Author |
Topic |
moriaan
Netherlands
510 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 11:40:40
|
Don't know about the prova numbers now, (am at work) but, The nr.7 P4 spyder is 0856 which was entered with nr.24 at Le Mans by ecurie Francorchamps (yellow stripe) (now owned by stroll)
0858 ran with nr.21 at Le Mans as a works entry, and is now the 350Canam spyder offered for sale by RM
Hans |
|
|
ramapao69
Italy
512 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 12:10:07
|
Thank you!! Supposed it was the car n°21 converted to a spider because of the same Prova MO number.....now Make Up can correct it with the exact number!!
|
|
|
Enzo1
Belgium
88 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 14:53:16
|
I made a few researchs after Moriaan's post and I found a bit of everything about the chassis #0856 and #0858.
On the RM auction, 0858 is presented as the car entered at Le Mans with #24 by the Ecurie Francorchamps that finished third : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVKXFh0wqTY
In my documentation which I find more reliable than Internet, 0858 is the car that finished first at the 1000 kms of Monza (#3) and third at Le Mans (#24) like on the video above.
O856 is the car that ran with #4 at Monza and 21 at Le Mans where it finished 2nd.
0858 and 0860 were both converted to 350 Can-Am.
The remaining car, still in a P4 configuration, is owned by Stroll. I guess it should be 0856. No why does it have Prova MO-36 on the picture with the spider # 7 and Prova MO-33 (?) on the picture taken from the race is a mistery for me...
|
|
|
gdist43
Japan
32 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 19:28:49
|
Look forward to see Ferrari P4 by Make Up, such a high quality!
I guess this car has "PROVA MO-36" number in Le Mans 24 hours race day. Here's a picture I cannot remember where I got it... http://gdist43.com/img_ferrari/p4_14a.jpg
Akihiro |
|
|
Enzo1
Belgium
88 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2010 : 00:56:40
|
Thank you Gdist43.
I guess the picture I posted wasn't shooted at Le Mans or, at least, not the day of the race.
|
|
|
250GTE
Netherlands
295 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2010 : 02:05:38
|
0858 ran under #21 at Le Mans 1964 (Scarfiotti and Parkes) 0856 ran under #24 (private entry by Ecurie Belge) with a yellow stripe down the middle (Mairesse and Beurlys)
edit: Like Moriaan already stated |
Edited by - 250GTE on 05/14/2010 02:06:22 |
|
|
gdist43
Japan
32 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2010 : 02:32:08
|
Enzo1 shown us nice pictures but I think last one was shooted at the test day of Le Mans 1967.
Some picky details, car number letter and fairing-less mirrors are different from the race car. |
Edited by - gdist43 on 05/14/2010 02:32:54 |
|
|
Enzo1
Belgium
88 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2010 : 04:49:10
|
quote: Originally posted by 250GTE
0858 ran under #21 at Le Mans 1964 (Scarfiotti and Parkes) 0856 ran under #24 (private entry by Ecurie Belge) with a yellow stripe down the middle (Mairesse and Beurlys)
edit: Like Moriaan already stated
Are Sotheby's and the RM then wrong, presenting 0858 as the car #24 from the Ecurie Belge ? |
|
|
250GTE
Netherlands
295 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2010 : 05:27:25
|
If that is what they are saying, then yes, they are wrong.
(edit: of course I meant Le Mans 1967, not 1964)
Here a pic of 0846 (#20), right behind 0858 (#21) and next to 0858 is 0860 (#19)
pic is not mine
|
Edited by - 250GTE on 05/14/2010 05:32:31 |
|
|
moriaan
Netherlands
510 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2010 : 07:00:53
|
Switching chassisnumbers was a common practice for Ferrari in the 1960's. To avoid custom-duties tags were switched to make customs think that the cars were allready imported before.
Ferrari was also very creative in "presenting" the Daytona-winning p4. The one and only winner was 0846, but 0856 was sold and presented as the famous nr.23 car!
In my opinion this was the best decade for Ferrari, and the cars are the best looking Ferrari's ever made! If I had won the lottery last month, The P4 from Kamimura would allready be here! (sorry Mike, I lost again....)
Hans |
Edited by - moriaan on 05/14/2010 07:06:38 |
|
|
250GTE
Netherlands
295 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2010 : 09:37:12
|
In addition to Moriaan's remarks, I got this answer from Jim Glickenhaus (current owner of Ferrari 330 P3/4 0846):
"Ferrari says #24 is 0858 NOT 0856.
The original Le Mans Scrutinising Documents I have show the opposite and list the engine # and chassis # of the 24 car as being 0856.
I showed these documents to Ferrari.
They shrugged and continue to state that the # 24 at Le Mans in 1967 was 0858."
So, I guess we have to make out for ourselves what the actual identity of the #24 and #21 car is. Do we believe Ferrari or do we believe the scrutineering-data (which Ferrari apparently hasn't disputed). |
|
|
moriaan
Netherlands
510 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2010 : 02:10:51
|
These are the things that make Ferrari-history interesting.. Lately, Ferrari recognized the "value"of their history. Thats the only reason the Classiche department is founded. In reality, experts like Jim Glickenhaus and Marcel Massini know more about these cars than Ferrari, and Clasiche is another moneymachine.
I go with Jim, you can find a lot of his knowledge on ferrarichat.com
For me, the myths and history of these machines are the most interesting about Ferrari. New cars are merely assembly-line products...
Hans
|
|
|
IchoTolot
France
37 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2010 : 02:30:33
|
#0860, now a Spyder was partially restored by Carrozzeria Fantuzzi in the 80's. As most of the cars of this era it is extremely difficult to find a 100% original car. For model makers and sculptors, finding the era correct shape must be one hell of a job. |
|
|
Enzo1
Belgium
88 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2010 : 03:10:17
|
Thank you for the completary information's guys.
We all agree on the fact that Stroll's spider is not the 350 Can-Am that was sold at RM. I believe Jim Glickenhaus but the Prova number on the spider (the same as the one on the Le Mans car #21) seems to legitimate the Ferrari version. I know it doesn't mean that much but it seems the two versions of the story are coexisting on Internet and even in my books.
This case has given me a headache. ;) |
|
|
250GTE
Netherlands
295 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2010 : 03:49:59
|
Well, the good thing is, we were both right
:-) |
|
|
Topic |
|