Alfa Romeo Forums banner

41 - 60 of 68 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,661 Posts
Pete, be careful. Maybe a better choice of words could have been used.

Such as; Not true in the case of my letter from Rocco and the other letters I have seen from Rocco but I cannot speak to the letters others have received from AR that I have not seen, which likely include letters from Fusi who was issuing them and letters from Fazzio who is now issuing them.


Maybe the letters all should carry such a statement but if one inquires about date of manufacture and original colour and the like why would they.

So to repeat, I have and have seen letters that do not have any such statement but may give the Date of Manufacture, the date of sale, a sold to name, an original colour and interior colour and materials.

Does AR always have this info correct; I do not know.

FWIW

Ken
Yes, I accept your point. Every letter I've seen has that caveat.
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,077 Posts
It looks to me like someone (Zanella? If she event exists) used and modified the original Alfa Romeo homologation papers. I agree it has nothing to with 752501 and it offers no proof; unfortunately www.rmd.be is using it as proof of authenticity for their car.

Do you agree?
I agree that it´s a homologation paper from 1997 using the copy of the origin document. This is still the usual way it works. And nothing wrong with it.

Once again: Not the papers are wrong if the VIN in the car isn´t correct, gentlemen....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,521 Posts
Yes, I accept your point. Every letter I've seen has that caveat.
Pete
Thanks Pete and I was not clear either in that I have seen only letters from AR that were issued by others and none by E Ruocco until this one from 1998. So thanks for pointing out that perhaps that was her format.

Interesting to note that according to this letter, 752501 was manufactured on 9 September 1965 more than a month after the stated date for 752507 of 21 July 1965 and even more interesting the stated manufacturing date for the much higher number, 752648 of 20 July 1965

Ciao

Ken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,077 Posts
Interesting to note that according to this letter, 752501 was manufactured on 9 September 1965 more than a month after the stated date for 752507 of 21 July 1965 and even more interesting the stated manufacturing date for the much higher number, 752648 of 20 July 1965
And even interesting to note that the first homologation paper got valid from 1st of June 1965 - already with the number of 752501 on it !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,077 Posts
Not true, its very much listed with price and no mentions of sold or withdrawn!

For Sale: Alfa Romeo Autodelta GTA (1600)

Erik
And that´s what I´ve got from the selling company:

"Dear Mr xxx,

As we have recently been informed about the existence of another GTA with the same chassis number, we have removed the listing of our client’s car until we have resolved the questions this double identity has caused.

Please be aware that my clients have bought this car several years ago in good faith.

Sincerely,

Marc Devis

RMD Bvba"

Borzacchini Jr said:
Dear Hunttheshunt, tell me, are you the one that is selling dubious GTA?
Any further questions about homologation papers in Italy, Mr. Borzacchini ?:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
I give up. It is more that my poor old brain could elaborate. The homologaton papers older (previous) to the car that should be homologated. It is like implanting pacemaker before any heart problem. Good idea for some burlesque movie. But it is not my problem anyhow. Answer to Ken. Sometimes earlier numbers of chassis were assembled later at Autodelta. There was no precise order in finishing cars. Sometimes the difference is almost a year (just control Tabucchi's papers). If the letter that E. Ruocco issued, states some data than that’s a Bible. She is living history of AR in every way, and she controls scrupulously each detail before publishing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
And that´s what I´ve got from the selling company:

"Dear Mr xxx,

As we have recently been informed about the existence of another GTA with the same chassis number, we have removed the listing of our client’s car until we have resolved the questions this double identity has caused.

Please be aware that my clients have bought this car several years ago in good faith.

Sincerely,

Marc Devis

RMD Bvba"



Any further questions about homologation papers in Italy, Mr. Borzacchini ?:D
Just a short explanation. I am not expert for homologaton papers. In my past they were a part of nightmare any time I have tried to got them. I simply do not remember that they contained so high number of illogical errors or were issued months before existence of the car that needed homologation. As a matter of fact, once we were obliged to sell a very nice and regular rare racing machine because we could not obtain homologation papers for Switzerland. In my times it was not so easy, producing a copy of some hypothetical homologation for the future...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,521 Posts
Just a short explanation. I am not expert for homologaton papers. In my past they were a part of nightmare any time I have tried to got them. I simply do not remember that they contained so high number of illogical errors or were issued months before existence of the car that needed homologation. As a matter of fact, once we were obliged to sell a very nice and regular rare racing machine because we could not obtain homologation papers for Switzerland. In my times it was not so easy, producing a copy of some hypothetical homologation for the future...
I think it is safe to say that Alfa planned that GTA GS (LHD) first serial number was going to be 613001 and GTA GD (RHD) first serial number was going to be 752501 and this is all the 1965 Homologation papers are indicating.

When those 2 cars were actually built with respect to any paperwork is only a matter to take note of until such time as more information comes to light if ever.

As of now it appears to me a random build but maybe someday or someone will see a plan.

FWIW

Ken
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,764 Posts
Gotta love the dealers-

Dealer speak-"existence of another GTA with the same chassis #" Should say, "now that the real 752 501 has surfaced/been confirmed" Dealer speak- "until we have resolved the questions this double identity has caused" Should say, "now we have to figure out what to do with this fake" As far as any of us concerened the only question here is, what should they do with the car now? Too bad for those caught up in this charade.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,143 Posts
Put in another number from another GTA supposed to be lost? And maybe a respray and some other detailwork to change the appearence....
Wow are we happy with the internet in issues like this..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Put in another number from another GTA supposed to be lost? And maybe a respray and some other detailwork to change the appearence....
I hope you are not being serious Veep... there is no good reason to perpetuate this outrageous lie. This type of fraud is intolerable and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law :mad:.

Who is this Irma Zanella and did she commission someone to carry out the dirty work, or was she also a victim? What knowledge did Messrs. Van Haver, Bamford, Green, and the current owner have regarding the history or (lack of) authenticity of the vehicle, and what were their respective roles in its misrepresentation?

To reuse an icon earlier in this thread, guilty parties oughta be hung :hang:.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,143 Posts
I hope you are not being serious Veep... there is no good reason to perpetuate this outrageous lie. This type of fraud is intolerable and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law :mad:.

Who is this Irma Zanella and did she commission someone to carry out the dirty work, or was she also a victim? What knowledge did Messrs. Van Haver, Bamford, Green, and the current owner have regarding the history or (lack of) authenticity of the vehicle, and what were their respective roles in its misrepresentation?

To reuse an icon earlier in this thread, guilty parties oughta be hung :hang:.
Pity that you did not catch the sarcasm in my reaction...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
So what is the opinion here of making a GTA replica and putting it out there as such? My brother Ross (Alfaross69) has a GTV within the chassis numbers the GTA's were pulled from and his intentions were to construct a GTA replica. Sadly Ross passed away in April and I hope to continue the development of his 14 car projects.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,661 Posts
So what is the opinion here of making a GTA replica and putting it out there as such? My brother Ross (Alfaross69) has a GTV within the chassis numbers the GTA's were pulled from and his intentions were to construct a GTA replica. Sadly Ross passed away in April and I hope to continue the development of his 14 car projects.
Don't
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,661 Posts
Care to explain yourself?
I passionately hate replicas that either use a genuine car as the basis (meaning we all loose one) or attempt to deceive, and your comment regarding chassis numbers can only make me wonder ... even if not you, who knows what a future owner will do (witness the G1 which is genuine but is currently inventing history ...) ?

Plus what is wrong with enjoying a nice GTV?
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
"Plus what is wrong with enjoying a nice GTV?"
Nothing , I have a 74 GTV2000 that will be the racer he was building. I understand your concerns but i wouldn't base my decision on what someone "might" do in the future. It think it only right to do due diligence when purchasing vintage cars and knowing that what you are buying is legit.
 
41 - 60 of 68 Posts
Top