Cautionary Tale: 1971 2.2S at Duttons

[npvpositive]

I understand that various "legal issues" are now resolved and the car has left Duttons so are those in the know willing to share the amazing tale?

[HughH]

I understand that various "legal issues" are now resolved and the car has left Duttons so are those in the know willing to share the amazing tale?

Nick. I had heard that a major decision had been resolved and the car was being readied for sale. I will check with Jeff and if the issues are finalized and they are therefore on the record I will post what I know

[HughH]

I can confirm that the legal issues, which have been about the true identity of the car, have been resolved. the car has not left Duttons and in fact is just about being put on the market.

The title of this thread should be closer to "they did things differently back in the day" than a cautionary tale, but both are appropriate.

I will try to put all of this into a simple explanation, although it may take a few posts to get all the detail down.

The most important thing about this car is that it is a very low mileage, and unbelievably original car, in all details except its true identity as it left the production line.

It is, and has been, absolutely true to its identity as sold new on 21 July 1971 to a doctor in Adelaide by Hamilton's in Melbourne (or at least that is what the stamp says as I believe Chateau Motor in SA were also involved in the sale but their name is not on the car's identity papers) as a white 1971 911S with chassis number 9111300391 . There is an unbroken, and very detailed, chain of records that confirm this, and the car still has only done 43,000 miles from new.

However, while that is what it was sold as (new, with 40 miles on the odometer) and it contains a correct 1971 911S engine (with the number noted on the original owners maintenance records, along with the factory order code for a 5 speed 911S - 911534) and all the other specific "S" bits including a glove-box lid with "S" badge and correct lock for 1971, the shell itself was built as white 1970 911E.

It is in Porsche Australia's records as the white 1971 911S. However the chassis number and engine numbers are recorded at the factory as belonging to a Signal Orange (code 1414) 1971 911S. A close examination by an expert in the way these cars were built found that the white car had always been white and the paint is mostly original from the factory.

The discrepancy came to light when the car was being registered in another state a couple of years ago. An observant inspector found that the chassis identity stamp (not the aluminum plate which is correct for the 1971S) had been tampered with.

Closer examination revealed that the original numbers had been mostly ground off and a new plate welded on top with the 1971 S chassis number stamped in in place of the original 1970 E number. Porsche Fonts were used for that stamping but they were not chassis fonts which are unique, but rather engine number fonts, still unique but different. The aluminum identity plate was original.

This obviously has set off a huge (and costly) exercise to try and sort out what the car is because it could not be registered or sold once that information was known.

Importantly the "production number" for the car and the paint tag (both of which have been shown to be untouched) show it as a white car and a 1970 car. Factory records confirm, from the production number, the actual original identity of the car - a white 1970 911E with numbers that match a car delivered to Australia.

A car with those 1970E chassis numbers still exists in Australia (still in signal orange) and has always been known as a 1970 911E that was originally sold to B S Stillwell and Co on the 27 January 1972 by Hamilton's in Melbourne. It has also been examined and it also has always been signal orange although it has been repainted in the past. However IT has the production number for a 1971 911S with the chassis number and engine currently in the white car.

What I understand to have occurred is that in mid 1971 a doctor from Adelaide wanted a new 911S. He had owned a number of Porsche's in the past and they were always white - he did not want one in any other colour. The problem was there were no white cars available. ( I know from my records that 2 of the three white 1971S's that came here were both sold 6 months previously and delivered in January)

Apparently both the orange 1971S and the white 1970E were together somewhere at that stage (and neither had yet been sold). It appears that in order to "make the customer happy" and to make a sale, all of the S bits were taken from the orange car and transferred onto the white car. this included the glove box lid as the locking mechanism changed between 1970MY and 1971MY. It also involved welding the correct supports for the rear sway bar onto the white car (but leaving the ones in place on the orange car) as the E's did not come standard with rear sway bars.

Somewhere in this process the aluminium tags were swapped from one car to the other and the chassis numbers re-stamped using correct Porsche engine number stamps. neither the paint tags nor the all important production numbers were touched. Then the white one was registered and sold as a S to the doctor in SA and the orange one at a later date as an E.

The issue has been since all this has been discovered how can it be put right? I had been hoping that common sense would prevail and the white car could get back its E identity but keep all the S bits and the orange car could be given back its S identity. Unfortunately for that to happen Porsche, here in australia had to approve the reinstatement of the identity. I understood that the people in possession of both cars would have liked that and the registration bodies would have facilitated it IF Porsche had agreed and provided evidence of what should be what. That evidence is contained in the production numbers of both cars and in the factory records (although the local records show a different story). In the end this has not been able to occur, and the car will be stamped with a VP identity (Victorian Police) probably next week. This means that its OFFICIAL identity will be neither an E or an S - which to me is a huge shame.

It is almost certain to be the fear of litigation in the future or some similar legal point of view that has stopped what I would have thought was a common sense solution - reinstating the original, as built, identities to both cars in line with their production numbers and paint tags.

The reason I would call this "they did things differently" is because of the massive contrast of approach between 1971 and now, probably based on our increasingly litigious society and "stricter" ways of doing things.
In 1971 it appears that to "make the customer happy" they did what amounted to a colour swap between 2 cars before they were ever sold the first time. There was a changing of the cars identity involved - by the official importer before first sale and first registration between 2 shells that were otherwise identical apart from the pieces swapped and the colour.

Now the fear of litigation, or perhaps simply bureaucracy, has stopped an attempt to put things back the way they should have been and in the process have potentially sullied the reputation of a very original car. (and in addition have cost people who were asociated with the car while it was know as an S a significant amount of money)

While i am not going to condone what was done in 1971, it saddens me that this is the outcome.

It will no doubt impact the value of the car, and its saleability in the future. The original nature of this car is is biggest strength and it undermines that
it does however raise interesting issues about how we value and perceive such cars these days

In all important senses except the numbers it is a 1971 2.2 S and has been since before it was sold new
the numbers have been tampered with but to me the most important number, the production number, has not and shows it as a 1970 2.2E - still a very desirable car - even more so with the S bits.

This incident has affected 2 cars, I am aware however of at least one other incident (not quite the same) where a different chassis number was stamped into a shell "back in the day" using factory fonts. That time it was because the car was "reshelled". so the heading a cautionary tale is also correct - it is a strange world out there. Are you sure your car is as correct as it should be - even if confirmed by "official" paperwork and records???

Finally it should be noted that Jeff Dutton who is about to have the car for sale has fully disclosed all of this and there is a note attached to the car specifically about its identity. Also I have no reason to believe that ANY of the prior owners, all of whom are very well versed in these cars, had any idea of the true story behind this car at any stage.

Also i had not wanted to post about this while there was a chance that the car could be reunited with its original numbers and identity for fear of upsetting what were obviously difficult negotiations.

I understand that various "legal issues" are now resolved and the car has left Duttons so are those in the know willing to share the amazing tale?

[mrar]

Thanks Hugh,
Interesting story.

[Merv]

Amazing story. They were 'swapped at birth' and their identities distinct for all these years. Just to keep the customer happy. He may have even known that it was being done if the quota of "S's" was restricted at the time. Great detective work Hugh.

[Fishcop]

Fascinating story Hugh, thank you for reporting it, and I see why you'd be reluctant.

Although everyone involved has my sincere empathy, and all owners are obviously greatly out of pocket; the car clearly isn't an S from the factory. Someone actually performing due diligence has indeed uncovered the identity discrepancy, and in reality that should be a bit of a relief for future buyers.

I think you're right though, Porsche Australia should really put its hand up and and take ownership of a situation it could resolve. A VP number is almost the worst possible outcome (other than scrapping). It will devalue the car enormously.

That being said... it could be the bargain of the century for someone. At the least the documented true history of the car is now available and that probably makes it more valuable than an undocumented run of the mill car.

[HughH]

Amazing story. They were 'swapped at birth' and their identities distinct for all these years. Just to keep the customer happy. He may have even known that it was being done if the quota of "S's" was restricted at the time. Great detective work Hugh.

Merv

I cant claim the credit for the detective work. There are some, one at least who is on this board, who may wish to take some of the credit for this "detective work." (and should as well) I have though been in contact with people in the factory, and others, and have seen various material, that confirms the story as I have outlined it above. I have no doubts that there is other information around on this matter and there are others involved who may wish to comment.

The important lessons for all of us are to be really aware that things were done differently sometimes back then (I firmly believe that no matter how it looks now,. the motivation behind what was done then was in putting the customer first, not fraudulent behavior in any sense. After all they did not create an extra S - it was the execution of that decision back then that has left a lot to be desired, and in the end cost people a lot of money now, and sullied a cars reputation).

Also I think this can teach us a lot as to what we, and others, really value in putting a price on any of our cars.

How much is it the numbers that are stamped into it, or the essence of the car itself, or indeed its history? If it is mostly the latter two, and if the history etc of this car can be completely accurately documented, do these two factors (especially what has happened to it) outweigh the "numbers" issue and actually offset a perceived diminution of value because 1) it is not a real S and 2) it has been tampered with and doesn't even have a real number if it gets the VP number?

[Fishcop]

A poor analogy perhaps but, a bastard born to royal blood is not considered royal and cannot claim a hereditary throne...

[HughH]

A poor analogy perhaps but, a bastard born to royal blood is not considered royal and cannot claim a hereditary throne...

maybe John, but (without making any allegations as to whom actually performed the swap) would this be the same if:

1) the swap was done in Germany, by Porsche who made the car in the first place, before it was actually was exported to Australia
2) it was done by the official agent for importing Porsche to Australia before delivered to a dealer for sale; (ie potentially seen as an extension of the manufacturer)
3) it was done at the authorised dealer before a sale was made.

Now i know the distinction, in the case of Hamilton's being both the official importer (Porsche Cars distributors (Australia and New Zealand) P/L) and a dealer, is a bit moot, but I would argue that if the swap was done at any of these places it is different to if you or I did it.
the big question in this case is how much do people value the difference?

Also where do you draw the line? We know that dealers swapped whole interiors, wheels, seats etc (before the car was originally sold) to create a car a customer wanted on a fairly regular basis back in the day.
In almost all of those cases, (especially if whole interiors were changed) there was a car on the other side that ended up original as delivered, but not original as came off the production line.

It is a slippery slope here and really reflected the attitudes of the time (although I am not sure that the practice of swapping bits and pieces has totally ceased even now)

I dont think there are any "Right" answers - just shades of grey in interpretation until you reach one like this that looks as if it was totally over the line (at least by current standards)

[DJ911]

Thanks for sharing the story.

Should run a background check on my car - always suspected it was an S in sheep's clothing - maybe the original owner preferred an understated look

[npvpositive]

Very disappointing that Porsche was unwilling to step up and verify the history so this car could have been legally confirmed as a 911E "upgraded" to S spec before sale.

Can only speculate that Porsche's lawyers advised it might create litigation risk, particularly given that Porsche Australia owns the old Hamiltons entity.

As Hugh said, for someone willing to look past the emotion of a police VIN number, this could potentially be an extraordinary bargain. It is one of the best 2.2S cars in Australia . . . and nothing has changed except a number on a piece of paper.

[Fishcop]

I guess I do agree with you for the most Hugh, but given the 'flexibility' the factory exercised I wonder why Porsche can't just issue a statement of fact on the car's origin and avoid the VP# What is Porsche Cars Australia's issue?

FWIW as a former Victorian copper I know the VP# generally denotes a stolen and recovered vehicle, and this is clearly not such a vehicle.

[HughH]

What is Porsche Cars Australia's issue?

trying to work that out HAS been the issue for a couple of years now.
I cannot understand it, but it seems to have been a Porsche AUSTRALIA issue from all I have heard.

[Fishcop]

My guess is that "Porsche" back in '71 is not Porsche Cars Australia today. Any admission would likely lead to a liability (albeit vicarious). This might open them to litigation.

Having said that, the difference between a beautiful 1971 S and a beautiful 1971 E would not be $ignificant. I suspect it's a 'principle' thing...

[HughH]

My guess is that "Porsche" back in '71 is not Porsche Cars Australia today. Any admission would likely lead to a liability (albeit vicarious). This might open them to litigation.

Having said that, the difference between a beautiful 1971 S and a beautiful 1971 E would not be $ignificant. I suspect it's a 'principle' thing...

John
When Porsche AG bought out the remaining independent distributors around the world, including Hamilton in Australia; they did buy the whole company. So my understanding is the same as Nick's; the potential legal liability for old Hamilton company (s), including Porsche Cars Distributors (Aust and NZ) Pty Ltd, and whatever entity was the official importer at the time, is probably still wholly owned within the Australian part of Porsche AG.

Indeed an ASIC search will show that Porsche Cars Australia Propriety Limited is the old "NORMAN HAMILTON & CO. LIMITED" renamed. The company trading as PORSCHE CAR DISTRIBUTORS (AUST-N.Z.) P/L which began trading in 1961 was de-registered in 1987. However there were other entities doing distribution in the group including PORSCHE CARS AUSTRALIA (DISTRIBUTION) PTY. LTD. which began trading in 1978 and was de-registered in 1998.

Similarly the other currently registered entity, PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD, is an old Hamilton company renamed.

I think the real problem here was that the lawyers got involved - an occupational hazard when dealing with any company of any size these days, and usually a great way to end up with an unsatisfactory outcome all around (with a token apology only to the lawyers on the board:p )