‘Stop nicking original numbers from classics!’ Nick reckons we should value originality more highly
Join me luxuriating in the amazingly original interior of a 1946 Morris 10M. Apart from my big muddy footprints (sorry!), the string activating the rear window blind seems to be the only item not installed by William Morris’ team of ’46. Even the carpets seem to be the very ones stitched by Cowley’s Gert and ‘Flo, sporting headscarves and a great sense of pride in what they were doing.
Sculpted Bakelite is in abundance, all lovingly preserved, from the dashboard down to the ashtrays and the two knobs activating the windscreen wipers. Lovely leather seats add to the frenzy of nostalgic joy. The sun has come out.
Only steep hills put the Morris out of kilter but otherwise the 21st century North Yorkshire lanes (the car was due to be auctioned by Mathewsons) were no challenge for a car built like the Grand Coulee Dam, but with no water leaks.
If there had been a radio fitted, fifteen minutes of valves warming up would have been followed by a couple of cough-like crackles then Billy Cotton & His Band would crash in, boasting about their luvverly bunch of coconuts.
History on wheels
What a lovely vehicle, a fine tribute to both its era and the car’s builders. New cars were in shorter supply than baby unicorns in 1946 while Britain fought to save itself by exporting everything it could. Morris would have struggled to find the raw materials to built this 10M. Sadly though, this car-cum-piece of social history has recently been abused. Someone bought it and sold the original registration number, ie the Morris’s identity, and replaced it with one of those DVLA issues from unused stock, three numbers followed the letters YUU. What made it worse was that on the parcel shelf was a tax disc dated March 2013 bearing what was the original number, Surrey issued KPF 79.
The ‘new’ plate looks as about as appropriate as Princess Elizabeth appearing on a 1946 newsreel sporting an enormous tattoo proclaiming ‘I love Phil!’. I understand that people can do what they want with their own property, and yes, selling a plate could finance a restoration but I really do hate this number-flogging practice. It shows no respect for the vehicle and distorts history.
I also spotted an Austin Seven for sale with another DVLA re-registration ending in XUF, another reissue. ‘UF’ denotes a car registered in Brighton,
Nick Larkin has appeared in many classic car (and a few bus) publications since 1989. He joined
Practical Classics in 1996, and remains a regular contributor.
where the Austin has probably never visited. It’s like putting up a ‘Welcome to Darlington’ sign next to Stonehenge. We’ve all cringed at seeing cars with non-original registrations in period dramas. Is it now time that all numbers of pre-1963 classics should by law become non-transferable? Not surprisingly the DVLA did not respond to my enquiries as to whether this might be possible, and although there have been rumblings over the issue within the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs, nothing has materialised. So is it worth a campaign? I certainly wouldn’t buy a car without the original registration – well, not unless it was extremely cheap. Many number nickers do think they can sell the car for the same amount as if its original plate had been retained – not normally the case. So do check the registration number of any purchase, and if you see a car advertised that has recently lost its plate, ask where the original is. Or you could write a letter to whatever Government is in power by the time you read this suggesting that perpetrators should be rolled over in (not burningly) hot tar and feathers and made to sit on a bench holding a placard proclaiming ‘history distorter.’ You’re right, maybe we should think of something a little more drastic!