Mr Gaines with all due respect;
It is my understanding that Mr Styles wrote the footnotes for 0139 in that registry, and what he was told by you an others back in 2010 is far, far from what is factually known today....
After all, if we took things printed years ago as fact, then I guess we'd all still believe that your car, #0001, was the "first '67 G.T. 350." That is your quote from a 2013 Mustang Monthly article, isn't it?
Yes, 0139's Production Order appears to be labeled "Co Car - Engineering Proto". So was #0131's. So what? We all know that both cars have a completed date of 12/7/66, and they'd both share the same deck lid and end caps. We also know that #0131 wore '67 styled fiberglass. Why is it so unimaginable for you to believe both cars ordered at same time and finished at same time were completed differently? Once again, your position is the one that requires extraordinary proof.
Regarding #0139's April 1967 theft invoice: Now you're talking about the second part of the car's life at Shelby (circa April 1967) -- after the car was upgraded with 68-styled fiberglass to serve as an advertising car. #0463 (the Acapulco Blue advertising fastback), #0131 (Little Red) and #0100 (the first GT500) were all updated with '68 styled fiberglass before they were sold to the public. Despite the term 'proto' used on a couple documents that refers to #0463 and #0139 these cars are far from actual prototypes ... unless you just down't understand what that word means.
Thank you
I believe you are missing the point on this 1967 shelby convertible number 0139, this was a regular production vehicle.
Where is your proof to the contrary? You are making the extraordinary claim.
Good morning,
Great point you make here;
"Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof"
Having said that, please post vintage pictures of your car or cars initially built at Shelby American. I mean if pictures are required for proof of legitimacy . Then every Shelby produced in the sixties, their owner should carry this burden of proof and provide their factory photo.
Thank you
No proof is needed or expected for regular production cars in normal configuration.There is nothing extra ordinary about that. You are ignoring the difference between regular production Shelby's and a extra ordinary claim for one that contradicts the record there is for it.
You are misinformed.You might want to do more research on this subject next time. This information is not secret and available to all. You can always pick up a copy of the 65,66,67 Shelby registry and be more versed on the subject . From the SAAC registry " Upon arrival it was designated a Company car Engineering Proto" on the production order dated 12/7/66". Further more SA factory paperwork referred to it while filling a insurance claim as "Repairs of Engineering 1968 Proto type convertible stolen and returned,April1967" . This is also in the Registry. I would say that is concrete proof that it is NOT a regular production car. If you still want to contend with the facts take it up with the SAAC Registrar Dave Mathews rather then posing more silly scenario's . Bless your heart. That is what you like to say in your posts isn't it?