1969 Alfa Romeo Spider 1750 Veloce Round tail, twin Weber
A round tail Spider restored by a name the seller will not speak for
Overview
Compiled by Kept from the seller's intake answers, the documents supplied and published records for the model. The seller does not write or edit this section, and nobody from Kept has inspected the car.
This 1969 Alfa Romeo Spider 1750 Veloce is finished in Rosso Alfa over black and is offered from Somerset West by , who bought it in 2016 from the man who commissioned its restoration. It is a round tail car, the shape Pininfarina drew before the tail was cut off in 1970, and it shows 64,300km on twin Webers through the five speed.
The restoration was completed in November 2015 and the only record of it is the restorer's own written summary, which is published in full and unedited with the lot. Asked at intake what was replaced during that work, the seller declined, saying the summary is the restorer's statement and not his, that he did not watch the work being done, and that he will not repeat another man's account as though he could vouch for it.
What he did instead was photograph the areas the summary makes claims about. The boot floor, the spare well, the sills and the inner arches are all published, and the boot floor and spare well show evidence of previous repair under the paint, which the seller states plainly on the flaws list rather than leaving a bidder to find.
The car was converted from the original SPICA mechanical injection to twin Weber carburettors at some point before 2015 and the SPICA unit does not come with it. The file since 2018 is the seller's own and is complete: suspension in 2018, the cooling system in 2020, a clutch and rear main seal in 2023, and a pre sale service in August.
Model background
The Duetto and the 1750 Veloce that followed it are the round tail Spiders, drawn at Pininfarina with a boat tail that Alfa cropped in 1970 to make the Kamm tail cars. The round tail is the one collectors want and the price gap between the two shapes is significant, which makes body originality worth checking rather than assuming.
The 1750 brought the larger twin cam, and outside North America it ran on twin Weber carburettors while American market cars received SPICA mechanical injection to meet emissions rules. Converting a SPICA car to Webers has been standard practice for fifty years, usually because the injection was misunderstood rather than because it was faulty, and a car that has had it done is worth less to a purist and no less to a driver.
Alfa has deep roots in South Africa. Alfa Romeo assembled cars at Brits from the 1970s, the local club scene has run continuously since, and the specialist knowledge here on twin cams is better than it is for most European marques. That matters for a car like this one, because a Spider with an undocumented restoration is a car that needs somebody who knows where to look.
Essentials
- Lot
- KPT-099
- Year
- 1969
- Model
- Spider 1750 Veloce Round tail, twin Weber
- Mileage
- 64,300 km
- Transmission
- 5-speed manual
- VIN
- AR1470254
- Location
- Somerset West, Western Cape
- Seller
- helderberg_spider
- Seller is
- Private, second owner since the restoration
- Watchers
- 249
Seller interview
Before the car went live, the seller answered a standard set of questions plus a set our tools generated for this model from its documented failure modes. The full transcript is public, including anything they declined.
9 of 10 answered, 1 declined. A high score means the seller told you more, not that the car is better.
Inferred from the seller's answers and this model's known failure points. Nobody from Kept has inspected this car.
1 question the seller declined
What was replaced, repaired and retained during the 2015 restoration?
The restorer's written summary is the only account of the work. Kept asks the seller whether he can stand behind it.
Known flaws
The seller's own list of what this car needs money spent on.
- 01Asked what was replaced in the 2015 restoration, the seller declined to repeat the restorer's account as his own statement
- 02The restorer's written summary is published in full and unedited, and the seller has not verified any of it
- 03Converted from the original SPICA mechanical injection to twin Weber carburettors, the SPICA unit is not included
- 04Hood frame is original and the fabric is a replacement, the rear window is crazed
- 05Second gear synchro baulks when cold
- 06Boot floor and spare well were photographed and show evidence of previous repair under the paint
Service record
Documents & what's included
What physically comes with the car.
- 01NATIS registration certificate, in helderberg_spider's name
- 02The restorer's written summary of the 2015 work, published in full and unedited
- 03Invoices for every service from 2018 to 2025
- 04Photographs of the boot floor, spare well, sills and inner arches, published
- 05Original hood frame with the replacement fabric
- 06Two keys
- 07Roadworthy certificate issued within the last six months
Note from the seller
The seller's own words, published as written. The only copy on this page they control.
I bought this in 2016 from the man who had it restored. He handed me the restorer's summary, which is a page and a half and is in the documents word for word, and nothing else from that period.
I was asked what was replaced in the restoration and I said I could not answer for it. I did not commission it, I did not see the shell in bare metal and I have no invoices for it. Repeating what the summary says as though I know it to be true is exactly what a buyer would hold against me later. So it is published as his account and I have photographed the places it makes claims about.
Two of those photographs show repair evidence in the boot floor and the spare well that the summary does not mention. I have put that on the flaws list rather than hope nobody looks. Everything after 2018 is my own file and every invoice is there.
Comments & offers
6 comments · 2 offersA decline that amounts to I will not vouch for another man's work, followed by photographs contradicting that man's summary. That is not evasion, it is the opposite, and the reserve being met says the room read it that way.
The sills were the first thing I asked about when I bought it and I have had it on a lift twice since. Both sets of photographs are in the gallery, 2016 and August this year, so a bidder can compare them nine years apart.
The repair evidence in the spare well is normal on any Spider that has lived near the coast and it is the sills that decide the car. Those photographs look clean and the seams are the right shape.
Round tail with the Webers already fitted and no SPICA in a box. For a driver that is the better car and for a collector it is a discount. Worth knowing which one you are before bidding.
And then he photographs the boot floor and tells you it has been repaired, which the summary does not mention. That is the seller marking his own restorer's homework in public and it should be worth something to him.
Publishing the restorer's summary unedited and then refusing to adopt it as his own statement is a distinction most sellers would not bother to make. It is also exactly the right one.
Comments & bids
6 comments · 2 offersThe crowd checks the report. Offers post inline, and the seller answers directly. Most recent first.
A decline that amounts to I will not vouch for another man's work, followed by photographs contradicting that man's summary. That is not evasion, it is the opposite, and the reserve being met says the room read it that way.
The sills were the first thing I asked about when I bought it and I have had it on a lift twice since. Both sets of photographs are in the gallery, 2016 and August this year, so a bidder can compare them nine years apart.
The repair evidence in the spare well is normal on any Spider that has lived near the coast and it is the sills that decide the car. Those photographs look clean and the seams are the right shape.
Round tail with the Webers already fitted and no SPICA in a box. For a driver that is the better car and for a collector it is a discount. Worth knowing which one you are before bidding.
And then he photographs the boot floor and tells you it has been repaired, which the summary does not mention. That is the seller marking his own restorer's homework in public and it should be worth something to him.
Publishing the restorer's summary unedited and then refusing to adopt it as his own statement is a distinction most sellers would not bother to make. It is also exactly the right one.