Hey, Karim . . . .
Wow --- what a post
Lots to talk about, so I’m gonna take this slow
First of all ---- thank you again for all your suggestions about contacting ASTRA + AMAG for information about the car. Very helpful, my friend
And regarding my contacts . . . yes --- I have been in touch with the Archives at the Porsche Museum --- but not Mr Landenberger . . . a Mr Marc Noack
Next --- I need to clear up what information I have regarding 1059’s ‘build’ date. The only specific date information that I have on the vehicle concerns an ‘invoice’ date --- which is 01.12.69. Not sure how this relates to a ‘build’ date but . . . I did have an off-line exchange w/ davep --- our ‘un-official historian’ . . . some weeks back. His opinion is that --- based on the production number . . . the car was probably built after Dec . . . more like Jan-Feb, ‘70. And, of course, I’ve lost his note so . . . Dave --- if you wanna jump in here? . . . please feel free
Anyway, Dave wrote me that there are a number of bits that have date-codes on them --- wheels + instruments, for example . . . but, also, the hood shocks. (!) There are also some ‘stickers’ affixed to various/sundry bits of the ventilation system, up front, in the trunk . . . those might have dates, as well. Time for some cataloging of date-codes, looks like
Meanwhile, Dave’s observations are telling. Compared with other production numbers that he has build dates for, I’m satisfied that 1059 was built after 01-12-69. Only question might be . . . ‘how long after?’
One clue to that might be found in that photo that Lou Scalzo took in Topanga. Mark Allbaugh said that he remembered a ‘1969’ being on the windshield decal --- which might’ve supported a ’69 build date, I thought. But then I saw an ad in our own ESSES magazine --- offering re-pro windshield decals, like the factory used. ‘Weltmeister Marken, 1969.’ Looking back at Lou’s photo --- and yours . . . I believe the decal that Mark remembered was this same ‘Weltmeister’
Like I said . . . I need to catalog some date-codes
Regarding the registration data from ASTRA . . . I always interpreted this record to show one owner --- Sr Mazza --- there was only one name . . . w/ the various locations + dates documenting his ownership history . . .
First registration = 29.12.1971 in BL (Basel-Land) . . . his purchase, his 1st address?
Change = 4.11.1981 in GR (Graubünden = Davos) . . . still his, change of address?
Record ends = 28.02.1982 . . . registration expires + vehicle leaves CH?
What is very interesting are your comments concerning Dealers + Swiss registration procedures. You wrote . . .
If 1059 was delivered to CH --- without going through AMAG . . . then the vehicle could’ve been running around on Dealer plates until 29.12.1971. Then, later --- after Sr Mazza sold/traded it . . . it could’ve sat at a Dealer from 4.11.1981 until 28.2.1982 (an odd last-day-of-the-month-type transaction) . . . showing no recorded/registered Owner for both intervalsOriginally Posted by 911T1971
But . . . what if 1059 were first sold + came from somewhere else? --- from outside CH? . . . and then brought in by a private individual as a personal used car? After all --- the car was two years old when it first appears in ASTRA’s records. Maybe Mazza moved to CH? . . . brought 1059 with him?
Regardless, there must be some record of where 1059 came from. Cars don’t just ‘show up.’ Anyone registering a vehicle --- new or not . . . would have to show some ownership, then fill out an application . . . + pay money. Is there any source/way to get more detailed information about where 1059 came from? --- from ASTRA? . . . or anyone/anywhere else?
I also read your comments regarding the insignia on the LF fender with interest. I spoke to Lou + Mark some more, and both described the insignia as well-done --- Mark said it looked almost like a stencil. And, as you observed --- it reminds me of the old coach builders’ badges --- Drauz, D’Ieteren Freres, Reutter . . . on 356s
I’ve written before that I believe that 1059 has had at least one shunt --- possibly two . . . with extensive repairs that involved panel replacement. The LF quarter panel is an old-style factory-primed bit. But the left rear quarter was replaced, as well --- and expertly . . . w/ lead. In fact, some excess tin --- used to make the lead ‘stick to the steel . . . was causing the paint to lift, there --- at the LR fender seam. When John Esposito re-finished the car, he’d commented on this repair, and when I’d asked him about the quality of it, he said . . . ‘I don’t know how this was done’
So --- now I’m wondering . . .
If the damage + elaborate lead repairs date back to the early ‘70s --- along with the ‘stencil’ –type insignia on the LF fender . . . could this be some kind of ‘signature’ of whoever did the work? Just like those Coachbuilders putting their badges on the car bodies that they built --- did some shop/craftsman ‘sign’ his work? Artists do this . . . but what kind of artist would sign a company’s name to something that he did? Unless . . . he worked for Porsche KG --- and it’s their repair
Or maybe I’m just reading too much into this . . . it's just that I’ve never seen anything like that insignia on any Porsche. And --- to me . . . this insignia is just too deliberate/elaborate
I’ve got some letters to write
Regarding any connection to Jo Siffert . . . I’m not gonna say anything, right now, except --- wow. What is it w/ Porsche + green cars?
One final bit . . .
The only documented ‘family’ 911 that I know of is M Piech’s ’69 ‘S’ being restored + documented by Bjorn, here --- see post #20 . . .
http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...-911S-2.0-1969
This vehicle has a Kardex that identifies the Handler-Nr as 0219 --- a regular external ‘dealer’ delivery code --- vs ‘dealer 100 = factory use.’ I take this to mean that The Family paid for their own cars + went through regular dealers . . . just like regular customers. Makes me think that 1059 wasn't a 'family' car . . .
. . . but she was something different
It‘s still interesting to me that 1059 was first registered into CH on 29.12.1971 --- a date which always sounded to me like an end-of-the-year business-/tax-type transaction . . .
. . . as if 1059 was superseded
No longer needed
Disposed of
. . . and, yet . . . someone re-upholstered her glove compartment?
Strange
Reply With Quote
