Forum Replies Created
-
I think Webastos are both ugly and anachronistic. To my mind, they smack of the worst aspects of Britain’s past – the world that gave us caravans, Berni Inns, Formica, Butlins holiday camps, and cravats.
However, it doesn’t matter what I think. What I made reference to was the fact that, in my view, the market doesn’t appreciate the idea of car’s integrity being imperiled by cutting a hole in the roof and inserting a crude bit of 1950s peculiarly English ‘improvement’ into it. Like Simon, I follow the market quite closely. In particular, I’ve made my own little study of this issue, having had this disaster visited upon my own 3 litre Mk2 by some kind person in the past.
So, I stick by my assessment: the Webasto will reduce the hammer price of this Rapide over what it would otherwise have achieved, IMHO – best guess, by at least 10-15%. That said, I do agree with Colin when he says that the price may well ‘zoom’, nonetheless.
The Webasto may keep the hammer price down.
Oh, so would I. And, by the way, I’m not saying that your first guess at a reason was wide of the mark either.
Tim
Ray, I was not sneering at anyone or trying to stop them saying anything. I was just trying to say – in fun – that some lawyers (and members of this forum etc.) love Lagondas too. That’s all. 🙂
Hey, Colin, some ‘learned counsel’ are Lagonda fanciers too, ya know. 😀
Hi Simon,
Well spotted re the 2.6 engine – of course, it might just be non-original. Nice looking car, although the ‘red’ is ‘wrong’ and there are a few minor bits missing.
Well Simon, a person with legal standing could only do that on behalf of the Club.
IIRC, this car has been offered repeatedly in recent years, Simon. It is pretty.
There is a long thread over on the AMOC forum prompted by similar letters being sent to members by S. Brand. Clearly, this character has got hold of the personal data of members of more than one club. Some urgent action is required, methinks.
What a super outcome to this story. Well done Klaus!
Yes, David, it does indeed. There are also useful photographs in Arnold’s books and the Seaton volume of course. I have also gone back through my collection of brochures, which helps. One in particular sets out the various V12 configurations in some considerable detail via line drawings and text. However, I have yet to find information about a body that appears the same as the one on the ebay car.
Thanks for your replies, gentlemen – all very interesting. I’ve discussed the car with a number of people now, and there seems to be a fair amount of disagreement. Some think that this is an LG6 body, others that it is an early prototype of the de Ville type (I use the phrase advisedly and I am a little unsure as to what it means precisely). it certainly has oddities about it that make one wary. There also seem to be other questions about the auction that require answers – but, I’d better not address those online.
All in all, I still think this would be a great project for someone if the seller comes down significantly from his current asking price. It would be lovely to see the car restored to its former glory.
To return to the topic of this thread, a friend has been to see the car and has found numerous very good reasons not to make this guy any offer. However, just in an academic interest sense, I have a query based on the photographs in the listing. Something ‘bugged’ me about these photographs when I first saw them and discussions with others have thrown this issue into sharp relief.
The body/chassis combination is odd. It does not fit with my understanding of the V12 model range bodies, precisely. When I first saw it, the general shape made me think ‘middle’ length saloon. But, on further consideration the radiator can be seen to be too high for this to be right. Also, the presence of the front quarter lights should have made me think ‘long’ saloon. But, there are further difficulties with this analysis.
The ‘long’ saloon was actually built on the same length chassis as the ‘middle’ length car, of course – the difference being between the relative over hang of each body. Only the de Ville body was built by the factory on the the long chassis, I think. But, the shape of the car on ebay is wrong for both the ‘long’ saloon and de Ville bodies – the former because the rear doors are ‘suicide’ and the latter because of the shape of the rear roof line.
The body shape actually looks most like that of the LG6 de Ville, but there are differences even in that regard. So, one would think that it was a non-factory coach-built body. But, it appears not to be so given the ‘Lagonda’ sill plate.
Any thoughts, gentlemen? Have I misunderstood something (I’m always very keen to be educated).
My records indicate that it survived, David. Do send me an email if you need to know more.
Nice job. Thank you.