Why Tiger authenticity matters
I read Allan Millington’s letter regarding his reshelled Tiger ( CCW 18 July). As a member and editor of the Sunbeam Tiger Owners’ Club for over 20 years I hear this defence of reshelling all too frequently.
The mantra ‘reshelling saves a Tiger’ appears laudable but it can also cloak future deception. I know from managing the club’s register of Tigers and observing hundreds of selling particulars, that re-shelling is rarely, if ever, admitted.
Clearly vendors know that doing so will devalue most buyers’ appreciation of what’s on offer. So why shouldn’t the ‘real deal’ be expected?
Auction houses choose to avoid diligence, but in the art world when buying a work of art you expect the house to have authenticated the work as that of the artist and so not discover later that it is bogus.
‘ Tiger Authentication’ by qualified marque experts is there to provide buyers with that assurance. Once a Tiger has a ‘ TAC’ sticker buyers can be assured that the car was built by Jensen and not by someone else. Authentication begins to make things honest!
Turning to the points made in Mr Millington’s letter:
1. The Tiger was not, as said, built by Rootes but by Jensen. If a ‘ Tiger is an Alpine with a V8 dropped in’ then what is a Lotus Cortina compared with a Ford Cortina?
2. MG and other marques benefit from new ‘Heritage’ shells and the fact is not hidden from selling particulars. The DVLA is OK with this. Importantly, there is no ‘Heritage’ shell for the Tiger.
3. The DVLA’s VHI regulations state: ‘A change of monocoque body shell is not considered a substantial change, but states that a body change exposes a car to a change of registration. Regulations around ‘reconstructed classics’ and for those ‘radically altered’ clearly state that nowadays a rebuild using a secondhand monocoque bodyshell makes the vehicle liable to a ‘Q’ plate. Your readers may wish to hazard a guess at how many ‘Q’ plate Tigers are out there.
I must also dispute your remark that ‘having some fun is more important than a pound sign’. I can’t imagine a buyer will be comforted by those words when, having paid £50k plus for a Tiger, later finds out that it was only built a couple of years ago.
That buyer is then either forced to pass on the deception or admit to it and see the car’s value halved. There’s no ‘fun’ in being the subject of criminal deception.