[karlosdeville]

Originally Posted by VeyronSuperSprt

Hi karlosdeville, thanks for clarifying.

Just some points:

1. If it is a single owner he would at least know if he had imported it. If it was not imported, then it wouldn't be a Triumph Herald.

2. Secondly, the book would not say 67 or 69 as by 67 it was already Mark II , which had a different headlight arrangement - 3 separate lights in a row for the indicator, park and headlight. The indicator was a round orange light, and the park was smaller than the indicator. So it cannot be a 67 or 69. The Mark I was discontinued in 1965. (this is a Mark I),

Do see if you can get more info.

It is not a single owner vehicle. He got it recently. And yes 67 or 69 would be Mk 2, but so many things have been changed, very possible that the bonnet was changed too. Commonly done. And possible that the book doesnt match correctly. Anyways, I still maintain the car looks pretty cool.

[VeyronSuperSprt]

Originally Posted by ariesonu

..and its a single owner car

Originally Posted by karlosdeville

It is not a single owner vehicle.

There's some confusion here - are we talking about the same car ?

[Stanher]

Originally Posted by karlosdeville

The books say Standard Herald, I think 67 or 69, and there is no Commission Plate. The fittings are a mix of everything. But the larger point is that everything looks period correct, nothing really glaringly out of place.

With due respect to the current owner, its not impossible that the book could have been changed at one point too! (EDIT: Just noticed you indicated the same thing in your later post) which all the more explains the missing Comm. plate?
If there were pics. of the engine compartment it could be easier to ascertain as the 1200 had a different carb/air-filter which was the most noticeable. Unless those too were changed in this car.

[karlosdeville]

Originally Posted by Stanher

If there were pics. of the engine compartment it could be easier to ascertain as the 1200 had a different carb/air-filter which was the most noticeable. Unless those too were changed in this car.

Here you go, a picture I took of the engine bay.

[VeyronSuperSprt]

Originally Posted by karlosdeville

Here you go, a picture I took of the engine bay.

Attachment 932075

Yes, as I thought, it's very much a Standard Herald.

[the mole]

Guys very good arguments made, greatly enhanced my knowledge about heralds. Now the weirdest thing is that everything on this car says its an Indian herald and stanher says it could be because the owner could not source from England. But pray tell me how does one manage to find triumph script on the bonnet, or how is that's the only thing that has survived? Strange indeed! In my opinion it is clearly a car that has been rebadged to mark up its price ( and the owner has paid a fancy price). But as Karl says its a nice car. But because of its questionable lineage, I am not sure the owner will be able to recover his cost if he had to sell the car.

[VeyronSuperSprt]

Originally Posted by the mole

But pray tell me how does one manage to find triumph script on the bonnet, or how is that's the only thing that has survived? Strange indeed! In my opinion it is clearly a car that has been rebadged to mark up its price ( and the owner has paid a fancy price). But as Karl says its a nice car. But because of its questionable lineage, I am not sure the owner will be able to recover his cost if he had to sell the car.

In the days when the Herald was being manufactured in India, obtaining the Triumph badging and placing it on a Herald was something that quite a few folks did. In this case, the point that was an addition was the Herald 1200 badging on the boot. People usually just got the triumph lettering and stopped with that. There's no way that anyone who knows Heralds would have been fooled with just the badging changed. There were a lot of other pointers (in addition to what I mentioned) that would have further added to confirming it's Standard Herald status. Regardless of the badging and lineage that we were discussing, it is still a good example of a 1965 Standard Herald and would get it's owner a good price on the strength of that.

[Stanher]

Originally Posted by the mole

Now the weirdest thing is that everything on this car says its an Indian herald and stanher says it could be because the owner could not source from England. But pray tell me how does one manage to find triumph script on the bonnet, or how is that's the only thing that has survived? Strange indeed!

It doesnt have a TRIUMPH lettering on the bonnet but HERAL(D)- which was fitted to early Herald 1200s.
And as VeyronSuperSprt mentions, people who rebadged their Standard Heralds usually got just the TRIUMPH lettering available here.

Originally Posted by VeyronSuperSprt

Regardless of the badging and lineage that we were discussing, it is still a good example of a 1965 Standard Herald and would get it's owner a good price on the strength of that.

As karl had mentioned in his post, its a '67-68 Herald as per the RC so that makes it a mk2 (IF it is a Standard Herald, which I'm still dubious about it being) and could explain the black Yenkay meters on the dash. Besides, 1965 Standard Heralds did not have the mesh type bonnet vents but the vertical ones.
One could say the bonnet and bootlid were changed with one from an early Herald, but the general build quality of this car just doesnt give the impression of being a Standard Herald that too a later one. The engine appears to be a 948 but again could have been put in at a later stage too...!
To conclude, this car is, suffice to say, a mix and match.

[Shreeram]

There is a Black Standard Companion standing in pune at Kothrud, have u seen it karl ?? I will click pics next time i see it..

[karlosdeville]

Originally Posted by Shreeram

There is a Black Standard Companion standing in pune at Kothrud, have u seen it karl ?? I will click pics next time i see it..

Nope, never seen it. Do PM me the location and share pictures with us.

There was a blue car at Mangalwar Peth I think, and a green car at Saras Baug.

[VeyronSuperSprt]

Originally Posted by Stanher

the bonnet and bootlid were changed

Ok, so first the bonnet and the bootlid were changed.

Originally Posted by Stanher

The engine appears to have been put in at a later stage

And then the engine was changed.

Originally Posted by Stanher

all the missing or 'replaced' fittings you mention would have easily been lost/damaged over the years

And then all the fittings were damaged.

Originally Posted by Stanher

the dash and the black Yenkay meters could have been fitted even at a later stage

And then meters on the car were fitted at a later stage.

Originally Posted by Stanher

as were the aluminium tail-fin beadings

..and the aluminium beadings too.

Originally Posted by Stanher

To conclude, this car is, suffice to say, a mix and match.

Ok guys, so this is a Triumph Herald where the owner has kept the lettering and changed the rest of the car.

[Stanher]

Originally Posted by VeyronSuperSprt

Ok, so first the bonnet and the bootlid were changed.

Nope, I didnt say they WERE changed for sure, I suggested that for argument's sake (ie. if one were to prove that its a '67-68 Standard Herald) one could say the bonnet/bootlid were taken from an early Herald (as the mk2 had a different bonnet and eventually a different bootlid as well.)

Here's the part of my post for ref.:

Originally Posted by Stanher

One could say the bonnet and bootlid were changed with one from an early Herald

Ok guys, so this is a Triumph Herald where the owner has kept the lettering and changed the rest of the car.

There seems to be some confusion here- I implied the bonnet and bootlid could have been changed only IF it were a '67-68 Standard Herald (mk2) but if it were a Triumph Herald, then it has the correct bonnet/bootlid as well as the badging.

[KPS]

Originally Posted by Stanher

I think the estate/wagon is now in Bangalore and was even up for sale (needing resto), pics. of it were posted by KPS IIRC?

Originally Posted by karlosdeville

Actually it is probably the same car - you can see the pictures he posted here,
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/vintag...ml#post2016810
that car too is a 4 door.

This is the same car as confirmed by the registration number. The picture is taken in Mysore near the Town Hall/Clock Tower close the the Mysore Palace. The car was probably owned by the famous Mysore taxidermist. This car is a 1952 model

Cheers

KPS

[VeyronSuperSprt]

Originally Posted by Stanher

There seems to be some confusion here

Yes, there is confusion because more than 15 points indicating that it is a Standard Herald and not a Triumph Herald have been dismissed by stating that the parts were changed / damaged / replaced / lost but no reply indicating why it is a Triumph Herald except for stating:

Originally Posted by Stanher

As mentioned it is NOT a Standard Herald but a Triumph one by all means.

[Stanher]

Originally Posted by VeyronSuperSprt

Yes, there is confusion because more than 15 points indicating that it is a Standard Herald and not a Triumph Herald have been dismissed by stating that the parts were changed / damaged / replaced / lost but no reply indicating why it is a Triumph Herald except for stating:

If you've gone through and understood my previous posts in this regard, you'll find that I had in fact justified my statement about this car being a Triumph Herald.

Anyways, you're entitled to your opinion.