Not surprisingly, I prefer the full-disclosure route. If I didn't, I couldn't publish the magazine with knowledge that I was witholding information delibrately from the readers. While we sometimes make mistakes, I publish all relevant information I can find.
Of course, once it is published, people treat it as gospel - "it is written , therefor it must be true". I know there are people who believe everything written in Pedre Davis book, Spotlight On Mini Minor Down Under, even though there are some glaringly obvious mistakes, and some information which has subsequently been shown to be incorrect, even though it has always been considered correct.
Our magazine is a living document - by that, I mean it is always being updated and where errors are found, they are usually corrected in following issues. However, it is only natural that some people will read something, and not see, or take in, any correction that follows. To them, the first point is gospel.
That is why I try to make my research as thorough as humanly possible.
I have a number of problems with the non-disclosure route.
Firstly, if the information is on hand with someone, who is not prepared to share it openly, then it takes a lot more work to try and find the information from other sources - sometimes relying on memories alone, which can be difficult after so many years. Also, many of the people with the information stored in their head are getting older, and sadly many are no longer with us. Unless this information is collected for posterity it will be lost with the people who currently posess it. Hoping your heirs will see value in a pile of papers on "those bloody old Minis" and pass it onto other people with an interest to do something with it all, is possibly blind faith. Just because you see value in it, doesn't mean other people will.
It also means that every time someone wants the information, they have to effectively go and re-invent the wheel. I see many such threads as this on Ausmini, of people wanting to identify Minis, and every time it is the same flow of information, usually from the same people. Having a single place to look up such information will not only save the enquiree a lot of time in trying to find the information, but will save everyone else with information from having to repeat it all every few weeks, to satisfy the interest of some new member of the forum.
As for the production of fake cars - the provision of information has a much greater positive impact on people wishing to identify cars, to avoid being caught buying a fake vehicle, than it has in a negative effect in giving information to the fraudsters who wish to make fake vehicles.
The way things are today, just about anybody can find enough information to know that Cooper S, for example, are different from the run-of-the-mill Mini, and what the major differences are. It is therefore fairly simple, and has always been so, for people intent on selling frauds to do so. While they will not be able to catch out true enthusiasts or experts, they will always get people with a little knowledge to believe the car is genuine.
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. The more knowledge a person who is looking at buying a car can arm themselves with, in making sure they can identify even minor points on a vehicle to ensure its authenticity, the less likely they are to getting caught by a fake.
If people who intend to defraud others with fake vehicles realise that the information is freely and readily available, then they are going to either give up the idea of trying to con innocent purchasers, or will have to put so much work in to make sure their fake meets all the little nuances, that it will no longer be economically viable.
If a register, such as the one I am trying to put together, exists, which lists as much detail as possible about how a car was made, or what were the "normal" trim patterns, colours, etc available for a particular model, then people will have somewhere to go, as a starting point at least, to identify if a car they are looking at purchasing, is genuine.
When we publish articles about identifying various models, we ocassionally (and I have to admit, due to the amount of research that goes into each feature, it is a relatively rare happening) get feedback indicating mistakes that have been made. Unfortunately, some of these are from people who claim to have conflicting proof, and who knew the story was coming up, but who didn't volunteer the information prior to the story being published. "I'll wait and see if he gets the story right" seems to be the attitude.
It seems pointless in this sort of case, to then contact us and say we got it wrong. Either put the information out there for us to acces and to divest to our readers, or keep quiet about it. Don't wait until we publish and then tell us we got it wrong, especially if you are then not prepared to give us the information to make the corrections in a later issue.
Don't take this to mean I don't wnat to know when we make mistakes. Far from it. Every bit of information we get adds to the overall picture and helps complete the puzzle. There are a number of our readers who are themselves researching verious aspects about their own cars. In many cases, as they discover new and interesting information, they pass it onto me, so I can put it in the magazine.
Of course, not everything goes in as soon as I get it. some information is pertinent to stories that are in the pipeline, and this new information helps to make the story more complete.
I have also spoken to a number of people over the past few years who claim to have original BMC/Leyland factory documentation about Minis production (and other cars), but who won't share the information because they are "writing a book". Frankly, if anyone is considering writing a book on the the production history of the Mini, and feels that sharing any of the information prior to the book being published will ruin their market for the book, then there isn't much substance or depth to the book. A book needs to be far more than a list of facts and figures to be of interest.
If you truly are writing a book, then write it. Get the information out there. Arm the masses, as it were. If not, someone else will.
I have a great deal of respect for Gordon Smyth in Western Australia.
Gordon planned on doing a book on Moke production in Australia. In fact, he had got a fair way in the planning of the book, some of the chapters to be included, and even basic layouts for some pages.
After more than 20 years, he realised the book just wasn't going to happen. He recently contacted me and offered me all his material on Mokes, which I now have. He wanted the information to be available to all Moke enthusiasts, and said there was no point him taking it to the grave with him.
Some of this information, and some of the photos, have smashed some long-held beliefs about Moke production, and opened my eyes to a fair bit that I never knew went on.
Some of this material has already been used. Some will be in the next issue, and most will eventually filter through the magazine as it becomes relevant to stories being looked at. It has also helped with some material to do with Minis, as the prodcution was so closely linked.
I would love to write a book about Mini and Moke production in Australia. Will it ever happen? Perhaps. Will giving the information out before-hand, through our magazine, make it any less likely? Absolutely not. Even if we managed to get the whole Mini story, in its entirety and every little detail, published in our magazine (a lofty, but probably unattainable ideal) there would still be a market for a book that brings it all together in one easily obtainable form.
Would having the information available on a website make the book any less markatable? Not at all. A website is a good place for such information. A living document, even more so than our magazine. A book gives the writer an opportunity to go into the minds of the people behind the scenes, to flesh out the facts and figures, to reach conclusions.
One of the most informative websites for information on the history of BMC-Leyland-Rover, anywhere, is unquestionably the Unofficial Austin Rover website -
http://www.aronline.co.uk/
Does this website make books on the history of BMC-Rover, etc any the less in demand? It would seem not, with so many new books still coming out.
People are hungry for information, and many writers, publishers, etc are realising that there will always be a market to give the people what they want.
The Mini communtiy is basically a fairly small and close-knit one. The sharing of information openly will only serve to strengthen that community.
We have all been appalled at the number of Minis being stolen recently. The recovery of Leo and Maragaret Jack's Moke last year showed what can be achieved when we all work together. The crooks realised with all the publicitiy the theft had attracted, and that virtually every Mini or Moke enthusiast in the country was aware of the car, that it was simply too hot to handle, and left it in a side street to be discovered by the police.
If information about what makes a car genuine is available to everyone, then the crooks will realise the game is up, and it is not worth trying to pass off the fakes. They will still do what they do, but maybe they will look at other, less-informed, vehicle markets. I'm sure there will always be people stupid enough to think that shafting people is good business, but I would hope that those people would be too stupid to be able to build cars to fool well-informed prospective buyers.
There ends my rant.
Cheers,
Watto.
). They would only really need to do a search on google for differences in Cooper S's or the GT site (which mentions what makes a Gt a GT in detail).
