59Prototype

Wally Yes, I think that I'm now with you. It looks as though all the 1959 prototypes went initially to Chertsey and having been given their FVRDE establishment number then went on to different destinations, mostly Army although we know one went to the Navy (Royal Marines - 07 RN 49) and another to the RAF (27 AE 03). Am I now on the right track? Graham

Wally I think that we might be at slight cross purposes here over the registration numbers. I wasn't talking of where the Moke might have gone first but simply of its registration number, in that the first one issued was 07 RN 49 to be followed a couple of years later by a change to 20 BT 30. Richard Yes, you're right at least two did go the USA for evaluation. The Twini (one engine at the front, the other at the rear) had 12 inch wheels as opposed to the 10 inch standard Mini size of the time. I think that that was done in an attempt to improve the ground clearance and of course the 12 inch wheel idea was carried over to the Austin Ant. As for whether the two vehicles went direct from Austin to the States or whether they passed through FVRDE first is a good question and one that I've not thought of before. Certainly a LHD Moke was on display at Cherstey in 1962 when the different manufacturers were trying to find foreign buyers for their vehicles. Just because a vehicle was on display I don't suppose that it necessarily went through the FVRDE system. In other words I still don't know the answer to your question!

Wally If I read what you are saying correctly I think you now confirm what I had suspected for a while and that is after the trials with the Royal Marines finished it was de-registered as 07 RN 49 and re-registered as 20 BT 30? We have already established that although 20 BT 30, which as we know still exists and is in safe hands, was built in 1959 but that the 20 BT 30 number wasn't issued until around 1961. We also know that the chassis plate fixed to the bulkhead of 20 BT 30 shows SPL 453. Add in the fact that there is plenty of photographic evidence of 07 RN 49 being about in 1959/60 but none whatsoever of 20 BT 30 is further proof that the Moke with the chassis number of SPL 453 started out as 07 RN 49 but finished up as 20 BT 30. In other words the Royal Marines had it for a couple of years before it was handed over to the Army. Would you agree with this synopsis or is there still some doubt in your mind that this might not be the case? Graham

07 RN 49 was a Mini Moke prototype built at Longbridge by Austin in 1959. Here's photo of it probably taken that same year. The photo was taken at Westlands, Yeovil. It was trialled by the Royal Marines at the Army Air Corps Centre, Middle Wallop where they tried various ways of lifting it by helicopter. Other photos show the same Moke at Fort Cumberland, Eastney, Portsmouth. It obviously passed through FVRDE, Cherstey as it has their establishment number of 6008 on the bonnet. After c. 1960 the trail on it goes cold. I just don't know what happened to it. Today I've heard back from the Royal Navy Museum to say that they have no record card for 07 RN 49. I'm now inclined to think that it was de-registered as a navy vehicle very early in its life and re-registered to another service, and most probably the army however I have no proof of that. Incidentally I have tried the Royal Marines Museum too and they have nothing on it either. Can anyone help with any information? Does anyone have any photos of it in their collection? Graham

I have a friend who is in the process of restoring a 1959 prototype Mini Moke made in the experimental workshop at Longbridge by the Austin Motor Company. He's asked me what colour green he should paint it? I remember asking the same question many years ago when visiting the Museum Of Army Transport (Wally, are you reading this?!!). I enquired as to what was 'army green'? He said 'Well I guess it's whatever they happen to have in the paintshop at the time! Cast your eyes around the museum at the different exhibits and you will see what I mean.' I think that he might have been exaggerating a little but he was more or less right. So what colour should he go for? I would suggest Land Rover deep bronze green but does anyone have any other suggestions? Graham

This evening I have just found this in the Commercial Motor archive. It's a report on the 1962 FVRDE Exhibition at Chertsey. A report packed full of information. http://archive.commercialmotor.com/article/5th-october-1962/79/demonstrations-at-chobham Graham

Peter, the real problem is that you Dutch speak better English than we do! I once said to a Dutchman 'Why do you speak such good English?' He replied 'Well I'll tell you why, have you ever tried to learn Dutch?!!!'

Presumably if it went from Chertsey to Bovington in 1963 it would have gone to the museum rather than to the army camp itself. One other thought. It's a bit of a mystery as to why a lightweight vehicle such as a Moke should have gone to a tank museum? Maybe there is a bit of logic that I've missed. Graham

​Yesterday I was looking for a Pathe News clip on the 1962 FVRDE Exhibition at Chertsey which I found: http://www.britishpathe.com/video/vehicles-for-army In looking for the one above I also came across the following that appeared to be Chertsey related. (They are in chronological order): http://www.britishpathe.com/video/the-army-on-wheels 1954 The Army on Wheels http://www.britishpathe.com/video/selected-originals-news-flashes-the-army-on-wheels 1954 – The Army on Wheels again but outakes, etc. (No sound) http://www.britishpathe.com/video/armys-new-65-ton-tank 1955 Conquerer tank http://www.britishpathe.com/video/stop-at-nothing-tanks-aka-stop-at-nothing-tanks 1956 Tank http://www.britishpathe.com/video/armoured-cars 1959 Saladin http://www.britishpathe.com/video/army-shows-new-weapons 1961 - Chobham http://www.britishpathe.com/video/meet-the-chieftain 1963 Chieftain tank. Note Chobham misspelt as the clip begins! http://www.britishpathe.com/video/mechanised-marvels 1966 FVRDE http://www.britishpathe.com/video/army-vehicles-tested 1966 Tank and Saladin testing The following have no direct connection with Chertsey as far as I can see but are still fascinating to look at, especially the 1931 tank. http://www.britishpathe.com/video/tanks-swim-now 1931 tank http://www.britishpathe.com/video/governments-giant-storehouse-for-mechanised-units 1938 Storehouse of army vehicles http://www.britishpathe.com/video/army-fighting-vehicles-display-reel-1 1954 Tanks Bovington – Reel 1 (No sound) http://www.britishpathe.com/video/army-fighting-vehicles-display-reel-2 1954 Tanks Lulworth – Reel 2 (No sound) http://www.britishpathe.com/video/engineers-in-battle 1963 REME Gillingham display http://www.britishpathe.com/video/bridge-building-aka-army-bridge-building 1963 Bridge building Would anyone like to comment and are there others that can be added to the list? I’m sure there are, I can't have found all of them! Graham

Wally I should have responded to the following sooner. You said in an earlier post: ...also graham has already contacted "]HENDON and awaits a reply AS to the role of the MOKE at CHERTSEY WE have the paper work copies of which l hope to give to GRAHAM WHEN HE COMES OVER Sadly the RAF Museum at Hendon does not have a vehicle record card for 27 AE 03. Whether they have anything else on the RAF Moke I don't as yet know. You also mention the paper work copies which you hope to give to me when I am home in the middle of September. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Paper work copies of what? Are they something that you can email to me? Having to wait around a month will be torture!!! Graham

Wally and Richard That all ties in. Now having a better quality version of that photo I've had another look at it. Yes, it says Greeves on the petrol tank. As exhibit 2 that would make sense as we know the Moke was exhibit 3. The registration number of the Greeves is 383 AER. As for the army and RAF registration number conundrum, it strikes me that both services chopped and changed numbers as they went along but the RAF was worse at it than the Army! Graham

Yes, Ted and Wally there is footage on Pathe News about the 1962 FVRDE Exhibition at Chertsey. Regretfully it doesn't include anything on the Moke. However it does give a good idea of what the exhibition was all about. Here's the link: http://www.britishpathe.com/video/vehicles-for-army In checking out FVRDE, Chobham and Chertsey I also came across several more clips that will be of interest to many. Rather than go off thread and post them here I think I'll start a new 'Pathe News' thread. If you all start to yawn and say 'Oh no, we've seen it all before' then stop me now! Graham

Well I'm now pretty sure that the photos of the SWB Moke and the Moke with the RAF registration were all taken at FVRDE Cherstey in 1962. I've been studying the photos closely, call it 'sleuthing' if you like. Here are my thoughts to put before the HMVF jury overseen by Judge Dugan! 1. They both have a '3' in the windscreen. 2. It has been raining in both photos but appears to be drying up. 3. There are oil stains on the tarmac where a longer vehicle was once parked. 4. The join in the tarmac (concrete?) with bitumen behind the Moke in each photo is in about the same place. 5. The motorbike in both photos. Whilst you can only see all of it in one photo and the rear end in another, what you can see in the other photo appears to be the same. Seat shape and shade is the same. Also it is parked to the right of the Moke in each photo. It was Exhibit No. 2. 6. The motorbike reg. is 383 AER. AER is a Cambridge reg. first issued in November 1961 so 1962 as an exhibition date drops in nicely. 7. Have a look at the Land Rover behind the RAF Moke in the other photo you have of the RAF Moke. It has an Army registration not an RAF one. I think that this has already been pointed out today. 8. The crash barriers that you see in one of the RAF Moke photos and also in the SWB Moke photo is the same type. None of the above in isolation is proof that it was FVRDE in 1962 but when you put it all together it's a very good indication that the RAF Moke was there as well as the SWB Moke. So it looks as though BMC exhibited 2 Mokes, the SWB one and the LWB RAF registered one in 1962. However the photo BMC supplied for the catalogue was of totally different Moke. If you were in the market for contracting with BMC for the supply of some Mokes there's a good chance that by the time you left Chertsey you were well and truly confused! Graham

Wally Ok, I'll forgive you! In any case I was going to take you to task about 9ft 2in. being 98 inches. We had longer inches at the school I went to so the answer came to 110 inches!!!!! But back to the question in hand. If you say that the Land Rovers 23 DM 20 and 44 DM 40 were both at Chertsey in 1962 then presumably 22 DM 20 was too. Does that mean that you now think that the RAF Moke, or shall I say the Moke with the RAF registration, WAS at Chertsey in 1962 and not at a similar RAF exhibition? That's how I now starting to think on this. What do you think? I've other thoughts on this but I'll post them once you've had a chance to reply. Graham

‘Confused of Brazil’ writing! Can anyone unravel the following for me please? Have a look at these photos and catalogue entries. What and where are my questions? Am I right in saying that there was no FVRDE exhibition in 1961 so I believe that what you see relates to 1962 and 1963. We have a Moke as Exhibit Number 3 which I think is from 1962. The main reason for saying so is that within the text they refer to the Mini-Minor and Austin Seven, names that BMC used when the Mini was launched in August 1959 but dropped in 1962. Then you have a photo of a shortwheel base Moke with a large number 3 in the windscreen. I had always though this photo to be from 1962 and certainly the exhibit number of 3 ties in with the catalogue number. The motorbike alongside with the reg. no. 393 AER is also a clue. AER registrations started to be issued in November 1961. However this photo of the Moke doesn’t tie in with the catalogue photo which shows a LHD long wheelbase Moke! What is further confusing is that spec. for the Moke under Exhibit No. 3 is for a SWB Moke! My thinking is that BMC were exhibiting the SWB version as seen in the photo with the 3 in the windscreen but somehow submitted the wrong photo to go in the catalogue. Are you following this?!! Then we come to Exhibit No. 4. in the catalogue which I think is from 1963. It looks as though the same error as described above was carried through from 1962 to 1963. The text has been changed and reference to the Mini-Minor and Austin Seven in favour of ‘range of mini cars’ and has been dropped but the spec. details are virtually the same. It still described as having a 72” wheelbase (i.e SWB) as opposed to the 80” wheelbase (LWB and therefore standard Moke wheelbase.) Finally you have two photos of 27 AE 03 which is commonly referred to as the RAF Moke. (My thanks to Keith Brooker for the additional photo). I have already checked this out with Wally and who thinks it is a red herring. Although it too has a large number 3 in the windscreen he thinks it just a coincidence. Wally thinks the photo was taken at an RAF exhibition rather than an FVRDE exhibition but what year? I would guess at 1962? Is the Land Rover behind in one of the photos a clue? To add to the curiosity if this is an RAF exhibition they too had a motorbike next to the Moke. As I write this I am now not so sure it was at a RAF exhibition. I'll let you all have your say then perhaps come back to you with my thoughts in a new post. Does anyone have the FVRDE catalogues to be able to check the information out? Perhaps BMC exhibited more than one Moke each year and there was more than one exhibit entry in the catalogue? Would anyone like to have a go at sorting all this out?! Graham

Keith I am absolutely delighted with your posts and that’s on two counts. Firstly to hear that you are Bill’s son. Yes, Bill Booker is known to me although not personally. He was considered to be one of the stars of the BBC Autopoints. Did you know that Jim Clark, Graham Hill and John Surtees all took part at various times? I think they drove Twini Mokes. Somehow I managed to make contact with your dad about 20 years ago. At the time he was living in Florida, perhaps he still does. He sent me a cassette tape (that dates it!) describing his time driving in the various Autopoints. I still have the tape back in Bournemouth. I also have some photos of him driving at least one Moke which I think was 20 BT 30. They came from BMC publications and I think there is one of him airborne in a Moke! When I say airborne he had just come over the top of a hill was on his way down again. I’ll look the photos up again when home which will be in the middle of next month. When you next speak to your dad please can you give him my regards. Many thanks. As for the photo of 27 AE 03 that’s incredible. I have been researching these prototypes for nearly 30 years and that’s the first proper and clear photo that I have ever seen of it! Do you know where and when the photo was taken? It looks as though it might have been taken at FVRDE going by the crash barrier behind and the other vehicles. I’ve tried to check out the registration of the Land Rover behind and my Army Vehicle VRN list that I now have says: 23DM20 Land Rover 88” Series 8 FVRDE 1962 Ok, so 23 DM 20 isn’t 22 DM 20 but it’s pretty close so my guess is that it was taken in 1962, maybe 1963. Do you have any more photos of 27 AE 03 or indeed any of the other prototypes? Graham Email: Moke59Prototype@aol.com

Wally Yes you are right. By around 1963 BMC realised that the Moke was not going to make it as a military vehicle and took the decision to sell it to the general public instead. By 1964 when they went on sale the Moke had become more sophisticated. Notice that I say 'more sophisticated' rather than just 'sophisticated'. One thing the Moke never was was sophisticated!! As we know it earned its reputation as a fun cult car especially in London as the Swinging Sixties took a hold. Wally you mention emailing me but I wonder if an email has gone adrift? I had the first one from you on 8th August to which I replied but I've not had another one since. Have you emailed again? By the way if anyone wants to email me my email address is Moke59Prototype@aol.com Graham

Well you've all now had a couple of days to come up with a date for 20 BT 30 and it appears that it's only Wally who has any idea. When he comes back from his tea break maybe all will be revealed! In the meantime does anyone want to have a stab at a date and we'll see how near we are when Wally 'opens the box'?! I'll start the ball rolling and say March 1963. Mind you if I'm right don't expect me to buy the next round! OK? Graham

Yes, Wally is right, the page from the FVRDE exhibition at Chertsey catalogue is of an Ant, not a Moke but still good to see. I guess that's from about 1964. Am I right? I was quite a fan of the Ant. It was a vehicle that after the trials and tribulations of the Moke BMC had about got right. It was a shame that it was killed off around 1968/69 when BMC merged to become part of BL. With the well established Land Rover already on the books the Ant was deemed competition in the same 4WD market so it had to go. A shame as far as I am concerned but that's life and that's now history. As far as the comment is concerned about the Hillman Imp, I am pretty certain that it took part in one of the BBC Autopoints hence the reason for it being parked next to the Moke. Up against the likes of the Haflinger neither were likely to going to trounce the opposition were they?!!! Back to the thread that this is all about. Who other than Wally has any idea when 20 BT 30 was issued? It's a burning issue as far as I am concerned!!! I'm waiting.......................................!!!!

I'm currently trying to find out more the army reg. number 20 BT 30 that's on a prototype Mini Moke. Can anyone put a date (or approximate date) on the number 20 BT 30 please? The Moke itself was tested at FVRDE and ended up at Bordon. It took part in several of the BBC Autopoints. Perhaps someone has other 20 BT xx number information with dates that would help to work out where 20 BT 30 slots in on the timeline? Here's a photo of the Moke taken at one of the Autopoints. Graham

Hello Wally Even on a Sunday you don't get any peace! With reference 20 BT 30 you say that the number before was 20 BT 29 which was a Bedford RLW and the one after, 20 BT 31 was a Humber Staff Car. However are you able to actually put a date or approximate date on either of those two vehicles? If you can then we have an idea when SPL 453 aquired 20 BT 30. I'm now starting to think that it might have been in 1963 just before it was dispatched to Bordon. Would that tie in? If it helps I've found out that 20 BT 91 was issued around 1966/67 to a Lightweight Land Rover prototype so they certainly didn't run through the 20 BT xx numbers quickly did they?!! It's father's day here in Brazil and we are currently 4 hours behind the UK so we're just off out to lunch! With regards Graham

Wally Forgive me for throwing all these questions at you but I wonder if you are able to work out/find out what the original Army registration number was of SPL 468? It's the only one of the 1959 prototypes that as yet I have been unable to put a military registration number to. Thanks to your earlier post I know that it had the Establishment Number of 6012. This particular Moke for some strange reason now has the civilian number of TAJ 919H which is a 1969 number. How it found its way onto a 1959 vehicle I have no idea! For many years it resided in Tony Oliver's private military museum at Eton Wick, near Windsor but must have been sold about 15 years ago. It's had 2 owners since but neither know much about the Moke's history. As I understand it it is now being restored. Here are 4 small photos of it that might help in identifying it further. (Sorry that they are not any larger) From the last photo I am curious as to what the two small holes were for to lower left and right of the headlights. Presumably for sidelights or indicators although I am pretty certain that they would not have been there originally. Graham

Hi Wally From what you are saying I think I understand now about 2 digits followed by 2 letters followed by 2 more digits making up the registration. I was making the mistake of thinking that the first 2 numbers represented something special but obviously they don't. So am I right to look at it as just a 4 digit number split down the middle by 2 letters? e.g. 1416, 1417 and 1418 had the 2 letters BT stuck in the middle to make 14 BT 16, 14 BT 17 and 14 BT 18. It's as simple as that...... I hope! Regards Graham

I’ve owned my Moke for nearly 30 years and have researched all the prototypes during that time but for this last week I have been like a lad in a sweetshop! To discover so much new information after all this time is marvellous. Thanks to all concerned and in particular to Wally. In mentioning you Wally if you’re reading this I think that you and I might have met around 1985/86 when you were at the museum in Beverley. I paid the museum a visit and took loads of photos of 14 BT 17 which proved to be invaluable when starting on the restoration of 14 BT 18. I also went into an office there where I discussed the two Mokes with someone. It might have been you! It was at that time that I first had proof that the two numbers, 14 BT 17 and 14 BT 18 had been swopped over at some time. Whoever it was I spoke to showed me a sheet (a card?) of information on the museum Moke. As expected it was for 14 BT 17 but reading down through it I said ‘But SPL 466/AM is the chassis number of my Moke, not yours! The chassis number of the museum Moke is SPL 446/AM’. However this all tied in with some photos I had by then obtained of 14 BT 18 taken at Longbridge in 1959/60. That Moke has a built up section at the point where the rear subframe attaches to the body. My Moke does not have that built up section but the museum Moke i.e. SPL 446/AM does so I knew that my Moke could not have begun life as 14 BT 18. From Wally says about the repainting that went on a FVRDE and the way it was done I can now see how the two Mokes came to have their plates swopped over. That leads me on to make an observation that perhaps someone would like to comment on. From Wally’s information he says that SPL 446 original had the Establishment Number of 5998 but that was later changed to 6011. If we then assume that my Moke was originally 14 BT 17 we end up with this little sequence: SPL 465 – 14 BT 16 - 60 09 SPL 466 – 14 BT 17 - 60 10 SPL 446 – 14 BT 18 - 60 11 From that I would deduce that the 3 Mokes were all registered at FVRDE at the same time with their establishment numbers and their plate numbers. Can I pick up on something else that I think is probably even more fascinating and that concerns SPL 453 with an Establishment Number of 2008. I have previously mentioned that the two numbers don’t appear to go together as SPL 453 is the chassis number of 20 BT 30 yet 6008 can be found on the bonnet of numerous photos I have of the Royal Marines Moke, 07 RN 49. I’ve since been back to the current owner of 20 BT 30 and he assures me that when he bought the Moke in 1971 from someone at Bordon it had the SPL 453 chassis plate riveted to the bulkhead. He also said that it came with the 20 BT 30 number plates, as well as pointing out that it didn’t have the original petrol tank as it had been swopped at some time during the 1960s and the replacement was held on by leather straps. He makes a good point and that petrol tank and the leather straps can be seen in photos of 20 BT 30 taken at the BBC Autopoints. Further proof if needed is that fact that Wally notes that SPL 453 went to Bordon in 1963. Clearly the current owner does have 20 BT 30 with a chassis number of SPL 453. So where do we go from here on this one? Well yesterday evening I had a Eureka moment! What if SPL 453 started life as the Royal Marines Moke (07 RN 49) and after all the trials had taken place at FVRDE, Middle Wallop and at Westland Helicopters, it was transferred either to, or back to the army where it was given the new registration of 20 BT 30? Would this have been possible and/or feasible? My suggestion does tie in with three other points and they are: 1. All the photos I have ever found of 07 RN 49 were taken c. 1959/1960. I have no later ones. On the other hand I have found no early photos of 20 BT 30. The ones I have are all from the time of the BBC Autopoints around 1966-1968. 2. The photos I have of 07 RN 49 all show a metal number plate fixed to the front bumper and a blank black painted oblong between the two headlights. Could this strip have been to cover up some other number or was it there ready to have a number painted on it? I know that other Mokes had their numbers painted on between the headlights. 3. I always thought it strange that 20 BT 30 had a very early (in prototype Moke terms) chassis number yet had a later than 14 BT 17/14 BT 18 Army number. How could this have happened unless it wasn’t to become an army vehicle until a little later? This adds weight to my argument. On point 3, from the number 20 BT 30 is there any way that its date of issue can be worked out, even approximately? I’m assuming that it was done in much the same way that civilian vehicle registrations were issued. Army vehicle number registration is something that I am not up on. (You must remember that my Army career finished when I left school and with it the CCF where I had attained the dizzy height of sergeant!) Can anyone throw any light on this please? Is there some sort of chart available that indicates what each number represents? Incidentally, and once again I show my ignorance, what is the significance of the number before the two letters? It’s obvious what the two numbers after the two letters represent. By the way Andy, 14 BT 17 is still at the Haynes Museum at Sparkford as far as I know. That’s about it for now. Lots of things for you all to chew over and respond to.(I hope!) If anyone wants to email me my address is: Moke59Prototype@aol.com Graham

Many thanks everyone for your warm welcome to this forum. I'm enthused! Can I pick up on a few points that have already been made. I'm fascinated by the information from Chertsey on chassis numbers that Wally has posted. They already greatly add to the information that I have. Does that mean that FVRDE has more secrets to give up on the prototype Mokes? Is it possible to now link military registration numbers with those chassis numbers? Here they are again from Wally's post: This is from the chertsey files on MOKES chassis photo number spl 433a 5950 spl 446a 5998 now allocated est number 6011 spl 453 am 6008 spl 465 am 6009 spl 466 am 6010 spl 446 a 6011 formerly 5998 spl 467 am 6012 spl 468 am 6013 spl 578 6286 S.W.B spl748 6806 spl 468 am was the last one to leave chertsey on the 24/4/1969 I can identify some of the Mokes. 14 BT 17 (in the Haynes Museum) is SPL 446 and my own Moke 14 BT 18 is SPL 466. I'm confused by SPL 453 which I had always thought was 20 BT 30 the Moke that featured for a couple of years (1967/1968?) in the BBC Autopoints. (I remember well watching them on television. I was GLUED to the screen I can tell you! Marvellous stuff and much much better than current rubbish such as Top Gear [or Silly Boys Playing as I call it!]) However back to the chassis numbers. It now looks as though SPL 453 was the Royal Marines Moke, 07 RN 49 and not 20 BT 30. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Incidentally I'm still baffled by the 4 digit number stenciled on the bonnet or engine bay side. What do they mean? Did the Army keep a record of the vehicle by this number and not by the registration number? Moving on to the catalogue exhibit picture from the FVRDE Exhibition at Chertsey. Whilst I already have this picture from many years ago I had always thought it to be from the 1963 exhibition and not 1962. The catalogue entry for 1962 that I have is very similar but refers to Exhibit No. 3, not 4. Does anyone have the catalogues from 1962 and 1963 so that this can be checked out? Maybe the 2 catalogues were from 1961 and 1962 and not 1962 and 1963 as I had always thought. Whatever is someone able to clear this point up? There's a strange twist to this question of the exhibit entries anyway. It has been pointed out that the photo shows a LHD Moke. True but I don't think it is the Moke described in the supporting text! The one in the supporting text is described as having a 72" wheelbase (i.e. the short wheelbase Moke) but the one shown is of the standard length wheelbase i.e. 80". I am pretty certain that the one shown in the photo did go to the States and has survived. For many years it has been owned by a guy in California who has slowly been restoring it. His Moke has all the features that you see in the photo and features that differ from the 1959 prototypes. e.g. fuel tank on the side and not at the rear. To support my theory that the text in the catalogue is about the short wheelbase Moke have a look at this thumbnail photo that I found on the Stilltime library website: [ATTACH=CONFIG]80272[/ATTACH] You can clearly see that it is a short wheelbase Moke (72") and the number 3 is in the windscreen. This I believe is the actual Moke that was Exhibit 3 at the 1962 exhibition. That's it for the moment. A few questions and a few queries to chew on! Thanks again to everyone for their help. Graham