TT Replica
There is a replica coming up for sale at Coys on 3 March Lot 327A 1929 ? car registered YC 5858.I recall it was last sold about 6 years ago.

Do you have any information on this car, the website doesn't have any photos on it?

How does it compare to yours David? You certainly did a good job with it lots of people like it. What do you think it's worth?

There is a photo on the Coys site Google Coys Auction March.

Coys estimate is £8500-12500 but remember this car is a replica.

That seems fairly good value to me, not sure how much it would cost to have a tank and narrow body made up and get an original Ulster engine...

Would also like to see more photos of it.

Would take the Original engine with a pinch of salt a friend who saw it 5/6 years ago thought it was't.The cost of a Roach TT body and tank would be close to £5500.

Very much 'buyer beware' if the engine is not, in fact, genuine. The fact that it 'comes with' a VSCC Blue Form is a red herring as well as the Blue Form system ceased 8 years ago and, in any event, a VSCC Eligibility Document is not, automatically, transferred to a new owner - the new owner has to make a fresh application in his or her own name. The car is then considered again, on its merits, and against the Eligibility critera current at the time of that application.

STEVE

At what point does a car become a replica?

Engine replaced?
Body replaced?
Chassis replaced?

I have heard people claim their car original having replaced one if not more of the above with brand new!

How many people can honestly vouch for the originality of their car? How many people have owned their car from new and done NOTHING with it?

Surely a car is what it is when you buy it, it's real, it's in front of you (hopefully, if you buy one on the phone, more fool you)and if you don't like what you see don't buy it! So called provenance is only in the mind's eye of the seller who wants to inflate the so-called value of their car, unless it can be proved otherwise.

This subject of so-called Original Ulster/TT/AE Sports has been done to death. If you pay inflated prices purely because someone drove it at some point then you deserve to be ripped off.

So there's my tuppence worth!

Location: deleted

Seems to me to be a lot of money to pay for a doubtful genuine engine, 'cos the rest is obviously fake. The chassis is 1929 yet it holds up a body-type that didn't come into being until a year later, so the builder didn't initially get that right even as a replica. If one is happy to pay big money because of what's been previously spent on a car, or because of who previously owned it, and not much else, they and the car deserve each other. Cheers, Bill in Oz

To take up Andrew's question at what point does it become a replica? I think the answer is relatively straight forward.

Whatever model Austin Seven the car was when it left the factory, no matter what parts are replaced in the future in a like for like situation then the car is still then model which originally came from the factory.

Once someone takes a particular model of Austin Seven and modifys it to look like a different model Austin Seven then it is a replica. It replicates the model without having started life as that model.

I trust someone will disagree but then that is what forums are all about.

Malcolm,

Which bit of the car has the over-riding "decision" as it were though?

IE what happens if the car has an original Ulster engine but Chummy chassis and you then find an original TT body?

Is it a chummy, ulster or TT?

This is one of those topics that will be discussed for ever and no conclusion will ever be reached.

Is it not best to just drive what you have and enjoy it for what it is?

Austin, I would say it was a replica TT with ulster engine ! The chassis is practically identical...original body being TT and original ulster engine.

I have the same feelings about 'reps'...Our Ulster is no 81, whole body is original...original engine except for sump and new crank and rods..I have those but cannot use for reasons i shant go into!! It retains its full wings ( original not replicas) however..was fitted pree war with twin Amals for racing. I get annoyed that within the VSCC I run in a class comprised of 'fakes' 2 others in the class have parts of original bodies..thats all but we are all listed 'modilied'...my feeling is that ours is modified but how can all the others be anything other than specials as all those other than the 2 original bodies did not leave the factory as sports models..let alone EA sports! But.....I am the only one at present running with full road equipment!

P.S.....just a small point of fact that annoys me! even though i like and get on with eveyone in my class....well i did till they read this

Is it a Chummy, Ulster or TT? Surely it is none of these cars, only parts of them, a 'bitza'. It doesn't really matter. There have been some great and historic bitzas like Bloody Mary.
I think replica Ulsters are fine.They can be driven hard without worrying about breaking irreplaceable parts.They can also be modified/developed without worrying about drilling original bodywork.Also, if you desperately want an Ulster, as so many people seem to at the moment, you can build one. Original ones have always been hard to find, even when they were new so I heard.
Bare chassis found at autojumbles etc. where no one knows which model they were when new are an ideal basis I would have thought. However, I see on ebay at the moment a short chassis saloon in need of some restoration, advertised as an ideal basis for an Ulster replica,- bit of a shame to break an 'original' car when it has managed to survive this far.
I agree with Austin(Harris) that the cars need to be driven and enjoyed or we all might end up like the dinky collectors who rave about 'mint and boxed'-a toy that's never been played with,--how sad.

Christopher is very lucky to have an EA Sports (Ulster) with a complete original body.A large percentage have needed major surgery,body reskinning or body replacement due to the hard lives and unsympathetic owners they had before they were so precious.

Thanks David, I think your very lucky!! Your car is fantastic...especialy as having so much of the original bits when one considers exactly how many specials over the years ur engine has powered!! Would love your car!! BTW do you have Martin Eyre's e-mail? does he use e-mail??

Here is a good one for you...
"Mrs Jo Jo" is a car that started life as a Gordon England car in 1925/6. It was sold to a chap called H.
C.Spero in 1928 and was well modified, Engine, Chassis, and Body. It was crashed and rebuilt to carry on racing.
When he had had enough he sold on. again, It got modified and continued to race.
In the 50's it had hydraulic brakes fitted, Again was modified and raced in the 750 MC, It then was left to sit for a bit and was recently bought at action.
There is a total history of this car from the start, Both in photo and written form. It raced at Brooklands in the 20's up to 1938/9.
There are traces of the early car still there as the car is today.
There is no other car I know that has such a well documented history but the car looks totally alien to the way it looked when it started life.
What do you call that?????

I still think it comes down to what it was when it left the factory. I very much doubt if an austin seven exists which has not had some part replaced in the fulness of time.

My car left the factory as a 1929 RK saloon, Since then it has been modified, restored, modifed again and now is a very reliable RK saloon ( modifed )

The bottom line is that we must enjoy our cars, and we need to modify them to suit the purpose to which we are now using them.

As to 'Replicas' aren't they just another form of 'Special' ?

In my view my RK saloon is a modified RK saloon, certainly not a replica RK saloon.

All the way from sunny Cornwall, where we consider any Cornish Pasty that has been made outside Cornwall as a replica! or even a fake!

I agree with the above (although I would question that a '29 chassis is "practically similar" to a mid-'30 one). Steve's example is that of a well-documented racing special and racing specials of any era spend half their time being modified to bring them up to state of the art at the time, so doubt you could call it a replica anything. Even a replica Ulster with a genuine Ulster engine is still a replica in my book. I for one love specials and I think these replicas (cars made from bits of other original cars and bodies) should be known as that - specials. Why I get crusty is when people aren't honest enough to call their cars a replica but come out with "my Cup", "my Brooklands", "my Ulster", "my '23" etc - especially when selling for high prices. Surely to be able to call your car genuine, even if modified, re-bodified etc, you'd have to start off with a chassis (as a minimum) that is proven to have come from an original car of that model? As suggested above, we could debate this for years. Cheers, Bill in Oz

My OED defines replica as "Duplicate made by original artist of his picture etc. If it wasn't made by Austin it is a copy, pastiche or fake.

I have always thought that the terms "Ulster" and "Chummy" get around the problem, since they were generic terms never attributed to the cars by the manufacturer but descriptions which applied to a number of makes and models over the years.

Car fetched £7000 yesterday sounds a bit of a bargain.

Maybe this thread provoked some sensible bidding!