What is a "Dealer 100M LeMans?"

[CLEAH]

So, this is interesting. It seems that the newest way to create some haziness about a 100 that has been recently converted to a 100M replica is to call it a “Dealer” or “Dealer Prepared” car. I had to read this listing several times to figure out what they are saying:

https://www.auctionsamerica.com/events/feature-lots.cfm?SaleCode=FC13&ID=r402

They seem to be careful to tell the story of the difference between a 100M and a 100 LeMans, but they elevate the phrase “Dealer Prepared” to a proper designation, even though they admit the car was recently converted, which means the original dealer had nothing to do with it.

I wanted to think that they are just getting their terminology confused until I read this statement:

“The other are Dealer 100M LeMans cars. Cars completed at the dealership or anytime thereafter that have been totally converted, and done so correctly either in period or in recent years but to exact standards.”

Couple that with their actually referring to this car as “Dealer Prepared” and in my opinion they are trying to create something that does not exist. Seems odd also that the reproduction louvered bonnet was stamped with the body number. Why they don’t call it what it is, a 1955 100 converted to 100M specifications, and leave off all the tortured explanations?

Am I missing something here?

 

[RandyHicks]

There never was an Austin Healey designated as a "Dealer M" or "Dealer 100M" or any combination like that. Only the 640 factory built 100M's can be designated as 100M's. There were some BN1's built by DHMC "with Le Mans Modifications" but only one, that I know of, that has documentation to back it up although there are several listed in the AHCA 100 Registry.

Same discussion was on the Healey List last night.

 

[dougie]

Nice car either way. Especially since Rich did the initial restoration.

 

[Editor_Reid]

.
Lots of non-sense in that narrative; painful to read. In my opinion, that essay is attempting to elevate what is essentially a clone to some higher status that will put the car on a par with the 640 100M cars and thereby command a higher price and therefore a higher commission for the auction company. We do not know if it that narrative was created by the auction company or the consignor, or perhaps it was composed by the auction company based on input from the consignor. In any case, it is yet another episode of confusing potential buyers on the whole subject, and therefore, in my opinion, unfortunate.

A prediction: One of these days all of the misrepresentation of these cars is going to cause enough uncertainty and confusion that a major devaluation of all of them will occur, including the 640 legitimate 100M cars.

P.S. It's a very lovely car, and any car done by Rich Chrysler is a Healey that anyone should be honored to own. There is absolutely no need to exaggerate its specifications or provenance; a Rich Chrysler restoration speaks volumes by itself.

 

[DerekJ]

The auction company is owned by RM. that says it all.

 

[bighealeysource]

Just another example of "cavet emptor" with a creative copy writer for the auction company. Looked this morning and apparently did not sell as states "still for sale".

 

[Patrick67BJ8]

Perhaps it's time to give the non-factory "M's" a term that will not be intended to lower them in status but to provide a satisfactory term worthy of them?? I've been watching this Factory M and non-factory M discussions for years and it's about time to seriously address it(actually, it's past time to address it). There are the original "S" and then there are "fill in the blank "S" models that have been recreated.

Maybe the AHCA might consider this topic at an eleated priority at their Delegates Meeting next month(which I will attend)???

 

[Bob_Spidell]

A few years back there was some consensus--on this forum and the mailing list--that non-factory 'Ms' should be designated 'Austin-Healey 100 with LeMans Modifications' or, simply '100LeMans.'

 

[CLEAH]

Bob,

The designation "Austin-Healey 100 with LeMans Modifications" is likely the best and most accurate description. Another that the vintage car world would readily understand is simply "100M Recreation."

Actually, to be fair to the car, it apparently received the full conversion including the pistons, so perhaps for this car the proper designation is 100M Recreation. Agree that AHCA should give guidance.

 

[RandyHicks]

Bob,

The designation "Austin-Healey 100 with LeMans Modifications" is likely the best and most accurate description.

I have to disagree with this. It would just confuse matters. The DHMC @ Warwick produced and marketed a number of BN1's as "Austin Healey 100 with "Le Mans" Modifications" before the 640 100M's were named or marketed. See attached sale brochure (there is also one for the 4-speed.). At least one BN1 is documented as such, although more are very likely to exist.

I think that "100M Recreation", "100M Tribute" or "100M Clone" is more accurate for the Auction America car.

The cars with true "Le Mans Kits" installed by dealers, in period, are another whole class that never had a factory designation.

Randy

 

[HealeyRick]

I wonder if all this gamesmanship in advertising really has any effect on serious buyers. If I had $200k to spend on an M, I'd really want to make sure it was authentic. And does someone paying $100k for a car with LeMans options really get fooled by these ads into believing they are buying an M? I read stories about folks who go to auction and buy whatever catches their eye without doing a lot of research so maybe it happens. Wonder if there has been any litigation following the purchase of some of these cars?

 

[bighealeysource]

Excellent idea from Patrick about having AHCA address it at the Delegates meeting coming up soon. I think 100 LeMans Conversions is the best way to refer to these LeMans modification cars. That's also the way the 100M Registry refers to non factory cars. Might be good to be consistent with Bill Meade's efforts. Bill also has a category for cars converted prior to 1970 and currently has 14 cars listed like that but most all - now 167 cars- are listed simply as LeMans Conversions.
Regards,
Mike

 

[HealeyRick]

Excellent idea from Patrick about having AHCA address it at the Delegates meeting coming up soon. I think 100 LeMans Conversions is the best way to refer to these LeMans modification cars. That's also the way the 100M Registry refers to non factory cars. Might be good to be consistent with Bill Meade's efforts. Bill also has a category for cars converted prior to 1970 and currently has 14 cars listed like that but most all - now 167 cars- are listed simply as LeMans Conversions.
Regards,
Mike

Frankly, I don't think the auction houses really care what designations are given to these cars by the registries or Healey clubs. They seem to live in that shadow world where they benefit by ambiguity. Descriptions seem to be written to hint at certain attributes of a vehicle without actually crossing the line into fraud. "Puffery", I believe is the term.

 

[Editor_Reid]

.

Frankly, I don't think the auction houses really care what designations are given to these cars by the registries or Healey clubs. They seem to live in that shadow world where they benefit by ambiguity. Descriptions seem to be written to hint at certain attributes of a vehicle without actually crossing the line into fraud. "Puffery", I believe is the term.

Hear! Hear! Although I have seen several car descriptions in auction company catalogs that, in my opinion, cross the line from puffery into fraud and misrepresentation.

I feel strongly enough about this subject that I recently contacted RM Auctions and offered to review - to fact-check - their Austin-Healey descriptions. Their catalog editor expressed gratitude and in fact I have already reviewed two such descriptions for them (although none of a 100M/Le Mans yet) and was able to correct some small factual errors.

I hope that they continue to send me these descriptions for review. It is not my job or my place to try to tone down their puffery - after all, they're trying to make money and so writing item descriptions that highlight the good qualities of the cars they auction is only natural - but I'll certainly let them know about factual errors or statements that I believe are misleading. Their thankful acceptance of my offer increased my already high respect for RM Auctions. If they've published misleading item descriptions for Austin-Healeys in the past - and I believe that they have - I would tend to believe that it was the consignor who provided the misleading details.

 

[Editor_Reid]

.

Maybe the AHCA might consider this topic at an elevated priority at their Delegates Meeting next month(which I will attend)???

I'm not sure that a Delegates Meeting is long enough to cover such a topic, or that anyone in the auction-catalog-authoring world would care what resulted anyway.

I have begun composing an updated article on the subject (the original article is here), and a main point of it is to explain that there is no such thing as a Le Mans "model"; rather, there is a large group of cars between the unmodified Hundreds and the 640 100M models, and these cars are of various specification and provenance - hardly any two exactly alike - but that they are merely cars with aftermarket modifications and to give them a model name is misleading. They're just cars that have been modified to one degree or another, at one time or another, by someone or another.

Patrick, see you at the Delegates Meeting.

 

[Healey 100]

Guess what, Healey friends. People can call a Healey whatever they want to, it is really beyond the control of this forum, the AHCA or anyone. Talk to the Classic Car Club. They wasted a lot of money on legal fees trying to get people to stop using Classic Car to describe what they felt were non-classics. They finally gave up. Personally, I grate on the term 100-4, something the Healey 100 was never called. But folks(even me I will admit) continue to use the term anyway. Regarding the RM car, I read the write up. It is a beautiful car and there was no attempt to claim it was anything but a car fitted with 100M mods after the fact. I see no problem with it at all. There will always be a little haziness about the 100M, especially with Geoff Healey's documented challenge of the 640 factory 100M numbers in his own book.

 

[CLEAH]

Reid,

Since Autions America seems to be a part of RM, any chance you can intercede and fix the nauseating description of this car? Though doing so will completely change how they are marketing the car, but it will be better for it. It is a beautiful car that needs no puffery, and certainly needs no stretching of the truth...

 

[John Turney]

One thing that I noted is that the 2002 restoration by Rich Chrysler and resulting gold concours came before the Le Mans conversion. They don't mention who did the conversion, so I assume it wasn't by Rich.

That also brings up: how long is a gold certificate valid?

Final point: Is the interior now the persimmon color?

 

[Healey 100]

Final point: Is the interior now the persimmon color?

FWIW, my own BN1 with body number near this one (5211) was originally OE White and had shreds of old worn leather under the replacement seat covers. That leather was that orange color. Never knew it was called persimmon!

 

[Genos2]

Here's a pic of the cover of the 10 page brochure printed in 1953, that includes pics & details of "Le Mans Modification Kit" and many other factory available parts(back than), from shocks to springs to fuel tanks,etc. So I've had this since the early'70's. The "Le Mans" name was used. cheers