The 100M & the Le Mans Kit & all that rot

[Editor_Reid]

.
Here's my attempt to graphically present how I conceive of the 100 in relation to the 100M and all of the variations in between. Perhaps it will help some to better understand the complexity of the subject of what lies between the standard cars and the 640 documented 100M models.

[/IMG]

So, when someone asks, "How much is my 100 with the Le Mans Kit worth?" The answer is, we have to ask lots of questions and examine the documentation (if any) and examine the car, and unless you have a full kit installed in period with documentation, it is likely to be worth only slightly more than a standard car.

Anyway, I hope you find this graphic useful. It depicts how I categorize and rank the variations, and while you may hold a different opinion, provenance (documented provenance) and the market tend to trump personal opinions.

By the way, I'm well aware that the last 100 was made in 1956, not 1959, but for the purpose at hand I am saying that the 100 was still a more or less current model into about 1959 and the introduction of the 3000. The year 1959 in the above graphic could equally accurately be 1956, 1957 or 1958, but in my opinion 1959 would be about the last year that could be considered "in period" for the 100.

 

[judow]

I'm a believer and I do understand your graphic. End of discussion.

 

[Michael Oritt]

Reid--

Thank you for a unique and interesting approach to the question of relative value.

My car falls into the higher of the two "purple" categories with the Le Mans components having been installed by the original owner or the local dealer "in the day" according to notes made in the Service Manual. Perhaps Bill Meade should pick up upon your concept and award small insignias of the various colors to affix upon or alongside his M-Registry grill badges as appropriate.

 

[BigGreen]

... finding out how to integrate my wallet ... :confusion:

 

[Bob_Spidell]

Awesome graphic. On a side note, the recently posted USA video has the owner of a 100M stating that '190 100Ms still remain' (or similar). Anyone know how correct this statement is? The only number I've heard before is 'of the 640 factory 100Ms built, only about 3,000 still remain.'

 

[bighealeysource]

I thought the number was about 180 have been documented. Maybe Bill Meade has a figure ? Think I'll email him and will post what he comes back with.

 

[Michael Oritt]

180 would be something less than 30% of the 640. Given the value of M's I would have thought that at this point a higher percentage of them would have been identified and "saved" whether or not restored.

 

[mikephillips]

Until every barn, garage, etc is searched, known to survive is probably better than remain as a description. Cars thought to have been destroyed do periodically turn up.

 

[Healey 100]

Graphic is very useful but does not completely square with Geoff Healey's writings on the matter. He wrote that the first 100M's were modified at Warwick with the bonnets removed and returned to Jensen for louvering. These cars are not included in the 640. How many? No records of these, but Healey said it was not just a few cars.

I would think a Healey with an original louvered steel bonnet with a matching body number stamped it in was very likely born as a "real" 100M. Isn't that the criterion the Heritage trust uses to ID the 640?

 

[Editor_Reid]

Graphic is very useful but does not completely square with Geoff Healey's writings on the matter.

Actually it does account for what Geoff said. The green area would be the cars (BN1 series cars) modified at Warwick with bonnets sent back for louvering, before the arrangement of the bonnets arriving already louvered (which coincided with the establishment of the 100M model name).

He wrote that the first 100M's were modified at Warwick with the bonnets removed and returned to Jensen for louvering.

True, but he was apparently a little loose with the name "100M" and applying it retroactively to those cars. The name "100M" had not been created yet, but is often applied, somewhat like the name "100-4" wasn't used until the "100-6" came along.

These cars are not included in the 640. How many? No records of these, but Healey said it was not just a few cars.

True, they are not included in the 640 and there are no records of which ones or how many fall into this category. That is why I indicated that it is critical to have documentation to substantiate such a claim. Interestingly, very few cars in this category have come to light.

I would think a Healey with an original louvered steel bonnet with a matching body number stamped it in was very likely born as a "real" 100M. Isn't that the criterion the Heritage trust uses to ID the 640?

Actually their criterion for substantiating a 100M is the notation "Louvered bonnet" on the job production card. There are 640 cards with that notation.

 

[Editor_Reid]

I thought the number was about 180 have been documented. Maybe Bill Meade has a figure ? Think I'll email him and will post what he comes back with.

I'm sure that in that video, Jim Smalley was referring to the number of cars in Bill Meade's registry. The latest figure I have heard from Bill is 180-190. That is the number of 100M models registered with him - who knows how many more may be out there waiting to be discovered? I'll bet that the answer is, "Not many", but there are undoubtedly some.

 

[simon1966]

At this rate, unmodified 100's are going to become the rarest of the lot Very nice diagram BTW

 

[magman]

Can you direct me to some reference to the model name 100M being established only when the bonnets were pre-louvred by Jensen? What I have seen to date doesn’t support that. Guess I am asking for documentation.

 

[Editor_Reid]

Can you direct me to some reference to the model name 100M being established only when the bonnets were pre-louvred by Jensen? What I have seen to date doesn’t support that. Guess I am asking for documentation.

I don't know if it states that anywhere, but what we know is that the name 100M first appeared in the program for the London Motor Show at Earls Court in October 1955, and that the pre-louvered bonnets began to appear (in notations on the job production cards) in September 1955 with the BN2. Thus, the BN2 cars with the pre-louvered bonnet were given a separate model name and sold new as the 100M. The BN1 cars that had bonnets sent back for louvering as part of the modification were made before the name 100M appeared, and to label them a 100M would be to retroactively assign them a name that they didn't have when new.

What have you "seen to date that doesn't support that"?

 

[magman]

In answer to your query...[What have you "seen to date that doesn't support that"]...is the passages I have read that outline how the M model came about, how the name was chosen by DMH, how then the Purchase Department obtained prices, that a batch of 100 cars were produced well before the Earls Court show....and more that I need not bore anyone with. All I am getting at is I haven't come across anything that said the 100M model name was created in concert with the pre-louvered bonnets from Jensen. My previous understanding was the method of doing them was later in the production of the 100M to cut cost. If that is not the case then that is interesting to me and I would think anyone interested in the 100M history. I have read that the louvered pattern was created especially for the 100M by Gerald and therefore wasn't available earlier to be part of any "kit" installation prior to the 100M creation and the BN-2 intro. Of course nothing prevents them being retro-fitted later.

 

[Editor_Reid]

In answer to your query...[What have you "seen to date that doesn't support that"]...is the passages I have read that outline how the M model came about, how the name was chosen by DMH, how then the Purchase Department obtained prices, that a batch of 100 cars were produced well before the Earls Court show....and more that I need not bore anyone with. All I am getting at is I haven't come across anything that said the 100M model name was created in concert with the pre-louvered bonnets from Jensen. My previous understanding was the method of doing them was later in the production of the 100M to cut cost. If that is not the case then that is interesting to me and I would think anyone interested in the 100M history. I have read that the louvered pattern was created especially for the 100M by Gerald and therefore wasn't available earlier to be part of any "kit" installation prior to the 100M creation and the BN-2 intro. Of course nothing prevents them being retro-fitted later.

I don't see that you have stated anything that contradicts what I have put forward, or what is in the graphic at the beginning of this thread.

All I am getting at is I haven't come across anything that said the 100M model name was created in concert with the pre-louvered bonnets from Jensen.

The first "Louvered bonnet" car (as noted in the production records to indicate that the bonnet was louvered by Jensen before the car was delivered to Austin) was made at/extremely near to the beginning of BN2 production. The pink and black 1955 Motor Show car was, according to Bill Meade, the 100M Registrar, the ninth-made 100M and has a build date of September 5, 1955. Therefore it seems clear that with eight 100M cars built even before that, that the "pre-delivery louvering" began at the same time as BN2 production.

The name 100M first appears in a primary source document in the 1955 Motor Show Official Catalogue. The time gap between that first 100M produced - August 1955 - and the London Motor Show - October 19-29, 1955 - merely represents the difference in time from the start-up of production after the summer holiday shutdown and the date of the show. Details of the cars that they planned to show at Earls Court would have had to have been submitted well before the dates of the show to allow for time to prepare the official program.

The pink and black 100M used to introduce the model to the world - with those colors suggested by Gerry Coker to help make a publicity splash - was the ninth car produced with "Louvered bonnet" noted in the production records:

[/IMG]​

I choose to correlate these facts and conclude that the model name 100M was assigned beginning with BN2 production and the beginning of the "Louvered bonnet" notations (the new contract with Jensen) on the production records. Here is the page from the 1955 Motor Show Official Catalogue listing the Donald Healey Motor Company exhibits; the "AUSTIN-HEALEY '100 M' Open Sports" is the pink and black car, and this is the earliest use of the name "100M" that I have found in years of research:

[/IMG]​

If you choose to ignore all of this as a coincidence or otherwise somehow meaningless, so be it. All I can do is present the facts and explain how I correlate them and the conclusions that seem reasonable to me and that are supported by the facts.

Perhaps you were unaware that all of the production records indicating "Louvered bonnet" are for BN2 models, and that the Louvered bonnet notation began at the beginning of BN2 production and did not include any of the previous BN1 production? The appearance of the name "100M" coincides with the introduction of the BN2 and also with the "Louvered bonnet" notation in the production records. Therefore I conclude that the BN2 cars with the "Louvered bonnet" notation are correctly called "100M," and cars made prior to that are not properly labeled "100M" because the name had not yet been created when they were made. Again, please see the green section of the graphic at the beginning of this thread.

The Donald Healey Motor Company literature for the cars modified to 100M specs merely used the description "Austin Healey 100 with 'Le Mans' modifications" and did not use the name "100M." The earlier two editions of this brochure list "Three forward speeds" on the reverse where the car specifications are listed, so these were obviously prepared when the BN1 was the current model. There is no reference to 100M. This indicates that when BN1 cars was being modified as described below (the full "100M specification"), the name 100M was not yet in use.

[/IMG]​

Again, I don't see where we differ on the facts, but I don't choose to retroactively award the name 100M to cars made before the name was created.

Please enlighten me if I have missed some primary source document(s) on the subject. I always welcome additions to my reference library!

 

[magman]

I detect signs that this exchange has wandered a bit. Going over previous postings to see how that happened makes me wonder if you misunderstood my query about the model name 100M being established when Jensen started to pre-louver the bonnets. I totally agree that the louvered bonnets and the 100M started together. I said so in the above post. My interest was only directed to the 100M name coinciding with pre-louver as opposed to louvered. I wanted to know the source of this statement as I had not seen that as a “fact “ before. I am disappointed that you seem to feel I am choosing to ignore anything regarding this subject. Quite the contrary, I want to keep facts and opinions clearly separate. I thought there was a source that would substantiate what you stated, and if so I was interested. I see now it is a carefully formed opinion of both you and I suppose others. You certainly have made your case and I see the logic behind it. You are, by not allowing for any 100Ms before the 640 to be counted means you can see them as coincidental. It does leave the supposed cars that had to have their hoods redone at Jensen out of consideration doesn’t it. I always believed there were some. Be that as it may, I am not trying to argue about it. If you hadn’t put that “pre” on louver I would never have thought twice about it. Asking me to provide documentation disproving what you said is like wanting me to prove a negative, I don’t have any. I was just asking you for your sources. I assume you have much more to refer to than I do.
I do find it interesting that the show car is the first to have the “louvered bonnet” notation and I gather a build date of September 5. This is the first time I have seen a date for that first notation. This does seem to mean that it was built about three weeks into BN-2 production. If we use 150 a week there were quiet a number of BN-2s built before it. Perhaps some of them were 100Ms without the notation? If that were the case the poor dears are sort of in limbo land and that is a shame. I am glad I don’t own one since I would feel cheated of the recognition my car would rightly deserve. One more thing, I do know BN-1s were never 100Ms. But BN-1s can be made to emulate 100Ms and besides they are 10% lighter and lots of fun to drive. I should know since I have one. And that is a fact.

 

[magman]

Thought you might like to see in here too.

 

[Editor_Reid]

You are, by not allowing for any 100Ms before the 640 to be counted means you can see them as coincidental. It does leave the supposed cars that had to have their hoods redone at Jensen out of consideration doesn’t it.

On the contrary. I am not "disallowing" or categorizing them as "coincidental" or leaving them out of consideration at all. They are represented by the green area of the graphic/continuum. I'm merely saying that they were made before the 100M was created, and therefore were not marketed and sold new as 100M, and therefore it is inappropriate to retroactively label them 100M. They are, however, difficult to substantiate since the production records for those cars no longer exist, while they do exist for the 640. And the market judges them as being of lesser value, even if documented, and thus they are shown on the continuum as of lesser value that the 640. That's all.

 

[Healey 100]

The primary source material that Reid consistently ignores is Geoff Healey's own book: The Healey Story published in 1996. For example, to quote from the book: pg 90: "The 100S was first shown at the 1954 International Motor Show with the 100M going on display at the 1955 Show. Production of both models took place well before these shows" (Emphasis mine).

That quote and others in the chapter devoted to the 100M specifically challenge the idea that the 640 "pre-louvered" cars from Jensen were the only factory built 100M's. I don't challenge that 100M's are rare cars that were modified at Warwick. But in view of Healey's own writings, I cannot accept and will continue to challenge the idea that there were only 640 cars built identified by Jensen records on pre-louvered bonnets.

I suggest reading the book and judging for yourself. It is loaded with great information about the 100M and all the fabulous cars produced by this team.