Is this really from 1958?

[bryk]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1958-MORRIS-MINOR ... 286.c0.m14

Is this really 1958 - the lights and glove boxes would seem to be post-1963. Does anyone know the provenance of the registration VAS or the history of this vehicle?

New to all this - learning a little.

['61Morris]

You're right. That car definitely dates from 1964 onwards. It has wipers that work in tandem as oposed to "clap hands"; the later style lights, heater, dashboard (with flick switches, black speedo and no starter button); later style steering wheel and upholstery; no trafficators; and a 1098cc engine. It has an old registration but it could have been re-registered at some point. The car was definitely built post '64.

[charlie_morris_minor]

if you read the advert it is specified as a hyundai pony..

i think it is probably lazy \ sloppy listing from the garage as opposed to anything more serious unless the v5 states it is a 58 car.

and to pick up your final point i think you know a great deal.. to have spotted these "problems".

by the way welcome to the forum

[Dean]

If you are thinking about purchasing this car, I agree with the add, it does look lovely. But get someone to check all the underneath in the prone areas. There may be someone local (from the club) to help you, if you wish to go down that route.

Welcome to the forum and all the best.

[bryk]

The seller insists tht it is 1958 from the registration docs. However (I have discovered) the licence VAS302 was transferred to this car in 2003, and its previous reg is now on a VW polo.

The previous reg was a 1958 reg - 494CYC - HMMM I'm a bit wary.

[LouiseM]

Do you know the chassis number? Have you checked the one on the V5 against the chassis number on the car?

[Dean]

To my knowledge, the moggy had to have had an MOT at the time of transfer... if done legally. Also it is quite legal to have a reg plate older than the car it is fitted to, illegal the other way around.

I'm with Louise check the VIN/Chassis no. against that on the V5. But it isn't difficult to change it on the car anyway. I'd be surprised if a ringer (if this is what you are worried about) would make such a school boy error though. Any thoughts about a HPI check? Being a classic I'm not sure how this would he helpful though?

[Sidney'61]

Date of Liability 01 10 2009
Date of First Registration 01 12 1958
Year of Manufacture Not Available
Cylinder Capacity (cc) 1098CC
CO2 Emissions Not Available
Fuel Type Petrol
Export Marker Not Applicable
Vehicle Status Licence Due to Expire
Vehicle Colour BLUE
Vehicle Type Approval null

Hmm, seems a bit suspicious to me too.
Notice though that the dashboard area around the speedo is painted and has not got the metal cover. Can anybody tell what sort of switches they are? I'm not sure if those are flick switches or toggles.

[bmcecosse]

Would be very wary - hope nobody suggests it could be using a V5 from ebay..............

[bryk]

Having initiated this thread, I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not suspect the seller in any of this. I have spoken to him and he is simply reporting what is on the registration documents. Whatever happened, if anything, happened long before he came to have this car. I have asked him about chassis nos, etc. There might be a couple of scenarios when that info comes:

SCENARIO 1 - The no. also indicates 1958. What would this mean, given that the car appears to be post-64? Would there be any other way of proving that it ought not be registered as 1958, or has someone actually modded a fifties car to look like one from the sixties or is it something more suspicious?

SCENARIO 2 - The no. indicates a later date, say for argument's sake 1966. This means that the car has had at least two other licence plates before VAS302. Before 2003, the record indicates it was 494CYC - a vanity plate, but dating from 1958 - and before that its original plate from 1966. When it became 494CYC, somehow the original date got lost and 1958 was linked to it on the documentation. Can this happen by accident? Could one restore the proper year to this vehicle on the documentation by using the chassis no, rather than the licence plate? Would it need to be re-registered with a new plate?

I'm sure we all have better things to do than ponder this - but sure it keeps our minds active anyway.

[rayofleamington]

I'd be surprised if a ringer (if this is what you are worried about) would make such a school boy error though

If the logbook says it is 1958, then my estimate is that it's not the right logbook for the car
The later wiper arrangment isn't the only difference with the shell compared with 1958. I'd be amazed if they modified all the upgrades and also then rebuilt it with all the parts from a later car...

DVLA won't accidentally put 1958 on the logbook of a 60's car.

[bryk]

This is from the vehicle check for VAS302:

Colour changes This registration has been subject to a colour change, please call 0844 482 1948 if further investigation is required.

Plate Transfer This registration has been involved in a plate change, the transfer history is displayed below.

Registration
494CYC Off 2 May 2003
VAS302 On 2 May 2003

And a check on 494CYC reveals it has been on a polo since 17 Sep 2008 and no mention of its earlier time on a Morris Minor.

[bigjohn]

could it have been reshelled at some time and some of the original parts been used
i once saw a program of a bentley [old number one] that had been reshelled and the only original part they used was the hand brake or gear lever but still got its original number plate and chassis number

[rayofleamington]

some of the original parts been used

the problem is that the photos don't show any original 58 parts!

It could have been "re-shelled" but unless they used a new unused factory shell, it's a ringer - lets face if it's a different shell with later parts it's not a 58
If it had been re-shelled with the correct shell and using 58 parts, nobody would be any the wiser, but take this to a show with an entry form saying 58 and you'll get fed up of people telling you that it's not.

For example there is a minor million where they modified the scuttle to have the later wipers and 99% of the discussions you'll hear when people look at it include "that's not an genuine one"

In some circumstances it's hardly a big deal (e.g. when no fraud or theft involved) but bearing in mind that far too many Minors are stolen every year, it's one I'd stear well clear of.

[ASL642]

Could be a simple typo 1958 not 1968 when the registration plate was transferred by DVLA in 2003.

[bmcecosse]

Not when the original reg number was 494 CYC - that is a perfectly plausible 1958 Reg number - this is NOT a 1958 car! I strongly suspect it IS a ringer! And it doesn't matter a hoot if whatever was done was before this seller got the car - they are 'het' for it now ! Has anyone called the cops yet ?

[stevey]

definetly not right i wonder what the chassis number is? not 1958 any way

[RussLCV]

NOT a 1958 without doubt

[LouiseM]

Here's another 'funny' one. A late car but the seller states that it is a '55 and that the split screen has been replaced with a single screen to make the car appear newer http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1955-Morris-Minor ... 286.c0.m14

And to think that quite a few on here were suggesting only recently that there was nothing wrong in changing a car's identity using a V5 bought on e-bay and that the 'ringing' of Minor's wouldn't happen.

[bmcecosse]

Yes - that's much more like 65 - certainly NOT 55! Is there any way to alert Plod to investigate these two cars ?