[travancore]

The Indian High Commissioner's (V.K.Krishna Menon) RR Silver Wraith, Chassis WDC64 during Nehru's visit in 1949.

The car was for sale about a year ago.

We also see an Austin Princess JYU-11 which probably was also a High Commission car.

Unfortunately the beautiful Constellation "Malabar Princess" was lost on Mont Blanc in November 1950.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqUZQsOUZy0

[Boybentley]

Another nice picture of Phantom III #3BU76 when owned by Alan Clark MP

[doublebubble]

Originally Posted by park-ward

The body was perhaps by Ranjit Mallick, but Julian Williamson told me it was restored by Tutu for its owner Somenath Roy Choudhury. I believe Julian knows Tutu from the days when he restored cars in India.

Originally Posted by Bulldogji

Park-ward, are you sure? It looks like the boat tail by Ranjit Mallick.If its the same car then I believe she was copied from another P1 still with Tutu, and then painted and finished by Ranjit,originally having started life as a tourer?

The body on Mr. Mallick's Phantom is not the original that corresponds to the chassis. The original body was beyond repair, and I think was scrapped. The body on his car was lifted from the Phantom I that Mr. Dhawan has had lying in his garage for many years now. It is a Barker boat-tail open tourer body that was originally on the Phantom at Mr. Dhawan's. The car at Mr. Dhawan's belonged to the Maharaja of Vizianagaram, the pictures of which I have seen in one of the posts here. This has left the original chassis without a body. Not sure what is happening to the car now, but if I'm not mistaken, it is quite a special chassis as the Vizianagaram car wore Chassis Number EF1, which was the first Phantom I to receive certain updates from the previous generations (such as improved steering, axles, and also the patented braking system from Hispano-Suiza that Rolls-Royce used for quite some time). The chassis numbers with these upgrades, before the next ones came in were EF1 to EF101. The car was completed in 1925 and delivered to India in 1927.

I find the boat-tail Barker body on Mr. Mallick's rather pretty, but it would have made for a better story historically if it was on the original chassis. However, I dont know whether chassis EF1 is still lying left to rot, but would love to see what sort of coachwork the new owner (if it gets one) decides to put on it.

[travancore]

Originally Posted by doublebubble

The body on Mr. Mallick's Phantom is not the original that corresponds to the chassis. The original body was beyond repair, and I think was scrapped. The body on his car was lifted from the Phantom I that Mr. Dhawan has had lying in his garage for many years now. It is a Barker boat-tail open tourer body that was originally on the Phantom at Mr. Dhawan's. .

As referenced above, the Vizianagaram RR PI, Chassis 1EF - courtesy VCCCP

[doublebubble]

Originally Posted by travancore

Attachment 1722035

Attachment 1722036

As referenced above, the Vizianagaram RR PI, Chassis 1EF - courtesy VCCCP

Thanks for the pictures travancore! I have only seen and got pictures of the rolling chassis. I'm pretty sure all of you can see that Mr. Mallick's PI body is exactly the same as the pictures posted by travancore.
Hope something nice is done to the chassis. Feel bad seeing it lying there in that condition. As mentioned earlier, its the first car from the series with updates. Surely that's got be worth something?

[Roger OZ]

Originally Posted by travancore

Attachment 1717141

We also see an Austin Princess JYU-11 which probably was also a High Commission car.

The car JYU 11 is an Austin A110 or A125 SHEERLINE, not a Princess (most likely A125).

[Roger OZ]

Originally Posted by travancore

Attachment 1713350

So why did the Queen use an almost 30 year young R-R ?

The car is the Jaipur PII, Chassis 89MW.

I can't understand what all the fuss was about in the British press. What more appropriate and attractive a motor car for the Queen to have used during her 1961 visit to India - a country with a rich heritage of Rolls-Royce ownership and usage especially during British Colonial and 'Princely Ruler' times - than this beautiful Phantom II Hooper tourer?

I am attaching two photos depicting the Queen riding in 89MW during that tour: one from the book 'Royal Travel' by Richard Garrett (Blandford Press; 1982); the other from a contemporary issue of US-published 'Life' magazine.

[doublebubble]

Hey everyone! I've had this thought in my head for quite a while now and wanted to get other peoples opinion on it as well. Posted this question on another thread, but that seems to be inactive.

What are your views of rebodying a car to a different body style from the original? Initially, I used to be completely against the idea of restoring a car to anything but its original coachwork. But with time, that view has changed quite a bit. Let us not forget that these 'coachbuilt' cars were made according to the tastes and preferences of the people who originally bought these cars. So, in the hand of new owners, who might prefer something according their own tastes and preferences, is it really a crime to alter the original coachwork?

I understand that no matter how much you do and try, an original is an original. But it doesn't take away from the fact that many rebodied cars actually turn out a lot prettier and more elegant than the originals. Yes, I agree that if you just rebody a car to a Saoutchick body, it doesn't make it one. But the fact that the people recreating it are doing it today without someone like Saoutchick telling you how to do it and showing you how its done only makes it a greater testament of their skill (especially in a place like India).

I see some cars such as Mr. Kanoria's Rolls or the ex-Nabha Bentley 4 1/4MX, and cant help but think they look better today than they did originally. And unless a car has been created on a completely different chassis, and substituting other parts, I find the use of the word 'replica' quite offensive (specially towards the people who have spent so much time creating a piece of art). Many pre-war cars that hold some incredible value today and look amazing, have been rebodied in the 40s-50s. So does that mean that this value is created with time?

Would love to hear your opinions on this. I remember reading somewhere where Henry Royce said, "I don't care about what bodies people put on their cars. What I care about is making sure every Rolls-Royce is engineered with the same level of quality and rolls out of the factory in exactly the same way. The body is the creation of the coachbuilder, but I make the car underneath it."

[shyml]

There is a lot of sense in making a new body to your own design for your car. As I figure it, if time had stopped, which it indeed has for the pre-war enthusiasts like me, I should be able to have a second body made for my Rolls Royce, or a third or a fourth, from Barker or Hooper or Gurney Nutting etc. Now these carrosserie do not exist anymore so you can take their place.
First, if a body exists, it should be carefully taken off and stored on jigs and stilts to preserve for posterity. A lot of Bentley 3 and 4 1/2 litre saloon bodies were reportedly destroyed and Vanden Plas "pattern" tourers were created. I object to the destruction of original bodies but support creating new bodies, even as in Bentley case almost exact "replica" ones. No harm there.
Second, it would be in the fitness of things to study all the designs of all the coachbuilders extensively of the period your chassis . Then having acquired the eye for and aesthetics of the era, you can proceed to design a new body to your or your clients desire and specifications. This will hopefully preclude the creation of an abominable, unsafe or impractical body.
Kindly note, just like a trained eye can detect between an original painting from a copy, so can the painter be guessed accurately just by looking at a painting. The TeamBHP community, I bet, can discern a wrong line or a thicker A pillar than required, from a mile off.
Todate, I have not seen a convincing period body design by later coachbuilders, whether from sub continent or abroad, as too much new information and design priorities and advancement has cropped in. The exception are the few top class establishments in UK which can and do make excellent bodies on old pattern.
I wish someone can psyche himself to a period and block later design influences and have the wherewithal and facilities to beat metal to his exact design. I would like to have a body made to my whims.
While on the subject, a company named Pursang, in Argentina is making Bugatti type 35 and Alfa 8C by manufacturing every nut bolt and part per original design and assembling exact cars. (~ $250000).
I would like to buy the Alfa 8C and have a body made to my taste ( resembling the Touring one actually ) .
In more than one way it would be like my friend Travencore taking a plastic model base and re making the body to the design of the Holkars Alfa or Bahawalpurs SSK. I think he makes the entire model but I would like him to make my Bahawalpur V-16's model over the Franklin Mints V-16 model Chassis.
Doublebubble is going full scale and I think we should approach that frontier boldly without a second thought.

Amer Ahmad

[doublebubble]

Reading your reply really made me smile Amer (shyml). It sounded pretty much exactly like what my brother and I have spoken about for years. People who rebody cars today often take themselves out of the period from which the car is, resulting in aesthetically displeasing cars.
Couldn't agree with you more on preserving the original body (if it survives), when one chooses to put on a newly built coach. I too, have always been all about making sure that the processes of building and restoring these cars should be exactly the same as they use t be back in the day.
As for Pursang, I have had the honour of going on a drive in one of my friend's dad's Pursang Type 35 in the UK, and what a car that truly is. While I was in the UK, I have seen a few Type 35s, 23s, and 41s. And a Pursang really holds true to what a Bugatti (or even an Alfa) is. You should hear the gentleman who owns the car, talk about it. And he really drives that car the way its meant to and was driven in the 20-30s. He also owns a 1928 Type 35 that I saw when he got it to a car show, and he pointed out exactly how accurate and detailed Pursangs are, down to how the wired-brakes are drawn and the rivets and bolts are made. I honestly believe more people should be buying cars like that than supercars in India. But then again, most of the people buying supercars in India wouldn't know the first thing about these cars.

In addition to the above post, here are a couple of pictures of the original Type 35. This is a true beauty and what you would call a real preservation. The car was delivered in 1929 and has NEVER been worked on, other than regular mechanical maintenance. The owner even drove this car 50 miles to the show and then back (partially through rain). She's a proper runner, and I haven't seen many (rather any) cars her age being used and run the way she is. She runs and sounds fantastic, and is one fine example.

[bobchaphalkar]

Very interesting and very good conversation about originality and preservation. We all have the same thoughts from Time to time. Quite expensive for reproductions. I had thought about re creating 1904 Olds runabout myself. Do not know if someone wants one!. Thanks

[travancore]

The Mysore RR SG 1683 with a democratic rider

[KartikeyaL]

Cross posting the picture of Ex Kashmir 17EX ,when it was in owner ship of Mrs. Girija Devi w/o Kunwar Indra Narayan of Allahabad.



Find my post in the 17EX thread here

[///RMan]

Double trouble with this Phantom II Continental and the very red 20/25.

[KartikeyaL]

A miniature Rolls Royce catalogue for sale on ebay