Maybe. But I just can’t get much worked up about how somebody uses a quote that in all likelihood isn’t even a legitimate quote. And if I was in the market for, say, a Series III car and saw that quote in an ad it wouldn’t sway me one way or another.
Me either: it truly is a discussion of how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
I have always seriously doubted il Commendatore ever said it.
1 Like
Why not? When I was in business I alway tried to work into every conversation that my competition was superior to me.
First of all thanks for calling me a “random person” and no it’s not! It’s not even close!
If you are unhappy about this very old topic, go somewhere else and leave us alone. Thank you. 
The only reason this topic was revisited by me was that some people, who also read or participate on this forum, took it up on www.ferrarichat.com.
That “discussion” included all the “basic” comments, like “it must have been a roadster with a hardtop” etc comments inclulding the SAME mistakes Jaguar and the JHT have made about the number of cars that were in Geneva in March 1961. There were THREE cars and there are details and links earlier in this thread form 2015, plenty of period photos form the Geneva show etc.
And again, and again for the record the car on the Jaguar stand in the show was #885005, and NOT “9600 HP” #885002. Both were/are Opalescent Gunmetal Grey but the car in the show had/has a Beige interior (that many Americans seem to call “tan” but Jaguar did not) but #885002 had a Black interior and was LHD back then, it was later converted to RHD.
BTW I did exactly the opposite you suggest, I went as close to the source of this quote as I could in March 2015 and wrote down what he (the late Norman Dewis, OBE) said to me when I asked about this.
What you are insinuating is very offensive and I would ask you to stop it.
I think we all have heard enough “opinions” about this quote, so please can we stick to the known facts. There is the video recording of Norman telling the story with about 80% of the exact same words he told me when I interviewed him at Stoneleigh in March 2015.
For the denialists nothing will suffice, but for the rest of us, there are many things that make this completely plausible.
Especially if you include the additional comments Enzo had said according to Norman:
“It’s a pity we haven’t done anything prettier.”
or
“What a beautiful car, it’s a shame we have not made anything more beautiful”
followed by the question:
“But you know there is something wrong with it?”
or
“But do you know, there is one thing wrong with it?”
-wait- What’s that?
"It does not have a Ferrari badge!’’
or
“There’s no Ferrari badge on it!”
-laughs-
Depending on who he was talking to and when. I don’t find those quotes inconsistent or totally unbelievable, some of my friends with more Ferrari knowledge say it perfectly well could have happened, and then there are some who say it can never have happened. I think there has to be some truth to it if it can even be found in the official Enzo Ferrari biography, although with s few differences and written much later, but the original main point remains: It tells us that at the time Enzo Ferrari considered the E-type to be the most beautiful car made (until then.)
Anyone who has tried to learn Italian knows that all of those may be correct translations, depending on which words were used and what they were trying to say.
We will never know! But I would not go as far as to doubt these things:
- Norman just made this up, Enzo never was at the Geneva 1961 show at all.
It would be nice if some Ferrari historian would get access to Enzo’s desk calendar from 1961.
I don’t suppose you would find a note there in Italian “go and chat up the folks on the Jaguar stand”, but if there would even be a hint of “il Commendatore” traveling to “Svizzera” or “Ginevra” I think you could pretty much nail it up. Case closed.
- Norman would not know as he did not speak Italian. Wrong, he did speak Italian, the guy had been to Italy in the 1950’s several times. He probably was not fluent, but if you spend a few weeks there, especially back then when no-one on continental Europe spoke English (except the soldiers at American bases), you can easily pick up a lot by just communicating with the local people.
Additionally, when I posed that question to Norman back in 2015 he said that Enzo (obviously) was not alone, but he had some person with him (actually it might have been two people, but Norman mentioned at least one, which I believe again was normal procedure for the directors of that era, they would not wonder around alone, but always had some assistant with them, be it a secretary, another director, or an interpreter) who could speak English and translate what was being said.
Now it must be very obvious that neither Ferrari (who had just gone public the previous year) nor Jaguar was going to write a memo about this greeting or chat, or much less make a press release or start promoting: “hey, have you heard what Enzo just said”.
Enzo and Sir William were about the same age, they were both seasoned, experienced old school businessmen with a passion for fast and beautiful cars. If they were there, why not go and greet one another? Especially after the stir caused by the unveiling of the E-type coupe (again NOT “9600 HP” which was outside in then park where Bob Berry had driven it, but #885005 as documented in period photos) why not go and congratulate your rivals like a gentleman.
If you don’t believe Enzo said anything like that, then don’t.
I met Norman only a few times, but enough to understand what kind oi a guy he was, and he was not demented, nor was he a liar. Yes, of course you would need to take some comments he made with a grain of salt, and in some case it may have sounded as he was making his role much bigger than it perhaps was (the XJ13 for instance) but he did race at Mille Miglia with (the now late) Sir. Stirling Moss, he did set a speed record with the XK120 at Jabbeke, Belgium, he did drive #850003 “77 RW” from Coventry to Geneva in 1961, and I am sure that when he told me, face to face, that Enzo visited the Jaguar stand at the 1961 Geneva show, together with 1-2 other people, he wasn’t making that up!
And also bad-mouthing any E-types should be banned on this forum, regardless of what you think.
It’s like telling someone their kid or wife is ugly or fat. Totally unacceptable and very, very rude.
Take care!
7 Likes
If the essence of the quote is also restated in Ferrari’s official biography (which I haven’t read) I’d more inclined to believe it than not. There’s no reason for the biography to include this if there were no basis.
Even if the biographer was a closet Jaguar fan, the estate or whoever oversees Ferrari’s legacy would be motivated to quash something like that if utterly fabricated.
Indeed, it may be some of the people who reviewed the drafts of the biography may themselves have heard Mr. Ferrari express sentiments like that, if not in the same words, so they let it pass. If they had never heard anything like that, or heard the opposite, it’s not hard to imagine them objecting.
Dave
Pekka, thanks for the concise non embellished facts as they are known. More of that world wide on many, many subjects would be very welcome today. If we could only get everyone to stick to the known facts. Not to say that what is believed to be fact has no error, we all need to be open minded to new evidence (new facts) but opinion and speculation are not facts.
pauls
3 Likes
…Spurlock for POTUS!!!
Pekka, thanks for that great write up. You’ve convinced me the conversation probably did take place and at least similar words were exchanged.
3 Likes
If you go back, and read my comments, you’ll see that I actually made a point of saying the other models aren’t ugly, but ‘different cars’.
But, if you want to believe that’s what I said, then that’s ok. Son much for “known facts”, I guess.
No, sorry, I didn’t get that. My bad. 
But as this (old) discussion that even here on J-L had been spread into at least three different old threads and people around the world on different Jaguar forums and ad now also on fchat were guessing who said what and when, including things like:
a) Enzo never was in Geneva in 1961.
b) Enzo was talking about the roadster (his biographer quotes a convertible, but again that is someone remembering what he had said a long time ago).
c) That “9600 HP” was “the car”. Sure it was “the car” that was out in the park that Sir William showed to journalists and people who got on a demonstration drive (additionally to the OTS / roadster “77 RW” form the next morning onwards) BUT the car on the stand at the show itself and in the Hotel / restaurant Parc des Eaux-Vives in Geneva was another car, #885005.
Now those were the main points. The rest is mostly for us anoraks. 
And I do dislike 2+2 bashing, in most cases it is just very annoying.
I find it always amusing how the Series 3 2+2 is suddenly a FHC (as that is what the factory called it) and THEN it’s ok for the same people who dislike the S1 and S2 2+2’s. :-o
Even Jaguar did not see much difference when back in 2011 at the time of the 50th celebrations they put a photo of a (really nice) Series 1 2+2 at the port of Southampton (IIRC) with “Queen Elisabeth 2” in the background onto their website to illustrate the 1961 Geneva launch. The ship was launched in September 1967.
I still think it would be nice if some Ferrari historian would be able to find some additional evidence about Enzo visiting Geneva in March 1961. I am sure his desk calendar and his notes and all his papers are kept somewhere.
So thanks everyone, and sorry if I overreacted in some ways, I was only trying to get the facts laid down and leave the most often repeated false myths out.
Take care!
2 Likes
That’s two of us.
I owned a 69 2+2 for 14 years and sold it before I bought the 69 FHC. In terms of comfort, usability, and versatility the 2+2 wins. Does it look bad compared to the FHC? No just different. And personally, I think Jaguar made a mistake in not converting the FHC and OTS driver and passenger floors to the 2+2 design after the 2+2 came out. The 2+2 design is much more comfortable, IMO.
Its actually the only E Type I’d want: I’d like an early 2+2…and people in hell want ice water!
Hi,
No they didn’t. (Make a mistake) That’s exactly what they did. All cars made 1971-1974 have the LWB, that is ALL V12 cars have the lower floor and longer wheelbase. (Which does make ground clearance even more of an issue) And as no one needs to sit behind the front seats they are even lower on the V12 OTS. That’s why I csn sit comfortably there all the way from Hamburg to Stockholm even with the hood (US = top) up.
Cheers
1 Like
Right, I said "after the 2+2 came out. I was referring to the 1966 to end of Series II production. The full recessed floor is just more comfortable, IMO. Jaguar could have adapted the 2+2 front floors to the SWB body styles.
Your analysis was very helpful Pekka, thank you.
Here’s one of my treasured times with Norman - raconteur par excellence - who enjoyed a good yarn. Even IF an occasional embellishment or figure of speech crept in, it was just as likely to be in order to boost his beloved marque and entertain his Jaguar ‘Family’, as he called us, as to boost his own role (and which of us hasn’t done that often enough?).
I think the photographer was Petronella Wyatt (?) of the JDC and she was kind enough to hide the dinged undertray. I was being awarded the Wooden Spoon for hitting the bank near the top of Prescott Hillclimb. Joe Hardy and I had started on a dry track and emerged from the dry tree-covered section onto a newly-wet stretch. The Getrag linkage snapped and I guessed wrong which gear we were in. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. Norman looks a little sceptical, no?
1 Like
Hi,
Ok, sure. Well they gave the option.
The LWB project was important because there was no way to put an automatic gearbox in the SWB body/drivetrain. That mattered a lot for the US market back then even if today we don’t like the automatic boxes that much.
Also for the OTS there was a BIIIIG production gap, as it took them some time to get the bigger and longer hood (top) using modern state-of-the art stuff (velcro!) which did not work as well as expected.
In 1971 they pretty much only made 2+2’s as my car is made Feb. 1972 and it is the 183rd LHD V12 OTS. Very shortly after that they added a press button fastener on each side to the front corner of the hood to body as otherwise it will start flapping loose.
Cheers!
Very cool Peter!
Yes, he made us feel like we were part of the family too, didn’t he. It was amazing how long he was around and always present in all those events in the UK, USA, Switzerland, France, Italy you name it.
Cheers!
1 Like
Petronel Payne. 20chars.
It took me a while to find my old Watkins Glen vintage pictures. Oscar Wilde said: “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.” Note that Enzo can be accused of mediocrity…
Enzo just built his own E type: These two were next to each other for a while at the Concour. Both were beautiful, little to choose between them. That Ferrari badge might win by a nose until you factor $'s into it. P1010050|666x500
1 Like
Looking at the two pictures of these two absolutely gorgeous cars, in my opinion, the Jag actually gets overall proportions and stance better than the Ferrari.
Since I cannot edit my post where I sated, "I doubt iL8 Commendatore ever said that. from Pekka’s strenuous defense of it, I’ll allow as Enzo said something close to it.
1 Like