Dear Sandy and John:

You both just illustrated my point in a splendid way:

I'm not interested in a chassis number for the airplane replica, I just want to know if it flies, and how!

The huge emphasis on chassis numbers takes too much attention away from the fun of Bugattis!

_________________
www.BugattiPage.com
www.BugattiRevue.com
www.BugattiAircraft.com

Always glad to please.Some people take life [and Bugatti's ] far too seriously I would also pay to see it fly,but not with Bugatti motors and certainly not with bugatti motors and me in it.

Dear Johan, Herman and others

Please allow me to share some thoughts with you. These are my own personal opinions; I do not speak as the chairman of the BIG and this is not an ‘official’ BIG statement . Basically I was and I still am a novice in this field. About 8 years ago you practically could sell me a Ruska for a Bugatti, and I have been lucky enough to stand on the shoulders of very knowledgeable people like Ronald van Ramshorst, Bart Rosman, and the like, who have been in this field since the dawn of time. I completely understand your feelings about the reluctance of the Bugatti ‘establishment’ as I have experienced the same some years ago.

Look at the start of the original Wikipedia (basically the role model for the Bugatti Wiki): initially the establishment criticized it heavily with arguments like: anyone can write anything leaving the information unverified and therefore pretty useless. The Wiki was said to become a compilation of half-truths and whole lies for nerds with a ‘continuous partial attention’ span. In contrast it became a success as a result of the efforts of thousands of unpaid volunteers who made forums and checked the information on a daily basis.

Some years ago a couple of scientists decided to verify the accuracy of the information in relation to the then acknowledged gold standard of the establishment: the Encyclopaedia Brittannica, written by paid experts. They had a number of articles in both media checked by scientists, leaders in their field. To the surprise of many it turned out that the percentage of mistakes was not different between the Wikipedia and the Brittannica. And the Wikipedia has even grown since, leading to the virtual demise of the Brittannica.

What I call ‘Bugitis’ is something in between a viral infection and an addiction: what it has in common with a viral infection is that once you are infected you may never get rid of it anymore, like herpes or other viruses. It may disappear for a while but after some time it will reappear and you may never beat it. What it has in common with an addiction is that it may take over your whole life at the risk of jeopardizing other important aspects of your life such as your family, your work, your social life and so on- which afflicted people try to hide initially. Once the infection has become severe sufferers do not even hide their Bugitis anymore and start counting in years before and after the birth of Ettore- instead of Jesus Christ that most Bugatti- infidels are used to do.

I see the Bugatti Wiki as a database; mind you: the only database that has no mistakes is a database with zero information. However when one starts such an endeavour one has to be prepared for criticism of the establishment that considers this subject their intellectual property. However, rightly or wrongly, the Bugatti Wiki has become a force to be reckoned with, and is there to remain.

The Bugatti Wiki can be seen as a remarkable achievement of mostly two people: Herman for making it possible and Christian for working on it on a daily basis for about three years uninterruptedly. Without either of them it would not have been what it is today. When it started I thought I would give it the benefit of the doubt and watch from the sideline. All too often websites like these have a short life span and disappear as the initiator gets fed up with it after a while as it is all unpaid labour of love, totally relying on volunteers. I remember another Dutch Bugatti Website that started off criticising Jaap Horsts layout and stating that it all could be done much better and better looking. Well, Jaap is still with us and after a couple of years the other Website simply faded away.

The BIG is mentioned as an authoritative group. Let me just reiterate how the BIG came about and what it is.

Before the time of forums on the internet the BIG has been preceded by Bernard Simons e-mail group of Bugatti enthusiasts, which had totally grown out of control. In the end more than sixty people or so were part of it and many found compelled to chat about virtually everything. Poor Bernard- who next to this hobby has to make a living as a full time Internist- had to spend more and more time until one of the contributors unintentionally introduced a virus, which destroyed all information on all computers of all participants. That was the end of that.

I then started the BIG and we decided not to make the same mistake twice. The number of participants would be limited to about a manageable 20, everybody was required to install the latest version of an antiviral program; we laid down some internet etiquette and we selected individuals based upon their enthusiasm, their knowledge and their geographical distribution. The BIG was viewed with suspicion by some of the establishment but we could truly say that we were no more and no less than just a bunch of enthusiasts interested in Bugatti history and trying to find out the truth about the identity of cars. However as time passed the BIG has gotten some authoritative status albeit still unofficial and in no way comparable to let us say the Trust

The main task of the BIG is to identify not just real Bugattis but also replicas- not just the Pur Sangs (which are easy), but also the Buttis, the Joneses and the like. That of course begs the question: what is a replica? And what on earth is a real Bugatti? I can safely say that there is virtually no Bugatti that is exactly as how it left the factory. And if it exists, it has not or hardly been driven, just the very thing that it was intended for. I personally do not object at all to replicas but I strongly object to replicas posing as original Bugattis. One does not make friends with this, but- Herman and Christian- if you want to make a lot of friends please write down with every car that it is genuine Molsheim.

The definition that the chassis has to be real Molsheim is totally arbitrary and has led to practices like in my eyes the total- but very attractive- fake ‘43200’ which is a complete Pur Sang built on an identical but wrong (38) frame. 43200 was originally one of the three 1928 Mille Miglia cars but it has nothing to do with this car. And the peculiar ‘three out of five’ rule has led to practices where the owner of a 100 % Pur Sang after a crash at the Nürnburgring tried to pass the car as a real Bugatti afterwards by replacing three major components with Bugatti parts. For me it still is a Pur Sang. Instead of talking about ‘R’s I would rather prefer a description where it is stated what is original and what not. It is not like a light knob: the light can either be on or off.

I totally agree that BC 128 is a definite and persistent mistake of the ‘establishment’. However nicely built, except for the engine and some other parts this car has nothing to do with a genuine Bugatti. I consider it a very attractive ‘Hot Rod’

On the other hand all who create the Wiki should be aware that with so much money involved and with such a discrepancy between prices of new and original cars the temptation to misuse it will prove too much for some unscrupulous individuals who have it modified and subsequently state that their car is real ‘because the Wiki says so’.

As far as my own contribution is concerned I hope you will indulge me for having to do this next to my full time job. I can only do this in my free time (I am now on holiday in California but just had a peek at the internet). So mainly when I look at something I may contribute but that alone often takes a couple of hours researching, which I simply do not have to spare. My main job is first, my BIG job is second. But I will follow it closely and with interest.

Vive la Marque

Kees Jansen

'43200' > '43240'-R

see http://www.bugattiregister.com/wiki/ind ... 43240%27-R

Christian

How authoritative is the Bugatti Trust ?

See the entries relating to cars 361-365 in photo album 2 and spot the mistakes.

See the chassis no. attributed to the GP-based Raven Special in album 11.

See the date given to the Monaco-Shelsley type 53 factory pictures in album 16.

43240: I am not certain wether the owner of '43240' R claims any authenticity such as the seller of '43200' R did, who stated in his advertisement that the car had 'six important owners since new' but obviously did not know this was one of the three Mille Miglia cars

And as far as the Trust goes: there are a number of mistakes of the identity of cars in the Albums. I sent a number of corrections each time a new album appeared but so far had no response and also nothing was changed. My own Atalante 57432 is still depicted there as 57547 (which was by the way the number that Albert de Lay conveyed to the Trust).

At any rate the authority beyond question in his days was Hugh Conway sr. That was before the time of internet...

And here you can change whatever you see is wrong. See how easy it is?

_________________
Vive la Marque !!

There are two ways to compile a Register.

1 - Make a list which starts at 361 and ends with the number where you think the Bugatti story ends (which might begin with a 59 or a 64 or 73 or 101 or 252 or whatever). From this starting point you try to trace the subsequent history of each car. In the data base of cars I am compiling cars which have not be seen for more than fifty years are normally listed as "Assumed scrapped" and I will then need some convincing photographic evidence to change the entry. (A letter from a so-called "expert" with no supporting evidence will not suffice).

2 - Go around all the Bugatti events with a good camera and try to make a list of the cars that actually exist. Problems : (a) the owners will frequently "lie through their teeth" to prevent correct identification (b) when you think you have worked out the exact history of some of the cars in question you are left with a three-digit list of cars which exist without any method of identification. As far as I know, Jones, Delliere, Rondoni, Hoskins, Anadon etc., etc, have never made public lists of the new chassis frames they have manufactured. What has happened now is that people who have not applied for "BC" chassis numbers have annexed and "recycled" original chassis numbers which have in some cases been accepted and included in apparently reputable published books. The "Brescia Course" fraternity have been especially adept at this practice and it has become almost normal for people with an original engine to claim the chassis number of the car from which the engine came.

How does the BUGATTI IDENTIFICATION GROUP intend to identify the fast growing number of "new" so-called "Bugattis" many of which have absolutely no Molsheim content ?

In the meantime I'm planning my second outing in 4289 today. With its new HC pistons it runs much better than anticipated. If only the front brakes worked!

Sir, your car is meant for driving, not for stopping...

I will respond to the rest of the discussion later.

_________________
Vive la Marque !!

What brakes ?

Front brakes are for girlies ...

My apologies Kees, I was completely unaware of the fact that you are both founder and chairman of BIG. How ignorant of me.

Johan Buchner

[quote]How authoritative is the Bugatti Trust ? /quote]

My personal opinion?

The Trust was in the sixties the absolute unique and only body of reference for all Bugatti historians, owning many, many original factory sheets and factory material. It was in the UK because of the close bonds the Brits had with the Bugatti family and factory and mainly because of one man: Hugh Conway sr+

Hugh was for the Trust what Herman and Christian nowadays are for the Bugatti Wiki. This all however is not so much based upon the strength of the Trust but on the weakness of historical interest in the mother country, France in those days.

The present day information technology has changed that all. How would somebody like Johan be able to gather data in South Africa in those days? He could only rely on books that everybody could buy and that is it.

[quote]How does the BUGATTI IDENTIFICATION GROUP intend to identify the fast growing number of "new" so-called "Bugattis" many of which have absolutely no Molsheim content ? /quote]

My personal opinion again:

The only thing we can do is gather as much information as possible about as many replicas and original cars as possible. And then keep track of them. The Dutch owner of a 100 % Pur Sang had the 'bad luck' his car was already depicted as a replica in NLB-2 when he tried to tell organizers of meetings and people in his environment that it was a real Bugatti. And by now I have been called as a so called 'expert' in two cases where the identity of a real Bugatti with genuine history was uncertain and once in a court case where someone had bought two Pur Sangs as genuine Bugattis and wanted to undo the sale. The seller claimed he had never stated the cars were real but luckily for the buyer I had downloaded all the pages from the internet which proved that he was not speaking the truth.

The most difficult cars are the ones which have been built in the sixties to eighties and then sold as real. Often they do have some Molsheim components though. But it pays off to be suspicious of every 'new' find and consider it a replica until proven genuine and not the other way around.

Kees

PS1: 441231, a new barnfind which you will see soon is genuine (according to the BIG)
PS2: By the way, Johan, no offense taken. How could you know after all?

[quote="keesj"][quote]How authoritative is the Bugatti Trust ? /quote]

My personal opinion?

The Trust was in the sixties the absolute unique and only body of reference for all Bugatti historians, owning many, many original factory sheets and factory material. It was in the UK because of the close bonds the Brits had with the Bugatti family and factory and mainly because of one man: Hugh Conway sr+

Dear Kees,Knowing that you are keen on accurate reporting,I feel that I should point out to you that the trust did not exist in the 1960's,nor even the 1970's.The first Bugatti register undertaken by Barry Eaglesfield and Peter Hampton [ Barry did most of the work ] was a |Bugatti Owners Club study done in the early 1950's.Hugh Conway simply carried on their work when it was felt that a more up to date edition was required.Please do not take this comment as critisism.

So it was in fact Barry who started it all?

Did you know he is working on a 2nd Bugatti book?

(Interestingly, there is over half a century between the first and the 2nd!)

_________________
www.BugattiPage.com
www.BugattiRevue.com
www.BugattiAircraft.com

He still supplies new dustcovers for his original register ! signed even.