Originality

[longydagun]

Well this is exactly the point Grasshopper.

For example the dukws we drive around in are completely made from scratch. There are no traces of nit markings as most of them come as rusting hulks with massive holes in them. The markings are just made up to represent a division which served with dukws. The other things is engines. Now i dont know about other dukw owners ut i think its a reasonale assumption to say its getting to expensive to run an original engine in them. So We fitted them with diesel engines from busses that are far more economical. Do people think this is unfair. I mean to be honest the dukws wouldnt go anywhere with the original engines in because it would cost far too much!

And with bolt ons. I mean iv'e seen many a halftrack with bits and bobs on that shouldnt be there. But in all honesty it takes an anorac like me to notice that. As long as it has resemblence to a vehichle from the period im fine with it and i dont think we should criticse it because not every collector is a perfectionist and if we all were there would be far less vehichles to see in my honest opion.

Many thanks

Al

Edited July 11, 2009 by longydagun

[Grasshopper]

I think Chris' point is that some people take things too far as with Land rovers, there are so many of them that enough people know what is right and wrong for it to be an issue. With larger vehicles or armour, I think there is a it more leeway.

 

This is an interesting debate that has and will continue as long as any sort of preservation movement exists. It is the type of discussion that ensures that some good and correct artifacts will continue to exist in preservation.

 

Another good one is when does a restoration become a replica.... There was in interesting article in CMV about the value of jeeps with this in mind, but thats another debate!

[LoggyDriver]

DPM stands for disruptive pattern material, green and black paint is not DPM, even if it is in a disruptive pattern... :stop::cool2:

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the lesson. Having spent 8 years in the British Army while you were picking your nose in school, I always wondered what DPM meant. Now a man of your experience has put me straight, cheers.:rofl:

[Guest catweazle (Banned Member)]

Well this is exactly the point Grasshopper.

For example the dukws we drive around in are completely made from scratch. There are no traces of nit markings as most of them come as rusting hulks with massive holes in them. The markings are just made up to represent a division which served with dukws. The other things is engines. Now i dont know about other dukw owners ut i think its a reasonale assumption to say its getting to expensive to run an original engine in them. So We fitted them with diesel engines from busses that are far more economical. Do people think this is unfair. I mean to be honest the dukws wouldnt go anywhere with the original engines in because it would cost far too much!

And with bolt ons. I mean iv'e seen many a halftrack with bits and bobs on that shouldnt be there. But in all honesty it takes an anorac like me to notice that. As long as it has resemblence to a vehichle from the period im fine with it and i dont think we should criticse it because not every collector is a perfectionist and if we all were there would be far less vehichles to see in my honest opion.

Many thanks

Al

i think engines ,lights, tyres ,all acceptable to keep them running,there are musuem exhibts that are correct,which is great but i prefer to see them on the rd/or in the water did you watch my maidstone festival with the dukws,i think we only managed to sink two,mind you i think one went down while we were in the pub.:cool2:

[antarmike]

I know quite a lot of Matadors, that were converted for timber extraction, where after removing the rear body, a simple derrick crane was fittted, plus Ground Anchors.

 

A lot were run without even a repaint, Jimmy Gleed for example ran his ex RAF Timber rigged Matador, keeping a Blue grey cab, and yellow bridge plate. A number were run by other people in Army green of various shades.

 

My Present Matador has been converted with a larger winch, and ground anchors, and minimal bodywork just to carry its own loose tools and equipment. But it has never been painted any other colour but Blue Grey.

 

Some would argue it is completely un-original, and I wouldn't arge with that. But it is only ever booked into shows as a Commercial vehicle, never as an (Ex) Military.

 

I feel it very accurately represents they way a lot of Ex Military Matadors went on to further civilian usage.

 

If it is viewed for what it is, an Ex RAF Matador, that upon first use in Civilian ownership, was converted to a winch tractor, but the owner didn't see the need to repaint the cab, and was happy to run it in its original Blue grey, then I personally think this is entirely acceptable, Even though it doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to the 50kVA generator truck/ Aircraft repair truck it actually was in RAF ownership...

Edited July 11, 2009 by antarmike

[lightweight]

Nope, I give up. I've spent 45 minutes trying to construct a reply to a post above, I'm not even going to say which one, and have had to delete each attempt.

 

I was unhappy initially when we were showing pictures of peoples vehicles and playing 'point out the mistake', when how a person accessorises their vehicle is no-one elses business but their own (partially I suppose because I have a massive amount of respect for the owner of one of the vehicles singled out).

 

Now we've got to the point where we're presenting ourselves as experts and making fatuous remarks about others who have the audacity to point out our mistakes.

 

I would like to say publicly that I am not an expert in anything and I hope I'm not above taking advice either. I am, however, a sarcastic sod and I apologise for that!

 

I would genuinely love to discuss the original point with some of you at W&P, but I, for one would be happier if this thread was deleted. With a few obvious exceptions, it's being taken off on a tangent that is likely to offend and isolate many forum members.

 

Martin

[Lardrover]

pink panther landys there must be more of them about than got made to start with

 

OK, I'll bite. Well, I was going to but then wondered if you are talking about leaf sprung or coil sprung. If leaf sprung, the original FG series, I'd love to see some pics. I've been up and down the country in one for a few years now and not seen a copy yet.

 

There is one in a Military Land Rover book though, now that really makes my hoop twitch and I think is exactly the point of a thread like this. It's an absolute fantasy lash up of a Land Rover pinkie lookalike at a show and is now elevated to the lofty heights of factuality by being in print, by an expert author. Huzzah

 

http://openlibrary.org/b/OL11241830M/MILITARY-LAND-ROVER

 

Compare that to the effort put in by Mark Cook and his book on the 1/2 Ton, now that's a reference book.

 

I'm sorry, it's late and I've been varnishing my tripod without sufficient ventilation.

[sirhc]

Surely if we were to go and delete any thread which might upset someone we are no better than the bunch of idiots running the country? My initial post was not meant to single out anyone and have a laugh at a particular vehicle, it was to illustrate the point that over accesorising a vehicle with bits that are not meant for it can, in my non expert opinion, ruin an otherwise nice vehicle. Then we get to the pink panther situation in the book just mentioned, where someones fictional replica gets announced to the world (if it's in a book it must be true) as the real deal!

 

If you want to do anything with the thread then lock it, perhaps it has gone as far as it needs to, but I don't think it's offensive enough to warrant deletion!

[fv1609]

There is one in a Military Land Rover book though, now that really makes my hoop twitch and I think is exactly the point of a thread like this. It's an absolute fantasy lash up of a Land Rover pinkie lookalike at a show and is now elevated to the lofty heights of factuality by being in print, by an expert author. Huzzah

 

http://openlibrary.org/b/OL11241830M/MILITARY-LAND-ROVER

 

 

 

With you on that Wayne, I looked at the Shorlands in the armoured section & was disappointed with some of the information that could have been easily verified before publishing. So lost all confidence in anything else I might read.

[fv1609]

I'm sure most of us deep down see vehicles that make us think "oh gawd, why did they do that?". The difficulty is whether to say anything or not, would the comment be appreciated or not? If the comment is slipped in as a kindly & enquiring remark in coversation, then it very often it is appreciated.

 

There is a problem that the vehicles we love & know about the most are the ones that we notice as being perhaps not quite as they were in service. I see loads of US stuff which for all I know is authentic, but may not be so.

 

The trouble is when using a photo to illustrate an example it can seem extremely hurtful to the owner. Or even a poorly worded caption that makes wrong assumptions. Someone has just told me my Shorland appears in one of those 2 mags (which I don't buy) that there are two comments that suggest it is not really authentic & that it is role playing. One of the words used sticks in my mind "guise". In my dictionary that says "pretence". My Shorland's history was explained to the particular photographer, but was ignored. No guise about it I have a picture of it in service & the record card.

 

I doubt if anyone else would have noticed it in the mag, but we can be easily hurt by a strange comment. So I can see that if your own vehicle is held up to scrutiny it is distressing. The only thing about a forum you can answer back, but not so if these comments are in print.

[rippo]

No don't lock or delete this thread, it's great.

 

I think sirhc has got a fair point. But i guess it's down to the owner what they choose to do with there vehicle.

 

I'm not sure if this point has been made already, but to me it's a bit wrong to show a vehicle as i wouldn't have been. Are you not then offending the people who served with these vehicles? To me, apart from the many hours of pleasure i get from working on the truck, its also way of remembering and respecting the scarifices made by these people, and making sure our history isn't forgotten. I'm not saying everything should look like it's just left the factory, but when its out of keeping with it's possible servce history.

In the past i have heard comments from veterans that their vehicles were never like that, and have seen the offence this can cause, after all they did take a alot of pride in there vehicles.

"rivet countrers" Ha, You'll all need them one day, when posts go up on here it's usually a rivet counter who'll answer it.

We were told by a veteran once that they had to be able rebuild a bedford QL transfer case, in the dark, he went on to tell us how many bearing were in each race, and how he had to count them in. So i guess he's a bearing counter!!

it is bloody annoying:argh: to see something published that is incorrect.

But as long as everyone enjoy's what they are doing them hey good luck to you all. :-D

[Great War truck]

I think that a lot of this matter has already been covered in the "Holier than thou" thread from a while back.

 

http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?t=13301&highlight=holier+thou

 

Whether right or wrong, said with good intentions or those not so good, the odd comment can be quite offensive. For example this was said about our Autocar at Bovington a couple of years ago from someone working for a magazine which publishes pictures of military vehciles (but not an MV magazine) "so this is something that you just made up" (implying that the whole vehicle was a complete replica). I am still fuming. If he had said to me that our tyres are too narrow I would have been delighted to discuss the problems in obtaining the correct WW1 pattern pneumatic tyres. If he had told me that the body did not look quite right I would have been thrilled to explain that we had just the one photograph from which to scale it up.

 

It is all about approach.

 

Tim (too)

[Adam Elsdon]

Depends on your take of what is original, a fully restored vehicle isnt original, even if used and looks patinated, as parts and materials used during the restoration are different, a true original vehicle would be one that has left the factory and never been used, and not used by a military unit, because once they got their hands on it, it was becoming less and less original by the day.

A fairly accurate representation of how they were in use, is the best way to describe most vehicles.

 

Im not against seeing Ex Military trucks in civilian colours at MV shows either, as they probably have had a longer life working in civvy hands and are interesting in their own right, a friend has an 1944 Albion CX22S which was converted by a garage into a wrecker and was instrumental in its present survival, otherwise it would of been scrapped years ago. It is a very recognisable "Local" celebrity of a vehicle, as it has been with that garage since just after the war, everybody knows it, so painting it green would just make it another military truck.

Vehicles that have been put together, and bear no resemblence to an original military or civilian used item are ok, i have no problem with them, so long as they arent passed off as original, complete with unit markings etc, why cant they just have them as a fun vehicle in their own right, im sure a Dune buggy or similar is just as fun painted yellow as it is NATO Green.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Adam Elsdon

[sirhc]

Adam,

 

There is nothing wrong with making whatever vehicle you like and painting it however you like, but I wouldn't want to go to a Military Vehicle show and see a load of dune buggies painted nato green. (Unless they are ex-military dune buggies of course) If I go to a military vehicle show I want to see military vehicles, I want to see them as they were in service, not pimped up with any and every accessory the owner has been able to buy at the stalls. I understand that many of the older vehicles have spent longer in civilian usage than they did in service, and that as long as they are on the roads and going to shows that's fine, but I've been to a number of shows (W&P is the worst) where anything with vaguely military markings is put on display, and I don't think that should be happening!

 

Chris

[Tugger]

Right. As it seems that I'm directly in the firing line here, I'm going to offer my two penneth.

 

I will agree on the matters arising in the opening post to an extent. While it does look a bit silly having equipment wholly unsuited to the age of vehicle, I'm not adverse to, let's say for the sake of the arguement, someone taking a Defender and then Wolfing it or even WMIKing it. For the simple reason at the moment there are few, if any genuine ones in private hands and at a show it can't be denied that these are somewhat more interesting to look aty than row upon row of GS 110 or S3. The same applies to Jeeps to an extent. Would it not be better if someone who was so inclined to recreate a special ops Jeep, started off with a later, less historic model, rather than chop up something with provenance?

 

This does not detract from the point that I do agree that vehicles with genuine history and interest should be maintained as they are. (I'm not a factory fresh fan either, there's normally a story behind worn looking vehicles)

 

Lets take my own case in point...I'm absolutely unashamed to admit my Land Rover is probably as walty as they come, it started life as a 110 SW. I'm not precious about it and I go out of my way (should anyone ask me about it) to explain it's 'history'

 

This history, if you are interested, is that I knew I wanted something a bit different and at the time I wasn't as into the whole M/V scene as I am now. I was good freinds with Ollie Kemp an ex service man who had a business working on Land Rovers and other privately owned M/Vs. He had built his prototype 'Predator' (his own take on a light WMIK type vehicle) and was looking to build another. I suggested if I found a donor vehicle I would be happy to fund it. So on we went. A few years ago Ollie was killed in a helecopter accident after having rejoined. I don't keep my Land Rover solely as a sence of duty... that would be overly sentimental and possibly morbid, I do however keep it because, it's practical, fun, not overly valuable or rare so I feel I could use it daily (if it's not too wet) but most of all because I like it and had a hand in designing it, and if that means I'm going to stick more bits on it, well hey why the hell not! IT WAS NEVER ORIGINAL (whatever original means...frankly though,by definition, it's completely original)

 

I will now reiterate: I DO NOT TELL PEOPLE IT IS A GENUINE M/V.

 

As and when funds allow, I would love to get hold of a genuine M/V, but at the moment, they don't,and being a Land Rover fan my dreams of Wolf ownership remain just that.

 

 

Oh, and yes I'll be at W&P this year.

 

 

***(Seriously, no hard feelings, but each to their own. Most of all please...PLEASE don't let the M/V scene get as cliquey as some other clubs around. that would be a real shame for something that first appeared to me to be a welcoming and all encompassing scene)***

Edited July 15, 2009 by Tugger
Thread confusion

[Jessie The Jeep]

 

.....The same applies to Jeeps to an extent. Would it not be better if someone who was so inclined to recreate a special ops Jeep, started off with a later, less historic model, rather than chop up something with provenance?.......

 

Hence my 'Halfkiss' Jeep is now a Willys 'Flying Control' vehicle. It was built out of WW2 and post war bits, '44 engine, 58 chassis, rebuilt by the French in 1966 further scattering its parts and mixing them up. There are probably dozens of Jeeps that went together into this one, so which do you represent? None, I'll do my own thing and enjoy it! And since all Flying Control Jeeps were made on base, there is no set design so it can't be wrong!

 

 

Steve

[Stone]

I think I agree with the spirit of the last few posts here - if it's original then I'm definitely all for preserving the history, but if it's just something 'vanilla' then why not do something a bit more out of the ordinary? So long as you're not trying to deceive people as to its genuine history I see no reason why you can't do what you like to it. If it's an enclosed armoured vehicle, who would know if you put a more comfy driver's seat in it? Why stick to green or desert sand if more interesting paint schemes were used? I reckon 'Because I wanted to' is a perfectly valid answer to a perfectionist asking why, so long as you know what you're up to

 

Stone

[Guest catweazle (Banned Member)]

Hence my 'Halfkiss' Jeep is now a Willys 'Flying Control' vehicle. It was built out of WW2 and post war bits, '44 engine, 58 chassis, rebuilt by the French in 1966 further scattering its parts and mixing them up. There are probably dozens of Jeeps that went together into this one, so which do you represent? None, I'll do my own thing and enjoy it! And since all Flying Control Jeeps were made on base, there is no set design so it can't be wrong!

 

 

Steve

Not only the french,the British rebuilt hundreds of Jeeps post war,they were dismantled refurbished and put back together.The only thing was they werent kept together so when a body was needed the first one off the line was used.So if you think you have a Genuine British Jeep,theres a good chance it aint.:-D

[Jessie The Jeep]

I surprised a couple of friends the other day by telling them their Jeeps had post war engines! I suspect there are very few original Jeeps.

[Enigma]

Not only the french,the British rebuilt hundreds of Jeeps post war,they were dismantled refurbished and put back together.The only thing was they werent kept together so when a body was needed the first one off the line was used.So if you think you have a Genuine British Jeep,theres a good chance it aint.:-D

 

Dutch Army the same...

[LoggyDriver]

CMV has this very same argument in this months issue about Jeeps. It asks why a Jeep that has been "totally" refurbished is worth more than a Jeep that is a lot rougher, but more genuine? Surely you pay the premium for the vehicles history, not it's newness?

[antarmike]

I am surprised that this thread hasn't moved on to discuss what we think of putting various diesel engines into, for example, what was built as a Petrol Scammell-Meadows engined Explorer.

 

I find it a bit strange to be kicking up a storm about an Aerial box, but everyone seems perfectly happy with the idea of pulling out a perfectly good Petrol engine, and too often, scrapping it, thus preventing future owners easily returning the "Hack" into what it was built as.

 

There seems to be a bit of double standars going on here to me.

 

I read through other threads were people are advising putting Range Rover Diffs into Series land-Rovers, and I wonder if we aren't getting too heated over an odd sticker....

[gritineye]

I would be interested to know what you think of engine and drive train changes that can't be seen but can be heard?

 

I am guilty of this sin, reluctantly and as a last resort though, I think the sound is as important as the look of an old vehicle.

 

Mike, see post #23 > it doesn't seem to be a problem to most..

Edited July 18, 2009 by gritineye

[antarmike]

sorry I only read every other page these days

[R Cubed]

I spose there is a kind of trade off with the engine thing, as if you have a well restored vehicle with a thirsty petrol engine in it and you cant afford to take it to shows then people are missing out on a well restored truck because it stays in the garage.

If you then put a diesel in it and can take it to shows people see it for what it is !!!!!!!!!!

 

If putting a diesel in the vehicle means you enjoy it more and take it out to shows more I don't see a problem, the question of scraping the original petrol engine is not a good thing to do as there are no more being made so it should be kept just in case it needs to be turned back to "original spec".

 

Just my thoughts .................