Wearing a rather abbreviated Cabriolet body by Brainsby-Woollard and another ex-Giles Bugatti to end up in the collection of arch-enthusiast Dr. Peter Williamson, I can find no information on the Giles period. When did they get it? Which brother owned it? When did they sell it?

Dear Johan:

Two questions:

Why do you think this car is chassis 50133?

Why do you think the coachwork is by Brainsby-Woolard?

Regards,

CK

I think there was a mistake for many years in that this Bugatti was identified as #50133 and the coachbuilder in various publiciations. (thus error perpetuated still today if you look at various websites) Today I believe it has been identifed as having a different chassis number and coachwork by Bugatti.

The guys showing the car at PB did talk about it being imported into the USA pre-WWII (George Rand?) and it had two sets of coachwork. It was stored at the famous New York shop of Zumbach's as just a chassis. Later owner reunited the chassis with the coachwork it carries to this day.

Question is: why the original misidentification of the chassis? And when was it corrected based upon what information? And what happened (pictures of it?) to the lightweight coachwork that was imported in conjunction with it?

_________________
me: Mark - home: Gilbert, Arizona now

Having the chassis number on a removable part of the engine on the T46 and T50 cars has led to much confusion over the years.And of course if an engine is changed then the chassis number sometimes goes with the old engine.And if as in this case the body is removed as well,then there would be no way to correctly identify a car.Of course in those days nobody really cared about numbers [happilly]

I am quite sure the car is, in fact, chassis no. 50144, although I'd love to be proven wrong! The engine is no. 34 (of 50144) and the coachwork is "ex-" 50144. Both chassis numbers are referenced in Conway's 1962 Register with 50144 "untraced" and 50133 in the U.S. with engine ex-50144. I spoke with the late Al Garthwaite many years ago on this subject, the last "known" owner of 50144 and he told me he sold it to the first U.S. owner of "50133", so it seems rather conclusive to me...

The coachwork when delivered was listed as Van Vooren and the fenders do resemble their work. Col. G.M. Giles was the Giles brother that owned it and he listed it for sale (with the two bodies previously mentioned) in Bugantics, Vol. 7, Nos. 1-4 and Vol. 8, Nos. 1-3 when George Rand bought it and imported it into the U.S., the late summer of 1939. The light sporting "Le Mans replica" coachwork has disappeared, but it is shown in Bugantics Vol. 13, No. 2 on page 27.

Barrie Price's inadequate book on the T46 and T50 models shows the car as a T46 with Brainsby-Woollard coachwork unfortunately...

CK

Hi Guys

Why do I think this is chassis 50133? Simply accepted wisdom really, that's why. No seriously, I checked Wiki and the information was not contradicted in Magnum, so I simply assumed it was 50133.

Not the only Type 50 about which there is confusion about the chassis number - one of the Dovaz T50s has a chassis number once worn by one of the Le Mans Team Cars if I'm not mistaken.

Thanks CK, this is very exciting news indeed - just one question : Do you think this is chassis 50133 with engine and coachwork from 50144, or has 50144 simply been misidentified all along as 50133? This car was, of course, part of the Peter Williamson Collection for a long time.

I was also unaware that the chassis number plate on T46 & 50 was mounted on "a removable part of the engine." Thanks Lazarus.

Now kindly excuse me, it's back to the salt-mines for me. New info on a T50? Damn this is exciting.

Kind Regards
Johan
South African gulag prisoner.

the chassis number is on the removable engine mounting but there is also a chassis plate as usual.Of course if the chassis plate went with the body.........

Dear John, Mark and Jean:

The confusion regarding this car lies in the 1962 Conway Register where both 50133 and 50144 are listed as being in the US, although at this point, 50144 was listed as "untraced" with Garthwaite as the last known former owner. There is no question in my mind that there was only one such T50 in the US, either 50133 with the engine of 50144 or the entirety of 50144. The real question is when and why did an owner of what had previously been known as 50144 decide or figure out that the car was 50133 with the engine (and body) of 50144?

My best guess is that the car is 50144 and that between Garthwaite and van Gerbig, somehow, someone decided the car should be called 50133. The Bugatti Trust has compounded the misinformation (if that is what it is) by calling the Giles car with the UK registration "DXN 7" chassis no. 50133 with Brainsby-Woollard coachwork.

This much I know; Garthwaite sold the car to Bill Klein in 1955. Klein and his wife, Ann Klein, were big Bentley people, as was the first listed US former owner of "50133"...Peter van Gerbig. Al Garthwaite said the last he knew of his old T50 (which he never cared for) was that John Caperton bought it from (he thought) Bill Klein for $2300 in March of 1956. Somewhere in here, 50144 became 50133. Why?

If someone can look into the correct chassis number for "DXN 7", we should be able to firm this up. I would not use the Bugatti Trust in this case as source material as they are only repeating HGC's 1962 Register reporting which may not be accurate.

Cheers,

CK

Is this car described as 50133 in the American Registers? Any inscription for 50144? George Rand was the American Bugatti Agent true? Did any other T50s (swb) get to the US after WWII through Lamberjack and/or Burton?

I think I am in agreement with you about the coachwork - there is a convertible coupe on a T46 chassis (both chassis and body survive, but were separated a long time ago) by B(r?)ainsby-Woolard and it shares very few, if any styling cues with the body on 50133/144. Van Vooren? Could very well be, definitely not Bugatti coachwork - all their convertibles were by Gangloff and I just don't see this as their work. The wings and running boards are just a little too "severe," they preferred a slightly softer curvature.

Is this car still owned by Dr. Williamson's family? Is anyone in a position to ask them for clarification? This conundrum is proving to be a lot of fun - perhaps a long lost T50 might resurface in the USA soon.

Thanks CK
Johan

The car is listed as 50133 in Andy Rheault's 1979 and 1988 Registers and as 50144 in my 2003 Register.
While George Rand may have been regarded as "the" American Bugatti Agent, as best I know, he only imported four Bugattis as new cars; 57116, 57541, 57806 and an unidentified Stelvio which was broken up after extensive damage during its sea voyage to South America...this story will have to wait for another day. Of these four cars, three were ordered via Colonel Sorel in London because Rand couldn't speak French and one was returned (57541/29S, the Van den Plas 4 seater 57S tourer) when Rand failed to find an American buyer for this expensive car. The fourth car, 57806, was actually ordered personally by its first owner, L. Cabot Briggs who spoke fluent French and delivered via Rand.

I am not aware of any other T50's delivered to the US via Lamberjack or Burton, immediately postwar.

The Williamson family still owns the T50, but it has been quietly offered for sale in recent months and may have even been sold by now.

Cheers,

Sandy (CK)

You're THE Sandy Leith? I absolutely refuse to let on how impressed I am, I have my pride you know. So we're all agreed then - 50133 is actually 50144? Case closed.

By the way Mr. Leith, have you ever beaten up Ralph Lauren?

Cheers
Johan

I am indeed, but let's not close the case until we know for sure. We are nearly there, but I'd like to know if the U.K. registration records records show "DXN 7" as 50133 or 50144 before we close the case.

I have never met Ralph Lauren, despite several opportunities. He is a very busy man who has had a level of success which has enabled him to amass a remarkable collection of automobiles. You have seen photos of my T37-Ford engined "special", therefore you know my strong preference for originality. Even with Lauren's fortune, I would not restore 37387, a car which bears the scars of eight decades. Not to excuse the manner in which Lauren has chosen to "preserve" his cars, but few, if any of his cars were truly "unrestored" or original.

Sandy

RAND, George C. A so-called Bugatti “distributor” for New York in the thirties who raced what he sold. His business address was 47, West 64th Steet. Tragalgar 7-7729 but he lived on Long Island. His advert for an early Ventoux appears in “Bugatti Magnum” (p. 529). His personal car, from July 1934, was a type 57 drophead coupé with the registration LC 422, illustrated in “Bugantics” in March, 1935. He still owned the car in the mid-fifties when his address was 370, Park Avenue, New York. In 1976 he was alive and well and living in Owl’s Head, Maine.

Very true indeed, by the time Ralph Lauren bought EXK 6 from Tom Price it had at least two restorations on top of the accident repair following the Barrie Price ditch adventure. And with the exception of being driven into a ditch the same applies to the Count Trossi SSK, 57563 and the ex-Bill Serri 8C2.9. Ralph Lauren is not responsible for destroying any untouched originals, he is however responsible for commissioning soul-destroyingly clinical restorations on some of the most iconic automobiles ever produced.

Can a brutal over-restoration destroy the originality of a car already restored at least once? Damned if I know.

I have a feeling a copy of the 2003 American Register will soon be on the way to South Africa. Hope it's got pictures........

It truly is an honour making your acquaintance Sandy - Mr. Leith if I may.

Kind Regards
Johan Buchner

It has been pointed out to me that Ralph Lauren bought EXK 6 from Mr. Tom Perkins, not Price. Quite unforgivable really, Tom Perkins collected the most stunning stable of supercharged 30's cars and then dispersed it when he realised that he wasn't using them enough. Remarkable man.

Johan