#915.041 in Coys auction 5.12.07

[iicarJohn]

Hi Alex,

...your personal message box is full, so ...

Your tuppence are noted and appreciated. I thought carefully before posting and I will leave it up a bit longer. ... now removed.

I have taken Stu to task in private a few times and he just will not learn that he's got some incorrect thinking locked in his head. I know it shouldn't be up to me to be one to try to help him fix it. I'm not the only one, mind you, as you'll find if you check a number of his postings and certain responses. But, if these are going to be meaningful discussions, they should not be distracted by too much garbage. And that is precisely what his earlier posting was. Unfortunately, any "damage" is perhaps done as the public was only copied on this forum and it probably can't be erased from the original recipient's server at this point.

Like you, I also believe that we should all be able to study something without having to own it or think seriously about owning it, but Stu risks burning bridges for all of us when he goes off on such a poorly researched Quixotic tirade. I have merely attempted to show him some of what his response is likely to trigger.

Best regards.

John de Boer

[dretceterini]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iicarJohn Hi Alex, ...your personal message box is full, so ... Your tuppence are noted and appreciated. I thought carefully before posting and I will leave it up a bit longer. Sorry about that! I have taken Stu to task in private a few times and he just will not learn that he's got some incorrect thinking locked in his head. It shouldn't be up to me to be one to try to help him fix it. I'm not the only one, mind you, if you check a number of his postings and certain responses. But, if these are going to be meaningful discussions, they should not be distracted by too much garbage. And that is precisely what his earlier posting was. When he removes or modifies his text that is problematic, then I will remove my references that show his comments for what they are. I also believe that we should all be able to study something without having to own it or think seriously about owning it, but Stu risks burning bridges for all of us when he goes off on such a poorly researched Quixotic tirade. I am merely attempting to show him some of what his response is likely to trigger. Best regards. John de Boer

[iicarJohn]

More than that I cannot say.

It would seem that there is a chance of readers coming to the confused conclusion that I am somehow defending the car bearing chassis "915041" that is being discussed here. That is not the case. Here is my response to an inquiry received this morning.

"I am not defending the car in any way. I think it is QUITE LIKELY an extreme historical misrepresentation. That doesn't make it "bad" in my mind, but it means there is not much specific that is likely to be learned from the car itself. We might be able to figure out (roughly) where some of the parts have come from. It is quite evident, from certain numbers already reported, that parts come from several different cars."

"I am objecting to Stu's ignorant attack upon it from afar without enough information to go on. In his Quixotic attack, he assumes a lot, communicates some mis-information and risks discrediting us all. He has done it many times before. Simple as that."



I have not inspected the car, and would not presume to be able to make any kind of real judgement without spending some intimate time with it. Raoul San Giorgi has had a look in the past and shared some of his observations in a Registro Internazionale Alfa Romeo 6C2500 newsletter a few years ago. Someone who would like to feel like they know something more without going and having a personal look at the car itself, could do worse than go through back issues of the RIAR6C2500 newsletter and dig up the reference. I made notes that are part of a confused jumble of information received about the car, made even more confused by Bill Noon's recollections passed on by Stu. It would seem that Bill's memory is off timing-wise or he is perhaps remembering a different car?

I might add that, if you are looking to learn something about the history, auction catalogues are perhaps not your best source of unbiased information? But, there sometimes are things to be learned and there is certainly lots of amusement to be had!

Best regards.

John de Boer

[africk]

There must have been enough "real" aspects about the car to satisfy the new owner, who paid roughly $730,000.00 for the privilege! Although for that matter, the 8C "Evocazione" went for roughly $830,000.00. Go figure.

I applaud John's subtle approach to fact finding on these old cars. A bombastic, aggressive inquiry will only cause the current owners to clam up. I for one am perfectly happy to shut up and learn something, and be thankful that some of the knowledgeable contributors are generous enough to share their knowledge.
Alan

[6ccorsa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by africk There must have been enough "real" aspects about the car to satisfy the new owner, who paid roughly $730,000.00 for the privilege! Although for that matter, the 8C "Evocazione" went for roughly $830,000.00. Go figure. I applaud John's subtle approach to fact finding on these old cars. A bombastic, aggressive inquiry will only cause the current owners to clam up. I for one am perfectly happy to shut up and learn something, and be thankful that some of the knowledgeable contributors are generous enough to share their knowledge. Alan

[iicarJohn]

This thread is a good reminder to me.

I learned more than 25 years ago, and get constant reminders, that many people (owners, editors, salesmen, "experts", etc.) will believe what they want to believe when they "have an interest or investment" in something and "facts be damned". Many times I've seen "best evidence" be improved upon and still certain people stick to the old story. I've learned more recently that certain journalists and catalogue writers consider it their duty to present information supplied to them in the absolute best light possible, sometimes going to great lengths to explain possible scenarios as if they were "fact", all the while softening their legal vulnerability with disclaimers. It must be a great "creative writing" challenge in some cases! If they fail to protect themselves with clever language and get slapped with a lawsuit as a result, then that is their risk and problem.

Everyone is different to be sure, and not all should be lumped together, but as a long-time student of these cars I have tried to pay some attention and learn something about some of them. Bit by bit, some things have actually sunk in. I am editing my files all the time as a result and consider very little of what we think we know as "cast in stone". As a result, I notice certain errors perhaps more easily than some who have their own reasons for bias. I've approached some of these "biased" people in the past with the goal of educating them about mistakes made in print and in statements that I've overheard. Some are friends and some are likely never to be considered "friends". Generally, regardless of friendship or not, it has become clear that most really don't want to know of errors ... unless they ask. Once they ask, then I feel I am given license to correct something that they may have wrong. I generally have adopted the practice of sharing what seems to be known and ask overtly, or by implication, questions about what is missing or incorrect. Looking at this thread and my reaction from that perspective, I realize that I was mistaken to take Stu to task in this forum and I apologize to him and to all.

Stu, I don't buy the "knowledge shark" explanation for one moment. I think you were grandstanding, but the fact is, it doesn't really matter what I think. I've failed to wait for you to ask to be corrected or to ask what I think. Sorry about that, Stu!

But, it will continue to irk me when someone who should know better, or at least "speaks" as if they should know better, shares incorrect information that becomes argumentative precisely because it is incorrect and they should know better. And I'm not the only one to feel this way. There are others who have largely given up on this forum at least partially as a result of similar frustrations.

Best regards to all.

John de Boer

[dretceterini]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iicarJohn This thread is a good reminder to me. I learned more than 25 years ago, and get constant reminders, that many people (owners, editors, salesmen, "experts", etc.) will believe what they want to believe when they "have an interest or investment" in something and "facts be damned". Many times I've seen "best evidence" be improved upon and still certain people stick to the old story. I've learned more recently that certain journalists and catalogue writers consider it their duty to present information supplied to them in the absolute best light possible, sometimes going to great lengths to explain possible scenarios as if they were "fact", all the while softening their legal vulnerability with disclaimers. It must be a great "creative writing" challenge in some cases! If they fail to protect themselves with clever language and get slapped with a lawsuit as a result, then that is their risk and problem. Everyone is different to be sure, and not all should be lumped together, but as a long-time student of these cars I have tried to pay some attention and learn something about some of them. Bit by bit, some things have actually sunk in. I am editing my files all the time as a result and consider very little of what we think we know as "cast in stone". As a result, I notice certain errors perhaps more easily than some who have their own reasons for bias. I've approached some of these "biased" people in the past with the goal of educating them about mistakes made in print and in statements that I've overheard. Some are friends and some are likely never to be considered "friends". Generally, regardless of friendship or not, it has become clear that most really don't want to know of errors ... unless they ask. Once they ask, then I feel I am given license to correct something that they may have wrong. I generally have adopted the practice of sharing what seems to be known and ask overtly, or by implication, questions about what is missing or incorrect. Looking at this thread and my reaction from that perspective, I realize that I was mistaken to take Stu to task in this forum and I apologize to him and to all. Stu, I don't buy the "knowledge shark" explanation for one moment. I think you were grandstanding, but the fact is, it doesn't really matter what I think. I've failed to wait for you to ask to be corrected or to ask what I think. Sorry about that, Stu! But, it will continue to irk me when someone who should know better, or at least "speaks" as if they should know better, shares incorrect information that becomes argumentative precisely because it is incorrect and they should know better. And I'm not the only one to feel this way. There are others who have largely given up on this forum at least partially as a result of similar frustrations. Best regards to all. John de Boer

[iicarJohn]

Hmmm ... sounds like another "fake" name.

[dretceterini]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iicarJohn Hmmm ... sounds like another "fake" name.

[iicarJohn]

Stu,

It was a joke. Hence the "quotation marks". I thought you would recognize and see the humor in the fact that I, who do not agree with the use of simplistic and argumentative words such as "fake" and "real" to describe cars, might actually use the words to describe a person. This would be a far more serious error than using those words to describe than any car.

John

[dretceterini]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iicarJohn Stu, It was a joke. Hence the "quotation marks". I thought you would recognize and see the humor in the fact that I, who do not agree with the use of simplistic and argumentative words such as "fake" and "real" to describe cars, might actually use the words to describe a person. This would be a far more serious error than using those words to describe than any car. John

[6ccorsa]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[technobob]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dretceterini I don't think I've been "grandstanding" at all, but I would like to know what everyone thinks. I have no "need" to post on this BB or anywhere else, for that matter. If people don't want me to expess my opinions, let me know, and I'll simply stop posting. GTV200 (Patrick Italiano) has already pretty much decided to stop posting, as what I get from him makes me think that he is now at the point of "why bother"?

[dretceterini]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zagato_Olaf Hi Stuart, I am curious as to what the answer will be! Ciao, Olaf