<VV>Re-Vin

[airvair]

It would seem to me that in a case-by-case basis, the Shelby owner who
had the REAL body could claim that the VIN plate had been stolen off the
car. Hence, the guy with the plate would have to turn it over to him,
especially since he already had a stamped # all his own. After all, the
plates can be easily removed, while a body with a stamped body # can't.

On the other side of the coin, just how much body replacement
constitutes repair, and what would constitute an effort for fraud? And
what about if both cars are legally owned by one person? If one were
rusted beyond practical (conventional cut-and-weld) restoration, and the
other not, what if the other one's shell were used as "the world's
largest replacement part"? Especially if that replacement part were
restamped correctly to match the plate. One gets scraped, the other
restored. In that case, no intent to defraud would be possible, and
therefore be perfectly legal.

It's a little like "the perfect concours car entry" that showed at one
convention. It consisted of a perfectly polished VIN plate and nothing
else. Can't be deducted for what's not there, right? LOL

-Mark

Bill Elliott wrote:
> 
> I have no intention of getting into it again, but this practice is the
> rule vice the exception in the really high dollar cars... where
> virtually nothing of the original car remains... like your grandfather's
> hammer... head's been replaced twice and the handle 5 times, but it's
> still your grandfather's hammer. Most countries in Europe have very very
> specific rules on how this is properly done... while we in the US just
> say "you can't do it" despite the fact it's so commonly done in the
> world of restorations...
> 
> If the VIN and body plate say you own a 1966 turbo convertible, then you
> do, regardless of what the car actually is...  ;-)
> 
> A 1966 turbo convertible is still a 1966 turbo convertible even if it's
> attached to a body that began life as a 1965 Monza... while a 1965 Monza
> is still a 1965 Monza even if it is fitted with all the right bits to
> make it appear to be a 1966 turbo convertible... one is a restoration
> and the other is fraud... but in the US we treat them both as illegal.
> 
> There was recently a case where two Shelby owners claimed that they both
> owned the same car. One guy actually had the car itself with the correct
> hidden VIN. The other guy had the VIN and body plates attached to a car
> that did not have the correct hidden VIN. It was decided legally that
> the guy with the plates had the "real" car... and the "real" Shelby body
> was now worthless....
> 
> Bill.
> 
> Padgett wrote:
> 
> >
> >> > 1. He "re-vin'ed it".
> >
> >
> > Must admit I have mixed emotions here. When you take two or three cars
> > and make one, which VIN should be used ? Whatever car's piece the tag
> > is on ? I grew up often seeing "brass era" restorations that began
> > with one wheel and a pile of rust. Or did the world change when Toby
> > Halicki showed how easy it was ?
> >
> > Yout want to know.
> >
> > Padgett
> >
>