulations, of which he took interest too.

 

This seems, to me (a non-5-owner), to be most useful information - there are clear, concrete facts to show the size of the problem, at least in the UK. Up until now, we have information about individual cars, but this helps frame the issue.

 

I would hope that we can now have an in depth discussion within the Register, FBHVC, TRAction and perhaps the wider classic press (Classic Car mag, Motorsport mag, and/or similar) about the situation.

 

There's certainly an element of "Trigger's Broom" about ALL of our classic TR's (ok, almost all...) but it would be good to determine the consensus around original, lightly-restored UK (or other territory) TR5 vs. "re-created" TR5 from original wreck via doner body, etc. vs. openly "created" TR5-spec car (from TR250 or whatever) vs. "pretending to be" TR5...

 

Are these all different levels of "correctness" or do some overlap? Which? How? And which are legit and which aren't?

 

I'm no expert on this, but we have the experts in the Register. What's more, this problem has been faced by (many?) other marques - some WAY more expensive and rare than our cars, so we should have a template or two to guide us.

 

Good work on getting the data, Mafield!

 

Cheers,

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mayfield was a a little guy with an Axe, and in a few weeks achieving what the whole forrestry commission could achieve in years.

I really hope the Register does take this opportunity to set the records straight.

That woould help DVLA to do with with all marques.

 

I own a 5, didnt buy it for cash but it narks me to see people making 5's Not ego just love my car. Would love a Tr250 too. But not as a Tr5.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a couple of observations.

 

Tis interesting how the owners of TR5's are the most strident in their proclamations on this issue, but claim its to "protect the marque" rather than protect the value of their investment (which might be more honest). I don't think the marque needs any protection, Triumph is a big enough marque that there is room for a hundred and one different models, hybrids, Trigger's Brooms etc. etc. I think as far as most people are concerned if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, a duck is a fairly good name for it.

 

A quick glance at the MSA Historic regs, shows that they don't really care when a car was made or registered, they judge a car to the age and specification it is presented at. So you present a 1967 TR5 and they will judge it based on the spec and construction of a 1967 TR5, they don't care if its made up from half a dozen different TR's, to them and I suspect a lot of us the main thing that constitutes a TR5 is a specific assembly of parts 99% of which are shared with other Triumph models.

 

I would also caution that inciting the DVLA to dig deeper and harder in to classic car registration, level of modification, etc is apart from protecting the investment of a few TR5 owners, likely to cause grief and cost to thousands of other classic car owners in the future, as have you ever known the DVLA make anything simpler when they could make it more complex. Come the day when every restoration needs an expensive certificate of authenticity before the DVLA will issue any paperwork or treat the car as historic, some may look back and think the baby got thrown out with the bath water, trying to "protect?" a few fish in a very big pond.

 

Scream load enough that the DVLA are doing a sloppy job on Historic Car registrations, and that its their fault that people can commit fraud and their response might be OK before we continue allowing you to keep your car registered as Historic you have to supply new proof that it is what its registered as.

 

Alan

 

PS fireman049 may be a Welsh Brexit supporting "xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" who can post highly irritating (to me) comments, but I respect his right to do :)

Edited by oldtuckunder
Link to post
Share on other sites

I could have fitted [ gorgeous TRF commissioned ] TR5 badges to my concours '250 circa 2005 ( they're NLA, btw ) and chose not to. The nose stripe played a role in that decision as well as my distaste for even harmless deception. The 250 badges they have are better than any currently available TR5 badge today, and the one on the bonnet is larger ^_^ .

 

I'm fine with '250s, as I call them and as they were called when they left the factory, since they've got TR5+ performance with nearly as much cachet as the P.I. having vintage Weber DCOEs on them. Hardly anyone in the general public here in the 'States knows what a TR is anyway let alone a TR250 and least of all, a TR5. But gestures of approval for mine come every single time they go out in public. They're wonderful to drive too, and I've spent more on them than many have spent on their TR5s, even excellent ones.

post-1059-0-88592300-1533327120_thumb.jpgpost-1059-0-81849600-1533327210_thumb.jpg

 

I also suspect the main motive in decrying the " fake " TR5s aligns exactly with the marginal premium in price rarity confers on them.

 

Cheers,

Tom

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan

I agree we may be opening a can of worms that could have enormous ramifications for all TR owners , as the DVLA are unlikely to distinguish between differing models with regards to VHI !!!

Graham

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could have fitted [ gorgeous TRF commissioned ] TR5 badges to my concours '250 circa 2005 ( they're NLA, btw ) and chose not to. The nose stripe played a role in that decision as well as my distaste for even harmless deception. The 250 badges they have are better than any currently available TR5 badge today, and the one on the bonnet is larger ^_^ .

 

I'm fine with '250s, as I call them and as they were called when they left the factory, since they've got TR5+ performance with nearly as much cachet as the P.I. having vintage Weber DCOEs on them. Hardly anyone in the general public here in the 'States knows what a TR is anyway let alone a TR250 and least of all, a TR5. But gestures of approval for mine come every single time they go out in public. They're wonderful to drive too, and I've spent more on them than many have spent on their TR5s, even excellent ones.

attachicon.gifIMA 68 TR ALBUM COMPLETE 014.jpgattachicon.gifIMA 68 TR ALBUM COMPLETE 017.jpg

 

I also suspect the main motive in decrying the " fake " TR5s aligns exactly with the marginal premium in price rarity confers on them.

 

Cheers,

Tom

 

 

Wonderful pics Tom, a credit to you certainly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't own a 5 but do see what the fuss is:

 

It's about stopping people being ripped off buying a car that isn't what they think it is.

 

The same applies to other marques - all Minis are not Coopers! but there are many examples of people re-creating them which is fine but what's not fine is to pass them of as originals to make more money.

 

How we value one car variant over another is subjective but passing off a replica as the real thing is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't own a 5 but do see what the fuss is:

 

It's about stopping people being ripped off buying a car that isn't what they think it is.

 

The same applies to other marques - all Minis are not Coopers! but there are many examples of people re-creating them which is fine but what's not fine is to pass them of as originals to make more money.

 

How we value one car variant over another is subjective but passing off a replica as the real thing is wrong.

Hi Andy, +1 Totally agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How we value one car variant over another is subjective but passing off a replica as the real thing is wrong.

 

I think we all agree on that, the problem is that deciding exactly what a replica or non original car is, especially with a TR5 that shares probably greater than 98% common parts with other TR models, and its entirely possible to have a "replica" that contains significantly more original correct factory parts than a "real thing" car. From an originality engineering view point the former is far more genuine, from a paper work, grandfathers axe perspective the latter is genuine and the former isn't.

 

Its an emotive debate, with no single correct answer. If both were competition cars nobody would really care, the cars would be judged on their technical specification only. However particularly with the TR5 we are in investment protection mode. When a TR5 was 10K and a 250 conversion say 6K it made very little difference. Now that a genuine TR5 can be around 50K and a good 250 Conversion lets say 30K for what is mechanically an identical car, its understandable that people want to protect that 20K premium, and future growth potential.

 

So it comes down to someone's personal reasons why they want a particular model of car. If its purely to enjoy a driving a particular model, there is zero difference between them. If its to own something that has investment value, there is significant difference.

 

If I was buying a picture because I liked it to hang on the wall, I would just buy it for what I was prepared to spend. If I was buying a picture I liked but knew that a significant proportion of its value depended on its provenance and getting a future return was as important to me as the enjoyment of owning it, then I would get an expert to confirm its authenticity before buying.

 

At the end of the day if sense prevails, we will end up with TR250 specification cars, TR5 specification cars with factory original provenance, and TR5's without.

 

If it really was important, then the TR6 owners should be having the same debate about what is a genuine TR6.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a long and informative debate which should help those wishing to buy a TR5 :) .And shows how usefull the forum is and can be for a quick answers to problems / questions.

I will say that i have strong views on this topic .

I do believe that the car that started this debate shows what a fake could be and the fact that it has been through many dealers hands in the past 3 years highlights the fact that it is not a 5 . Would a genuine 5 have been unsold for that long ????

It may well have been sold in that time and when the new owner found out its true history returned it as miss sold. Easy to do with a dealer ,not so private sale.

Long live the forum and the directors could use it to get a quick response to issues they are thinking making.

 

ROY

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.