One of the most exciting Bring a Trailer auctions ever went live on May 7, when a 1967 Porsche 910 (Lot 191750) was offered by a new seller, PSAutomobile. The listing was accompanied by over 600 photographs, and the auction would go on to rack up over 450 comments over the next two weeks.
From BaT (all quotes condensed and edited for style):
Serial number 910001… was the first of 28 coupes built during a single year of production and was among 12 examples initially built with power from a 2.0-L magnesium-case flat-6. Chassis 910001 made its debut as part of the factory Works effort with Hans Herrmann at the wheel in the Trento-Bondone Hill Climb in July 1966, en route to one of four top-three finishes in as many European Hill Climb Championship starts that year. In 1968, the car was sold to Porsche Works driver Rudi Lins, who campaigned it in endurance races through a 1968 season that was highlighted by a class win and 4th-place finish overall in the 1000 km of Monza. It was subsequently registered for street use in Austria by Lins in 1969 before being sold to theater costume supply heir Lambert Hofer, who continued to campaign it through 1970 with support from Bosch Racing in races throughout the U.K. and Europe. The seller’s father acquired this car in 1994 and commissioned refurbishment work that began in the early 2000s and was later resumed and completed between 2014 and 2019.
The listing went on to explain that the car was being sold out of Charlotte, NC, by the son of the owner, who is in Germany. The sale was said to include a 207-page book of history and documentation, an FIA Historic Technical Passport, the original Austrian registration, U.S. import documentation and the owner’s German registration.
An inauspicious start
Before the seller could even post a welcome note to bidders, someone asked if this was the same 910 that was offered in January at Mecum Auctions’ Kissimmee, FL, sale. About six hours later, another commenter answered in the affirmative, posting a link to the Mecum website, where the car was reported as a no-sale at $1.3m (Lot S265.1). The same commenter also stated that the sole previous 910 sale on BaT was in June 2023 at $2.5m.
The first serious bids came on the second day of the auction, when bidding reached $1,150,000. After a week, bidding had topped $1.3m.
While the initial post about the Mecum no-sale was the rumble suggesting the volcano was alive, the eruption came 10 days into the auction, on May 17. BaT user CabiglioGarage posted:
Now that this 910 has surfaced in a public forum that encourages open discourse, I think it’s time to ask a question that I’ve been sitting on for quite some time: How can there be two different cars both claiming to be Porsche 910001? The other that I’m referring to was offered for sale in early 2024 by the auction house Aguttes in France. It has long-term ownership history tracing back to Henry Payne III, a notable American collector and vintage racer, who owned the car from the 1970s until his passing in 2008. — Gianni Cabiglio
How 001 begat 001
The seller challenged this by claiming the other 910 was “a Bergspyder variant that also carried chassis number 001, but it’s an entirely different car,” suggesting it could have been restored or converted into a coupe.
Cabiglio pushed back. In a series of posts, he pointed out “discrepancies” in the chassis number stamping of the car being auctioned, and posted links to a YouTube video and a photo from the Revs Institute showing the Henry Payne 910 racing in the U.S.
The seller then got a little testy, responding, “Interesting. A photo with no reference to a chassis number, and a video uploaded just six months ago to a little-viewed channel, where is the actual evidence? Where are the hard facts?”
Again, Cabiglio responded, refuting the seller’s claims regarding the ownership chain, stating that there were owners of 001 beyond Lambert Hofer, including Walter Proebst, whose daughter has been on record about her father’s ownership. New concerns with the engine-number stamping were also raised.
Just when this back-and-forth seemed like it was going to devolve into a he-said, she-said, a third commenter entered the fray. BaT user Bugsta posted the following:
What I know, and this is proven fact: Verena Proebst has lots of pictures with her father and the car. The car left Austria in 1971. Lambert Hofer sold it to Germany to Walter Proebst but kept the papers. That is why he could sell them in 1994. Proebst sold to Hans Deffland in 1973, and he sold to Payne in 1975. Everything that Payne did was documented, even just when spark plugs were changed. After his death, the car was sold back to Europe. Now it is being restored.
There is one important detail on the story of 001 that almost nobody knew. When 001 crashed in Sebring, which was basically the first race of the car, it was so heavily damaged that it was not usable anymore. But as [Rudi] Lins was a Works driver (winning the European Hillclimb Championship in a 906), he was able to get a new car. [Chassis] 001 was wrecked, Lins pulled another 910 off the production line. The car was over-stamped with 001 to continue with the already done papers.
Bugsta clarified some details in a subsequent post, saying that nobody knew about the restamped car, including Payne, and that the Austrian paperwork should belong to the Payne car.
Backpedaling
So now there was at least a theory of how the world ended up with two cars wearing the same chassis number. Lins sold the replacement car to Hofer, giving him the Austrian documentation for 001. Hofer then sold the replacement 910 to Proebst, but did not give him the Austrian paperwork, as Proebst would not need it in Germany. The Austrian documents became attached to another car, possibly the original 001 that had been crashed. The seller’s father bought the car with the Austrian papers from Hofer in 1994. Meanwhile, Proebst’s car wound up in the hands of Payne, who raced it in the U.S. for many years.
The hubbub forced BaT to weigh in on May 18, announcing that the auction would be extended, “so we can confer with the seller and others who have provided details about this 910’s history.”
Rampant speculation continued apace, concerning not only the identity of the car but also its motor, after the seller stated that it had actually been rebuilt to 2.2 liters. Someone claiming to represent the owner of the other 910001 commented. So did the seller’s father, the actual owner of the car.
Then, two days later, BaT posted:
We would like to reiterate our appreciation for the knowledgeable commentary on this listing. We also very much appreciate the users who have reached out to us on the side to share their expertise on Porsche 910s. Due to everything that has come up during this auction, we have updated the listing to state that the car ‘carries serial number 910001’ and that its engine stamping reads top-to-bottom, rather than bottom-to-top as is generally seen on Porsche flat-sixes of the era.
Transparency is very important to us, and so we feel obligated to avoid subjectivity and speculation in our listings. We always strive to only state what is known or can be seen/verified. Sticking to the facts is not always as easy as it might seem with old cars, and this is especially true with historic competition cars.
BaT also added the following at the end of the listing:
To any potential buyer, please note that another Porsche 910 with chassis number 910001 exists. BaT has been contacted by people who represent that car… We have viewed private photos of the other 001 chassis stamping, and we are glad that all of this information has come to light so that bidders can be informed with as much fact as possible.
The auction was scheduled to close the following day. As might have been expected by that point, the sole further bid of $1,515,151, placed in the last hour, did not meet the reserve.
We’ll be continuing this story in an upcoming issue, with more observations and advice. Help me write Part 2! Send comments about these two cars, their values, how BaT handled the sale, what the seller should do now, or anything else to john@draneaslaw.com.
John Draneas is an attorney in Oregon and has been SCM’s “Legal Files” columnist since 2003. His recently published book The Best of Legal Files can be purchased on our website. John can be contacted at john@draneaslaw.com. His comments are general in nature and are not intended to substitute for consultation with an attorney.
