Boneschi retrocar

["John Hertzman" <johnhertzman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In AD9-0684 Ron Horowitz wrote, under the subject line "4R Zagato: Boneschi
version?", that "a friend sent a photo a while back of a Boneschi (I think!)
bodied version of the 4R that a friend of his had for sale. It was said that
the Boneschi was the first version." Ron followed (thank you!) in AD9-0699,
under the subject line "Boneschi Quattroroute" with addresses for three photos
of the car and quotes from a not explicitly identified source saying "The red
car is the prototype made by Boneschi and is the first Quattroruote! - - The
reason the 1969 factory 1750 replica is on a 101 chassis is because the
project was started in 1964 and it took five years to complete. But Boneschi
sold the project to the Quattroruote boys and the rest is history".

Interesting story, interesting car, nicer in some (but not all) ways than the
4R Zagato. It may be a quibble but I would question calling it a Quattroruote
or (same thing) a 4R. It could have been concurrent, it could have been a
precedent, it could be that the magazine got the idea from Boneschi (assuming
it was Boneschi) but if the usually accepted story is at all correct in its
broad outlines, that the magazine Quattroruote proposed the idea to Alfa and
to Zagato, it is hard to imagine that the magazine (or Alfa) would have gone
to Boneschi to build a prototype when Alfa had closer relationships to several
other coachbuilders, including Zagato, Bertone, and Colli, who could easily
have done it.

If there is documentary evidence that "Boneschi sold the project to the
Quattroruote boys", fine, it is a Quattroruote prototype (but I would think
Boneschi would have been unhappy that the work, and the money, then went to
Zagato.) If Boneschi built the car first, and Quattroruote saw it, liked the
idea, and proposed the project to Alfa and to Zagato, I would think it could
be called a Boneschi "Zagato" replicar and a source or precedent for the 4R,
but not a "prototype" or "the first Quattroruote".

I don't know whether Ron's two separate sentences "Straight from the horses
mouth or from the other end, you be the judge", and "Of course, if you really
want to know the truth, you can always ask Stu Schaller..." mean that Dr. Ing.
Schaller was a source for the information, but I find curious the statement
that "The reason the 1969 factory 1750 replica is on a 101 chassis is because
the project was started in 1964 and it took five years to complete." All other
sources agree that the production ended in 1967 (Fusi says 1968 on p.630-631,
but his production lists do not show 1968 cars), and I doubt that any
full-time coachbuilder, even a one-man back-alley shop, ever took five years
to complete a simple one-off.

But I could be wrong on all counts. Replicas, retrocars, and nostalgia cars (a
nice, useful term I gleaned from a British source) can be interesting IF well
done and IF not taken too seriously, but I find the genuine past, the genuine
present, and the possible future quite enough. YMMV,

John H.
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided