Prototype 2 at Hanging rock.
Don't shoot me i'm only the messenger.
I confess that i don't know a lot about FX/FJ's, but at a recent FX/FJ meeting a great deal of discussion about this car occurred with some very knowledgeable people who i won't name.
The general consensus was that claims made about this car were not necessarily correct.
Apparently lots of very interesting observations where made at Hanging Rock by some guru's in the early Holden movement as to the authenticity of the vehicle.
I for one am very interested to see how things unfold.
I am in no way making any accusations whatsoever regarding the claims stated about this car.
I confess that i don't know a lot about FX/FJ's, but at a recent FX/FJ meeting a great deal of discussion about this car occurred with some very knowledgeable people who i won't name.
The general consensus was that claims made about this car were not necessarily correct.
Apparently lots of very interesting observations where made at Hanging Rock by some guru's in the early Holden movement as to the authenticity of the vehicle.
I for one am very interested to see how things unfold.
I am in no way making any accusations whatsoever regarding the claims stated about this car.
First off, we have never said that this car is "AUTHENTIC" untouched as it came from the U.S.A in 1946.
I have said it "IS" prototype 2, it has obviously been modified over the years as a test car and is not Authentic 1946 specification any longer, but that should not cloud the issue of the cars authenticity as being prototype number 2.
It is number 2 and the documentary proof is there, as is its original engine that GMH fitted in 1951 before selling it, again there is documentary evidence to prove this engine is correct.
Maybe you should ask your so called "Guru's" Barry, Allen or John how many of the Three Prototypes they have actually seen up close, were they around back in 1946 to confirm what is authentic and what is not? I dont think any of them were around back then and as only three cars were constructed and two survive im sure none of them has ever worked on one.
These so called "GURU's might know alot about FX-FJ's but the prototypes are different, there were only three made and only one has been seen fully in the flesh and it was a basket case and incomplete before it was restored so to say one is a "guru" or expert on these cars would be far fetched to say the least.
I have photos of this car taken in 1948 which show it to be totally different in appearance structually compared to Prototype 1 which was constructed months earlier and has alot of structual panel differences compared to that of numbers two and three, i asume number 1 is what they are comparing our car to and obviously basing their opinions on this.
Everyone seems to be an expert, but no one really knows whats authentic and whats not as this car was rebuilt at least three times by GMH between 1946 and 1951 and has been smashed on at least two occasions that i can prove with documentation, not to mention any other work or parts changes that may have been done in private hands years later after it was sold by GMH.
It is a general belief that all three prototypes must have been constructed exactly the same, i can say for certain they were not and i will prove this at a later date if need be.
Yes, i have a lot more documentation in my possesion than what i have made known, including very rare photogrphs, service bulletins and hand written notes on all the prototypes including an interesting note that says number 5 was changed into another prototype. Anyone who thinks these cars were not modified and changed around constantly is kidding themselves. GMH used whatever car was at hand to do testing and changes.
I am still waiting for someone, anyone, or any one of the doubters "GURU's" to come forward and show me one ounce of documentary proof that our car is not the genuine article prototype 2 built in the U.S.A and later registered in Victoria JP-481.
Also remember that 1946 prototype 1 was restored using nearly all parts from a 1948 FX Holden so why have people accepted this car as an original vehicle?? The only thing you could say was "Authentic" about number 1 car is a little bit of the body shell as i have it from a reliable source it was rusted out and badly damaged by fire and mostly replaced with new metal and parts.
I can also prove prototype 1 did not have a chassis number that said
"CAR No1" when it left the U.S.A in 1946, what a load of rubbish, no one in 1946 would have used the term CAR let alone stamp that on a chassis tag, in those days it would have been called a vehicle, that tag was added much later on and i have documents to prove none of the prototypes had a chassis number in 1946, if push comes to shove i will make that evidence public. You can draw your own conclusions as to why someone put that tag on the chassis of that vehicle.
Our car didnt even have a chassis number in 1946 nor did prototype 3. On our paperwork from 1946 beside where it says chasis number it has the letters: NIL hand written in which means it didnt have a chassis number, our car was ammended from "NIL" to chassis number 2 in 1951 and a new engine was also fitted and ammended at that time when GMH sold the car, the engine number is V51###P , then it was issued a new vin number in 2010 by Vic Roads when we did the transfer and registration into our name, we have all the documents to prove this.
I also know that the prototypes were first registerd in N.S.W in December 1946 NOT victoria as these so called "Guru's" say and right about in their books they were then driven to Fishermans bend, i have the original N.S.W rego number and have documents to prove it. They were driven around Melb untill 12th Feb 1947 and then re-registerd with Vic plates. JP-480, JP-481, JP-482.
I myself am very interested to see how this unfolds and who is ready to put their money where their mouth is as i will be ready to shut them down with the documentary proof that i have!
Sooooooo..... they had better be sure they know what they are talking about.
If any of these so called Guru's had the decency to actually talk to us or make an effort to ask genuine questions and show a genuine interest in the car instead of chatting amoungst themselves at FX-FJ meetings and hidding behind a monitor and user name on forums we would be more than happy to share all the documentation and knowledge we have gained from the estate of the previous owner of JP-481 with them, and we have a wealth of knowledge on these cars in our hands, but to date all we have received from that select few are postings suggesting the car is a fake!
Anyone is free to contact me and ask some serious questions about these cars and i might surprise you with the aswers as books and documents we have dont lie.
For the previous person to post a comment like " dont shoot me im only the messenger" thats kids games, isnt it??? If people want to say something then they should say it themselves to our faces, not have another forum member pass it on in an open forum. What a joke.
Another thing comes to mind regarding these prototypes, Prototype 4 the first Australian made prototype in the W.A museum is said by some of your "Guru's" to have been rebodied, who can prove this??? Who can show some sort of documented proof to show it was re-shelled at some stage in its life? NO ONE! I would like to see just one of these "GURU's" pull out a single piece of paper saying that number 4 is a re-bodied car or that our car is a fake or a re-body, so i think that unless people are prepared to back up their theories with hard evidence they should keep their opinions to themselves. Number 4 Australian Prototype is still classed as prototype number 4 in Don Lofflers books because it carries its original paperwork "as our car does" and has its original engine in it "like our car does" need i say anymore...........
Jealousy is a curse!
I have said it "IS" prototype 2, it has obviously been modified over the years as a test car and is not Authentic 1946 specification any longer, but that should not cloud the issue of the cars authenticity as being prototype number 2.
It is number 2 and the documentary proof is there, as is its original engine that GMH fitted in 1951 before selling it, again there is documentary evidence to prove this engine is correct.
Maybe you should ask your so called "Guru's" Barry, Allen or John how many of the Three Prototypes they have actually seen up close, were they around back in 1946 to confirm what is authentic and what is not? I dont think any of them were around back then and as only three cars were constructed and two survive im sure none of them has ever worked on one.
These so called "GURU's might know alot about FX-FJ's but the prototypes are different, there were only three made and only one has been seen fully in the flesh and it was a basket case and incomplete before it was restored so to say one is a "guru" or expert on these cars would be far fetched to say the least.
I have photos of this car taken in 1948 which show it to be totally different in appearance structually compared to Prototype 1 which was constructed months earlier and has alot of structual panel differences compared to that of numbers two and three, i asume number 1 is what they are comparing our car to and obviously basing their opinions on this.
Everyone seems to be an expert, but no one really knows whats authentic and whats not as this car was rebuilt at least three times by GMH between 1946 and 1951 and has been smashed on at least two occasions that i can prove with documentation, not to mention any other work or parts changes that may have been done in private hands years later after it was sold by GMH.
It is a general belief that all three prototypes must have been constructed exactly the same, i can say for certain they were not and i will prove this at a later date if need be.
Yes, i have a lot more documentation in my possesion than what i have made known, including very rare photogrphs, service bulletins and hand written notes on all the prototypes including an interesting note that says number 5 was changed into another prototype.
Anyone who thinks these cars were not modified and changed around constantly is kidding themselves. GMH used whatever car was at hand to do testing and changes.I am still waiting for someone, anyone, or any one of the doubters "GURU's" to come forward and show me one ounce of documentary proof that our car is not the genuine article prototype 2 built in the U.S.A and later registered in Victoria JP-481.
Also remember that 1946 prototype 1 was restored using nearly all parts from a 1948 FX Holden so why have people accepted this car as an original vehicle?? The only thing you could say was "Authentic" about number 1 car is a little bit of the body shell as i have it from a reliable source it was rusted out and badly damaged by fire and mostly replaced with new metal and parts.
I can also prove prototype 1 did not have a chassis number that said
"CAR No1" when it left the U.S.A in 1946, what a load of rubbish, no one in 1946 would have used the term CAR let alone stamp that on a chassis tag, in those days it would have been called a vehicle, that tag was added much later on and i have documents to prove none of the prototypes had a chassis number in 1946, if push comes to shove i will make that evidence public. You can draw your own conclusions as to why someone put that tag on the chassis of that vehicle.
Our car didnt even have a chassis number in 1946 nor did prototype 3. On our paperwork from 1946 beside where it says chasis number it has the letters: NIL hand written in which means it didnt have a chassis number, our car was ammended from "NIL" to chassis number 2 in 1951 and a new engine was also fitted and ammended at that time when GMH sold the car, the engine number is V51###P , then it was issued a new vin number in 2010 by Vic Roads when we did the transfer and registration into our name, we have all the documents to prove this.
I also know that the prototypes were first registerd in N.S.W in December 1946 NOT victoria as these so called "Guru's" say and right about in their books they were then driven to Fishermans bend, i have the original N.S.W rego number and have documents to prove it. They were driven around Melb untill 12th Feb 1947 and then re-registerd with Vic plates. JP-480, JP-481, JP-482.
I myself am very interested to see how this unfolds and who is ready to put their money where their mouth is as i will be ready to shut them down with the documentary proof that i have!
Sooooooo..... they had better be sure they know what they are talking about.
If any of these so called Guru's had the decency to actually talk to us or make an effort to ask genuine questions and show a genuine interest in the car instead of chatting amoungst themselves at FX-FJ meetings and hidding behind a monitor and user name on forums we would be more than happy to share all the documentation and knowledge we have gained from the estate of the previous owner of JP-481 with them, and we have a wealth of knowledge on these cars in our hands, but to date all we have received from that select few are postings suggesting the car is a fake!
Anyone is free to contact me and ask some serious questions about these cars and i might surprise you with the aswers as books and documents we have dont lie.
For the previous person to post a comment like " dont shoot me im only the messenger" thats kids games, isnt it??? If people want to say something then they should say it themselves to our faces, not have another forum member pass it on in an open forum. What a joke.
Another thing comes to mind regarding these prototypes, Prototype 4 the first Australian made prototype in the W.A museum is said by some of your "Guru's" to have been rebodied, who can prove this??? Who can show some sort of documented proof to show it was re-shelled at some stage in its life? NO ONE! I would like to see just one of these "GURU's" pull out a single piece of paper saying that number 4 is a re-bodied car or that our car is a fake or a re-body, so i think that unless people are prepared to back up their theories with hard evidence they should keep their opinions to themselves. Number 4 Australian Prototype is still classed as prototype number 4 in Don Lofflers books because it carries its original paperwork "as our car does" and has its original engine in it "like our car does" need i say anymore...........
Jealousy is a curse!
Last edited by JP-481 on Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:58 am, edited 42 times in total.
Well i wasn't going to answer your comments but here goes.
I never mentioned who the "Guru's" were, you mentioned them. I would suggest that these guys know a fair bit about the prototypes and production cars as they have an extensive collection of literature and knowledge gathered over a number of years.
You state that your car has had accident damage repaired over it's lifetime? Being a prototype, production panels won't fit as the prototypes had hand beaten panels and were slightly different. Your car appears to have a machine pressed bonnet as there are no hammer marks under it as per No 1. You also state that you have documentation to support your claims, so why not produce it?
Comments by you that nearly all parts for No1's restoration were sourced from a 48 model. Well as i said earlier the prototypes were hand beaten/made so production parts won't fit. As far as the fire you mentioned, only the interior was damaged as it was removed from the car and stored elsewhere in a totally different location.
I know that one of the "Guru's" looked at the car in your presence at Hanging Rock and also commented on the pressed panels and the absence of welded seams. I was there and overheard some of the conversation.
As you can see, I'm the one who said "Don't shoot me I'm only the messenger" Maybe a poor choice of words as i was only opening up the discussion about this car. This is a forum after all. Nobody asked me to bring up the subject, i have a mind of my own and am genuinely inquisitive about the history of the car and would be quiet pleased for another genuine prototype to surface.
Why do you state that your car has it's original engine still fitted but then say this engine was fitted in 1951? Before you mention Canadian engines? they don't exist, they're just a rumour. No one has come up with one to date.
I don't think that for one minute anyone is jealous, in fact as Holden enthusiasts we would be happy to see some more Holden history surface.
When anyone asks questions about this car and you don't like what you hear, you seem to take offense and threaten to put the car into storage as you have on this forum previously.
I think that if anyone was in possession of a genuine prototype they would be quiet happy to answer peoples questions calmly without resorting to threats. Surely you can understand peoples curious and suspicions nature?
You quite regularly refer to documentation in your possession? why then not produce it and put the doubts to rest? or will you threaten to put the car into storage yet again?
Like i said before, i would be very happy to see another prototype surface.
I never mentioned who the "Guru's" were, you mentioned them. I would suggest that these guys know a fair bit about the prototypes and production cars as they have an extensive collection of literature and knowledge gathered over a number of years.
You state that your car has had accident damage repaired over it's lifetime? Being a prototype, production panels won't fit as the prototypes had hand beaten panels and were slightly different. Your car appears to have a machine pressed bonnet as there are no hammer marks under it as per No 1. You also state that you have documentation to support your claims, so why not produce it?
Comments by you that nearly all parts for No1's restoration were sourced from a 48 model. Well as i said earlier the prototypes were hand beaten/made so production parts won't fit. As far as the fire you mentioned, only the interior was damaged as it was removed from the car and stored elsewhere in a totally different location.
I know that one of the "Guru's" looked at the car in your presence at Hanging Rock and also commented on the pressed panels and the absence of welded seams. I was there and overheard some of the conversation.
As you can see, I'm the one who said "Don't shoot me I'm only the messenger" Maybe a poor choice of words as i was only opening up the discussion about this car. This is a forum after all. Nobody asked me to bring up the subject, i have a mind of my own and am genuinely inquisitive about the history of the car and would be quiet pleased for another genuine prototype to surface.
Why do you state that your car has it's original engine still fitted but then say this engine was fitted in 1951? Before you mention Canadian engines? they don't exist, they're just a rumour. No one has come up with one to date.
I don't think that for one minute anyone is jealous, in fact as Holden enthusiasts we would be happy to see some more Holden history surface.
When anyone asks questions about this car and you don't like what you hear, you seem to take offense and threaten to put the car into storage as you have on this forum previously.
I think that if anyone was in possession of a genuine prototype they would be quiet happy to answer peoples questions calmly without resorting to threats. Surely you can understand peoples curious and suspicions nature?
You quite regularly refer to documentation in your possession? why then not produce it and put the doubts to rest? or will you threaten to put the car into storage yet again?
Like i said before, i would be very happy to see another prototype surface.
-
Aussie Bob
- Posts: 8276
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:28 am
- State: NOT ENTERED
- Location: Sydney
Hi Peter, I called in and spoke with Ted at Echuca yesterday.JP-481 wrote:
Like ive said, if you still have doubts feel free to contact Ted at the National Holden Museum in Echuca, he will set the record straight about the cars authenticity.
Ted said "Peter is getting a bit ahead of himself suggesting on a forum that I vouch for the car".
Ted hasn't seen the car nor the original paperwork, though, he like what he saw in the photo copies and pictures.
Ted's words .... "I have yet to bless the car!"
Steve
JP-481,
When it comes to reasoned argument, the onus of proof falls on the person who advances a certain proposition as being true. It is not behooved of those critical of that proposition to prove that proposition false. For example, when a new discovery is made in science or mathematics, the researcher who made the discovery has to provide proof, be it in the form of empirical data that can be independently verified, or via a formal mathematical proof.
You have argued the proposition "I have discovered JP-481, the number 2 Holden prototype". That means the burden of proof falls to you to show that proposition is true. If you have the documentary evidence which proves your argument, then you should make it accessible to all interested. It is not up to those critical of your proposition to prove your proposition false.
You may have done yourself a disservice by making your claims on a public forum. It would have been better to allow experts on Holden prototypes, your peers, to inspect the car and ALL documentation in private first out of the public eye. You may have done this, but I am not sure.
Withdrawing photographs of you car from a public forum in response to criticism only seeks to fuel criticism and disbelief, as does being surly and making accusations of jealously in reaction to being criticised. The criticisms made about your claim are quite reasonable. People do not want to be duped, deceived, played for fools or have their passion for old Holdens exploited, hence the suspicion. I am not suggesting that you are deliberately deceiving anybody - it's just how people may perceive your actions.
In a nutshell, the only way forward is to make your car and all documentation readily available, particularly to those who are experts in prototype Holdens. The critics may be convinced or they may remain skeptical. But at least you have been honest and transparent - and that may win you supporters in itself.
Best of luck,
Andrew
When it comes to reasoned argument, the onus of proof falls on the person who advances a certain proposition as being true. It is not behooved of those critical of that proposition to prove that proposition false. For example, when a new discovery is made in science or mathematics, the researcher who made the discovery has to provide proof, be it in the form of empirical data that can be independently verified, or via a formal mathematical proof.
You have argued the proposition "I have discovered JP-481, the number 2 Holden prototype". That means the burden of proof falls to you to show that proposition is true. If you have the documentary evidence which proves your argument, then you should make it accessible to all interested. It is not up to those critical of your proposition to prove your proposition false.
You may have done yourself a disservice by making your claims on a public forum. It would have been better to allow experts on Holden prototypes, your peers, to inspect the car and ALL documentation in private first out of the public eye. You may have done this, but I am not sure.
Withdrawing photographs of you car from a public forum in response to criticism only seeks to fuel criticism and disbelief, as does being surly and making accusations of jealously in reaction to being criticised. The criticisms made about your claim are quite reasonable. People do not want to be duped, deceived, played for fools or have their passion for old Holdens exploited, hence the suspicion. I am not suggesting that you are deliberately deceiving anybody - it's just how people may perceive your actions.
In a nutshell, the only way forward is to make your car and all documentation readily available, particularly to those who are experts in prototype Holdens. The critics may be convinced or they may remain skeptical. But at least you have been honest and transparent - and that may win you supporters in itself.
Best of luck,
Andrew
She’s a beauty!” Australia’s Prime Minister Ben Chifley launched the first Holden with those words back on 29 November, 1948, and nobody could have expressed it better. This was the first car fully built by Australians for Australians, and it rode a wave of national pride into the showrooms and the roads of this country
Extract from Holden history, Emphasis on built by Australians and For Australians so with these words in mind i dont see why all the secrecy on posting all the so called official documentation for all us motoring Aussies to see , go figure
Or another famous Aussie quote comes to mind "put up or shut up"
All the members on this forum have no qualms in divulging as much info that they have about thier pride and joy
Extract from Holden history, Emphasis on built by Australians and For Australians so with these words in mind i dont see why all the secrecy on posting all the so called official documentation for all us motoring Aussies to see , go figure
Or another famous Aussie quote comes to mind "put up or shut up"
All the members on this forum have no qualms in divulging as much info that they have about thier pride and joy
This one is for Reidy.
You say a "GURU" looked at the car at Hanging Rock and commented on the lack of welded panels, what a load of rubbish.
Barry Black looked at the car and i personally showed him the welded bonnet, welded floor straight down the middle, welded fire wall straight down the middle ,welded boot sections etc etc so where do you get off making that crap up?
The car has welded panels all over it!
The engine init isnt the original 1946 engine but the one Holden fitted in it before it was sold in 1951. For your information we do have the original prototype engine 1946/7 and one other out of prototype 3 plus a bunch of other prototye parts.
The books, hand written notes , photos, manuals etc dont concern anybody else except us the owners. If people want to see them they can wait till we are ready. This isnt a free for all.
Ever heard of a General Motors Holden mechanics training book dated from the 1940's called "The trained Man Wins" ? Got it.
Nasco parts books. Got em all.
Service bulletins, got dozens of em.
Notes on changes to door locks etc etc. Got em all.
Hand written notes on all prototypes. Got a dozen of em.
A note dated Dec 1953 confirming that the FJ waggon gmh made in 1954 was made out of prototype number 5 sedan.
We want to show people what we have but do you really think we want to go to an FX-FJ meeting with all this great documentation after we have been slagged and rubbed off the wrong way on this and other sites.
We never said Ted blessed it, we said he will confirm the car is going to the museum and the paperwork we have for it.
We thought we would do the right thing and make the car veiwable to everyone by putting it in the museum with all the extra prototype parts and all this documentation on display with it, that may not happen now and i dont blame Ted if he doesnt want to display the car or to get involved in a shit fight with "experts".
You say a "GURU" looked at the car at Hanging Rock and commented on the lack of welded panels, what a load of rubbish.
Barry Black looked at the car and i personally showed him the welded bonnet, welded floor straight down the middle, welded fire wall straight down the middle ,welded boot sections etc etc so where do you get off making that crap up?
The car has welded panels all over it!
The engine init isnt the original 1946 engine but the one Holden fitted in it before it was sold in 1951. For your information we do have the original prototype engine 1946/7 and one other out of prototype 3 plus a bunch of other prototye parts.
The books, hand written notes , photos, manuals etc dont concern anybody else except us the owners. If people want to see them they can wait till we are ready. This isnt a free for all.
Ever heard of a General Motors Holden mechanics training book dated from the 1940's called "The trained Man Wins" ? Got it.
Nasco parts books. Got em all.
Service bulletins, got dozens of em.
Notes on changes to door locks etc etc. Got em all.
Hand written notes on all prototypes. Got a dozen of em.
A note dated Dec 1953 confirming that the FJ waggon gmh made in 1954 was made out of prototype number 5 sedan.
We want to show people what we have but do you really think we want to go to an FX-FJ meeting with all this great documentation after we have been slagged and rubbed off the wrong way on this and other sites.
We never said Ted blessed it, we said he will confirm the car is going to the museum and the paperwork we have for it.
We thought we would do the right thing and make the car veiwable to everyone by putting it in the museum with all the extra prototype parts and all this documentation on display with it, that may not happen now and i dont blame Ted if he doesnt want to display the car or to get involved in a shit fight with "experts".
Last edited by JP-481 on Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Aussie Bob
- Posts: 8276
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:28 am
- State: NOT ENTERED
- Location: Sydney
This is exactly the thing you should do, despite the criticism you have drawn. Take the car as well if possible.JP-481 wrote:We want to show people what we have but do you really think we want to go to an FX-FJ meeting with all this great documentation after we have been slagged and rubbed off the wrong way on this and other sites.