1. I hold the ideal of a Registry in high regard. I refer to it frequently;
2. The Registry is a published document, widely referenced with presumptive credibility, with a Registrar, put out by a for profit organization. It is widely quoted in other media and auctions as a definitive source;
3. I full realize the registrar cannot authenticate every ‘voluntary’ submission. And I am all for getting information ‘out there’ and have no problem in putting info out unchecked initially. However, I do feel there is a de minimus editorial duty of fact checking when specific *significant* issues are brought to the Registrar’s attention. While not exactly a ‘reposing special trust and confidence’ the Registrar’s imprimatur can destroy the fidelity of your car and it’s resultant value which is one of the reasons the name of the Registrar (whomever it may be) is accorded credibility and elan throughout our hobby;
4. My previous posting had three announced sources: the Registry, the SAAC forum, and my personal inspection. I did not ask anybody to believe me: my post reports -with specificity- what I saw, what the Registry and forum have printed and implores any interested parties to make there own analyses;
5. ‘427 Hunter’ you need, like a big boy, to get out there and check for yourself before you question someone (such as I have done regarding the Registry’s description of 5S089), but, as a courtesy, I will herein post some unpublished images if 5S089’s shock towers/ front clip attachment detail.
Steve Algorri
SFM5S339
Addendum:
Vern, I will resist into being drawn in to any ad hominem duel. My concern is the fidelity of the Registry and the Registrar, whomever ever it may be. I bear no individual any animus. To the degree a name has been used it has been within a quoted quote, and/or penned by others. This is an important distinction. My concern is the relationship between the car and the Registry. Steve