"JAM BUTTI" was last heard of faking old boats in Spain.Probably on the "Costa del Crime"

GCL-Wales is right.
No one can express any opinion without at least proper pictures but much better a detailed inspection by one of the very few experts.
The very bad out of focus picture of the chassis plate is a bad start and easily leads to negative conclusions.
The obviously removed and restamped number on the gearbox lid does not help either!
Bugwrench

I spoke to David again last week and mentioned the type 35 and he is firmly of the opinion that this is NOT a genuine car.

HOWEVER, the owner is offering to have the car inspected and photographed at Rondini's premises and will be showing the car publicly in the not-to-distant future. This suggests that the owner has a genuine belief in the provenance claimed for the car.

Question : If the owner bought this car in the good faith belief that it is 4394 and it turns out to be a replica what legal remedies are available to him?

Thanks
Johan

Dear Bugattists,
her you will find a sharper wiew of the chassis plate of my car, and also a new picture of my gear box cover, cleaned out of grease .
If you reread the written opinions of the experts who SAW the car or who tooke care of it, noboby says it is a replica, or a fake, as hinted by some other experts who did not saw it.
The mere fact that it came out of Butti's seems to be an original sin; but is it impossible that he might have kept the remnants of a good one, to rebuilt it at the end of his working life ? By the way, I know nothing about Dan Margulies 's reputation, and I could not find him on the telephone book.
Anyway I do not intend to sell it and all this contreversy began when I read a report about" Peageant of power" at Cholmondeley castle : 4394 was missing and had it , so I wrote to the forum !
Sincerely

Frank Trepsat

Hello Frank.

My analysis of your situation is tht you have a car which is worth a LOT of money if it really is the Cholmondely car. Say £1,000,000 ?

If not, and it is a car based on a new chassis with a few original bits (like a gearbox lid or a chassis plate) then the car might be worth say £300,000.

You obviously believe that you have the genuine item and have said you are going to put it on public display soon. I will be very happy for you if this is the case. As you know I spent quite a bit of time over the summer at Cholmondeley Castle and would love to see the real 4394.

But for your own peace of mind why not give David Sewell a ring (01629 636288) and commission him to inspect the car properly. The cost would be a tiny fraction of the value of a genuine early car.

It would be cheaper to get ME to pop over from the Vienne! Anyway Frank is happy with his T35 and it is nobodys business whether it is 1% or 100% original parts from Molsheim.It is a fine example of the model.

Dear Lazarus,
Indeed, it will be easier and cheaper if you come either to see the car in Lyon or in Carpentras than to ask Mr Sewell to fly from England.
For those who do not speak French here is a translation of the comments that Rondoni made when he received 4394 from England.
I must say that I did not know much about Bugattis at that time and that I had never met Laurent Rondoni before.
You will understand better why, since the beginning I have been convinced to be the owner of an original car:

"Dear Sir ,
At your request, although not an official expert, but as a specialist in Bugatti, I will give you some info concerning your Bugatti Type 35 Grand Prix de Lyon.:

It is certain that your chassis is number 22. It is an original one, complete, and it has been built between june 1924 and the beginning of 1925.

The rear axle , the gear box, the radiator, the dash board, the “ tirants” of rear axle, and the totality of the braking system are indeed genuine and original.

There is a doubt concerning the front axle, which is of the correct , hollowed type.

Some parts of the bodywork have been rebuilt sometime ago, probably in England, but some others are original .

The engine and clutch have been rebuilt from new parts.

This means that your car is 70 per cent original and that it fits well with the number 4394 registered at the BOC with the mention : no engine.

Laurent Rondoni
Carpentras 14 04 1993 "

If I made mistakes may I ask Lazarus to correct them?
I look forward to see you in France
Regards

Frank Trepsat

_________________
I Live only for... Bugatti!!! "Nothing Is Too Beautiful, Nothing Is Too Expensive..." -Ettore Bugatti-

Most Bugatti enthusiasts would count themselves very lucky to find one genuine Bugatti in a scrapyard.

Keith Butti reportedly found several.

Having found these original chassis in obscure scrapyards why did he feel the need to order so many brand new chassis from a welll-known UK manufacturer ?

If the cars he "rebuilt" all had genuine chassis what has become of the "replica" chassis he purchased ?

Did the UK BOC Registrar inspect the Cholmondeley car when Butti's stock was sold off ?

I have a couple of questions about chassis frames : Mr. Trepsat's T35 has frame number 22 which Rondini stated in his letter to Frank is a genuine works frame manufactured between 1924 & 5. GCL-Wales mentions that Butti ordered a number of newly manufactured frames, is there a reliable and non-invasive procedure available to date such a frame? Are good quality reproduction frames visually identical to the original or can the new one be "spotted?"

I remember a while ago the owner of a T51 joined this forum and when the provenance of his car was questioned he left in a huff, never to be heard from again ; Mr. Trepsat on the other hand has shown commendable restraint while we (the majority of us non-owners - get thee behind me envy!) discussed and debated his beloved T35, and indeed both Lazarus and Rondini supports Mr. Trepsat's assertion that he has 4394. I am enjoying this thread, learning new stuff is always such fun, but just have a look at this:

Glorious innit? Somehow I find myself incapable of thinking less of this car due to the debate over 4 digits. Please note, I'm not saying history is not important, but as a fellow contributor pointed out a while ago : "There is more to Bugattis than just chassis numbers."

Kind Regards
Johan Buchner

PS. Any chance someone can convince Mr. Keith Butti to make an on-the-record statement regarding 4394?

Dear Johan:

Welcome back...we have missed you.

So far, we have seen photos of the no. 29 gearbox LID which Bart thinks was restamped; the chassis plate whose "4394" stamp fonts are incorrect and a rear axle stamped no. 21...the numbers for which may or may not be okay, it is difficult to say for sure. The evidence is pretty think on the ground, as they say. I also do not think that Jean (Lazarus) has committed himself, one way or the other (I think his range was 1-100% Molsheim), nor do I think that Rondoni's statement...that the car is 70% original and it "fits well" with the number 4394...puts him down in the "This car is DEFINITELY 4394 camp.

As far as I know, there is no non-invasive metallugy test for a chassis frame. In 1990, Roger Howard and I visited Tula Engineering after the International Rally in Wales to hacksaw off a small piece of the late Bob Sutherland's Type 59 chassis frame (with his permission, of course!) to have it tested. (It passed!) I don't imagine Mr. Trepsat wants to go this far, but, back to Rondoni's statement, even if it passed, it wouldn't prove it was 4394. It would, however, remove a very substantial doubt about the origins of the frame...

Cheers,

Sandy

The steel used in an original chassis used by Molsheim can be identified.

Perhaps Mr. Trepsat would like to have a little wager with me and have the metalllurgy checked at my expense.

If he doesn't want to do that then perhaps he might provide a nice clear picture of the chassis numbers stamped on the rear cross-member.

Or a nice clear picture of the "emblem" stamped on the frame by the chassis's manufacturer.

Or a nice clear picture of the car as found in an English scrapyard.

Or a nice clear picture of the recovered car in Mr. Butti's wokrshop.

Why should he bother? I certainly would not do so. It is nobody's business but the owners what the truth of the cars history is or is not.Incidentally the test carried out on steel to determine whether it is or is not prewar is not conclusive,and can be wrong if the chassis has been heated in the past for repair or straightening.Worry about the cars history WHEN and IF it is offered for sale AND when YOU wish to buy it. [and have the money to do so ]

Dear Jean:

You and I go back a long time and have had our share of disagreements in the past, but I have always respected your views and always will. I agree that Mr. Trepsat is under no obligation to prove anything to us and has been exceedlingly gracious in entertaining the exchanges we have had thus far. However...while he may own the car, he does not own the history. Truth and history, in this context, are absolutes...the car has them or it doesn't. If I owned the car, I would want to know the truth. If it turned out I owned something less than originally portrayed, I would sue the seller. It should not be up to the next prospective purchaser of Mr. Tresat's car to establish the truth of this car unless it is represented with no claims whatsoever...something I very much doubt he is willing to do...

Sandy