When I initially produced my paper on the Export Moke subject the purpose was two fold, firstly to open the subject to discussion and comment and secondly to produce a final document with the correct level of production for this model, a range of vehicles which has suffered from misinformation particularly with regards to the build number for some time.
I have taken on board the comments forwarded and rewritten the Section 3 - Discussion and subsequently Section 4 - Conclusion.

The final document is attached for your reference and thank you to all who contributed.

This project is the first phase in verifying the build number of all vehicles built within the Mini & Moke range with the final step of updating my document "Abridged Build Numbers" which was published recently

_________________
Enjoy your Mini
Regards
John Sneddon

How do you get 301 of the 030COB1M12 built from 1201 to 1501 when 1201 is a YJBAB13R?



The earliest 030COB1M12 I have listed is 1303. https://www.moke.com.au/australian-moke ... n-view/356 Do you have any earlier?

If the last 030COB1M12 was 1501 then a total 1000 (YJBAB12R/13R and 030COB1M12) combined were built because these 3 prefixes shared the same numbering system.

You have 823 + 301 which is 1124.

It's because Mr Sneddon has concluded that 030COBM12 1201 to 1323 are different vehicles to YJBAB13R 1201 and above and so are counted separately. But, YJBAB12R 766 and YJBAB13R 766 (and also for 839, 910/920) are counted as the same vehicle for the 823 total, but are listed separately in his JPS database.

Peter Davis spent some 25 years administering the BMC/Leyland vehicle identification schemes and it was reliable and well documented. Things always didn’t go to plan in production, but such cases are rare. When production of Mini and Moke moved to Enfield, the attention given to vehicle identification was reduced (Peter was by then at Moorebank) and so vehicles like SS, LS, Moke tray tops, Californian, etc carried on with their Waterloo numbers 021 022 018 etc where things would have been easier for us if new YDO assignments had been made. By the time the Leyland UK 8 digit code came in (March 78 in Australia), the coding scheme was out of our hands.

I would agree that not so many people are interested in this topic, and especially for an obscure car like the Californian Moke YDO30. However, given the values of classic BMC/Leyland vehicles these days, identification is a key element of establishing bona fides of what is being sold. For example, last week, I’ve had someone send me their details what is supposed to be (and looks like) a Leyland Moke Californian, complete with removable grille and stamped 018FOB2 etc and Engine No 99H etc – but with an old style black and silver identification plate with the manufacturer stated as The British Motor Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd and the above details hand stamped on it. Incredibly, this vehicle was registered as a 1969 Morris! Have a look at the picture below. Here we have a Leyland vehicle which the owner purchased as a 4-83 model but with a now-obvious over-stamping the original 12/80 once I asked him to strip of the paint that someone had applied to hide the truth.

There’s bound to be disagreement between those interested in this detail and robust discussion is to be expected. If values of cars rely on this information, it has to be as accurate as possible.

Regards
Tony

I have been having an ongoing discussion with gtogreen1969 over the past couple of days which has been extremely well presented and offered in a very helpful manner. A big thankyou must go to him.

I have taken on board that information. By arranging my information in a slightly different manner a clearer picture will be presented. The important fact is that the build number for the Export Moke range ie YJBAB10 through to and including 030C0B1M12 is 1426 - details of the breakup will be within the amended document.

_________________
Enjoy your Mini
Regards
John Sneddon

Well, 1426 (!) is pretty close to the 1300 estimate by my colleagues and I so I'll agree to that. Perhaps while you re-organising your document you could attend to the YDO13 error in Note 2 on Table 1. I don't mind if you refer to my work, but I expect you to do so accurately.

I have amended my original entry as noted above with the revised documentation.

_________________
Enjoy your Mini
Regards
John Sneddon