I think the true essence of Rattletrap is in the story that Tony created around the car and it is that that I think John is valiantly trying to perpetuate. The trouble is that people are now so much more savvy regarding ancient VWs and there are some parts of the tale that just don’t wash, this might account for why the car ended up in an obscure Wild Fowl and Motor Museum in rural East Sussex and not in the factory museum in Wolfsburg.

The car (in it’s 60s and 70s incarnation) was clearly a ’53, the original chassis number confirms this, and in early editions of Beetling Magazine Tony referred to it as a ’53. But Tony’s mileage record related to a car that had been built in 1950. It wasn’t until the late 70s and maybe as late as the early 80s that Tony first hit upon the story of a prototype to explain that his ’53 had been manufactured in 1950, in an attempt to appease the vintage buffs who were now savvy to the progressive refinements and knew when the Zwitter production run began.

The chances of VW creating such a prototype for a run of 100 cars is pretty much zero, not least because there is absolutely no record of it, either official or anecdotal, but also that the logistics of building such a run that so closely resembled the production car of two years hence are unimaginable. :shock:

In many respects it doesn’t matter that the car was originally a ’53 because there almost certainly was a ’50 from which it inherited its mileage record and the two were not only genetically linked, but somehow fused into one by Tony’s tales.

Closer inspection isn’t really necessary as what’s left of 10 BXK now is merely spiritually representative of the original car, the question of the amount of metal dating back to 1953 is purely academic. The connecting thread in the whole Rattletrap tale isn’t the metal but Tony, and now a worthy successor in the form of John. There could be no one better suited to bear the Rattletrap baton! :beer:

John mentioned earlier that there were people wanting this thread closed and maybe deleted, he suggested this might be because of jealousy. I’m not one of those people, I think threads should be able to run their course, if I have an objection to this thread it is that it is responsible for perpetuating a number of untruths about the car which are likely to become perceived as truth if left unchallenged.

Mike 😎

Mike Peckham wrote:

This thread is going round in circles .All the pages from VWM have already been posted and disscussed at least twice before around page 11 .

Brilliant post Mike P :beer:

Sunroof53 wrote:

Thanks, guys:beer:

Rattletrap wrote:

Whatever Tony has said previously...the comments in his last post are spot on for me.

There's a story associated with this British Vintage VW and is doesn't matter what's been changed including the body shell, if it's black, is wearing 10 BXK then it's Rattletrap and should be exhibited at UK VW shows for many more years to come :!: :beer:

55Kab wrote:

I think the true essence of Rattletrap is in the story that Tony created around the car and it is that that I think John is valiantly trying to perpetuate. The trouble is that people are now so much more savvy regarding ancient VWs and there are some parts of the tale that just don’t wash, this might account for why the car ended up in an obscure Wild Fowl and Motor Museum in rural East Sussex and not in the factory museum in Wolfsburg.

The car (in it’s 60s and 70s incarnation) was clearly a ’53, the original chassis number confirms this, and in early editions of Beetling Magazine Tony referred to it as a ’53. But Tony’s mileage record related to a car that had been built in 1950. It wasn’t until the late 70s and maybe as late as the early 80s that Tony first hit upon the story of a prototype to explain that his ’53 had been manufactured in 1950, in an attempt to appease the vintage buffs who were now savvy to the progressive refinements and knew when the Zwitter production run began.

The chances of VW creating such a prototype for a run of 100 cars is pretty much zero, not least because there is absolutely no record of it, either official or anecdotal, but also that the logistics of building such a run that so closely resembled the production car of two years hence are unimaginable. :shock:

In many respects it doesn’t matter that the car was originally a ’53 because there almost certainly was a ’50 from which it inherited its mileage record and the two were not only genetically linked, but somehow fused into one by Tony’s tales.

Closer inspection isn’t really necessary as what’s left of 10 BXK now is merely spiritually representative of the original car, the question of the amount of metal dating back to 1953 is purely academic. The connecting thread in the whole Rattletrap tale isn’t the metal but Tony, and now a worthy successor in the form of John. There could be no one better suited to bear the Rattletrap baton! :beer:

John mentioned earlier that there were people wanting this thread closed and maybe deleted, he suggested this might be because of jealousy. I’m not one of those people, I think threads should be able to run their course, if I have an objection to this thread it is that it is responsible for perpetuating a number of untruths about the car which are likely to become perceived as truth if left unchallenged.

Mike 😎

Mike Peckham wrote:

Not to take anything away from Martin and all the others who have made such a great effort with lots searching and keyed-in info and advice, this tops the lot. I really don't think I could have written such a good piece. That's not to say I agree that that Rattletrap is not a '50, but reading this makes me think it matters not if he is a '50 or a '53 :beer:

Standard split wrote:

..... reading this makes me think it matters not if he is a '50 or a '53

Standard split wrote:

So like i said on numerous occassions.....send 'em the numbers,let's see the answers.

'50 Karmann wrote:

'tamtampamela' was easier to tolerate...

64rotbox wrote:

The body number is clearly marked and according to the Samba which is accurate, Rattletrap was born in 1950. :roll:

Rattletrap wrote:

…
So it is what it appears, a 1953 Zwitter!

I guess that’s all the hard evidence we need.

Mike :thumbup:

Mike Peckham wrote:

Here we go.

Rattletrap's chassis changes are well catalogued here, more especially under his dedicated thread which I'd request people to use in future. Rob has stated that he will unlock it upon request. Rattletrap is dated by his body number which unlike the chassis number is very clearly marked and shows no sign at all of being tampered with. This number specifies July 1950 as date of creation.8)

Rattletrap wrote:

EVERYONE HAS HAD ENOUGH,WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT ANYMORE.

'50 Karmann wrote:

Quite. Well, I'd love to hear more about the cars (the black '53) history, and it'd be great to see some photos now and again showing how your getting along with it. Some discussion about what was been replaced over the years, would make for interesting reading.

The problem arises when 8/10 posts on the site contain the same reheated drivel about the car. A real shame, as I'm sure most most on this site do actually like the car, it's a total bitsa, but an interesting one. Thats been ruined IMHO, by all this 'experimental Zwitter prototype' b%$&#£@s. You know as well as everyone else that it's utter rubbish, and although I have some theories I've not yet figured out quite why you insist on keeping that myth going.

Apologies as I've just made yet another post about this car.

:angryinternetface:

54 Gertie wrote: