First, the bike could not have been a 1959 R60/2 because the /2s began in 1960. We still don't know if the bike was really a 1959 R60 or a 1960 R60/2.
So the dealer presented and sold the bike as an original with matching numbers, while knowing that it was some mix of /2 frame and engine re-numbered to match. And then when confronted with evidence, he admitted the deception and refunded the money.
I think that is all he is required to do. If you had visited the bike, discovered the deception, and decided not to buy, would you have likewise expected reimbursement for travel expenses? Would you expect reimbursement if you had flown in from the East Coast at even greater expense?
Once I made an overnight trip of 600 miles to look at an R26 that I found would not start and had a break in the frame under the kickstarter, so I didn't buy. Another time I made two overnight trips of 700 miles to look at a 9,000-mile R69US, which I would not have bought had I known it really had 30,000 miles. It did not occur to me to ask these sellers to reimburse my travel expenses.
Others of us have also traveled far to look at bikes that we did not buy because they were not what we were told or expected. The seller is not liable for our expenses.
You don't get told no until you ask but, personally, I'd chalk it up and move on.
Kurt in S.A.
'78 R100/7 '69 R69S '52 R25/2
The dealer may also be an innocent victim.
What's wrong with an R69US with 30,000 miles on it? Sounds like it was just broken in.
The bike was presented as having 9,000 miles in the hands of an ambassador who likely maintained and stored it well for much of its life.
Instead, the bike had numerous owners, had 15,000 miles on it back in 1985, and had been stored so badly that the mufflers were rusted off, the tank was full of rust, the floats had 45-degree watermarks from being leaned over, and the tank had been dented, repaired and clear coated. The seller had sent the bike to his dealer, who spent 4 months and $2,500 making the bike look and run good.
It took several months after purchase for me to gather the bike's history and it's cosmetic rebirth. I decided to have the engine rebuilt, whereupon the slingers were found to be almost full, and the cylinder to piston clearance indicated 30,000 miles. Nothing wrong with 30,000 miles, but it was not what I thought I was buying.
Instead of what apapeared to be a pristine original with 9K, I had paid top price for a typical hi-miles bike that been kicked around all its life and given a fixing-up.
We bought a 1959 R60/2 last week from a very reputable BMW dealer. I talked to the sales man three times on the phone before driving 300 miles one way to pick it up. All three time he insured me it was all original and all numbers matched. The bike was in great shape and ran good so I bought it last Wednesday. It took my wife and I 12 hours to pick it up. Thursday I'm on line looking for a few small parts and realized the VIN number is not right
A couple of emails and pictures to Bench Mark and I find out the numbers have been ground down and restamped and go to a 1952 R67/2. I called the dealer I bought it from and we agreed that they would take it back and refund my money for the bike, since they misrepresented it.
My question to you guys is, they gave me back the money I paided for the bike and picked it up but I am still out $220.00 I spent on a personal plate (R59 BMW), grips, repair manual, and gas to go get it.
Do you think I am asking for to much? I don't think it should have cost me $220 for a bike I don't have. If they had told me on the phone the numbers had been changed I would have passed on this one. And they did know they were changed
Or are they doing the right thing?
Sorry for the rant.