NOT MINE, but my friend John texted this to me tonight and asked me to post it on the forum. Here it is.
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/44-230121013100.jpeg)
Link - https://losangeles.craigslist.org/sfv/ctd/d/van-nuys-1965-shelby-gt350-trunk/7266281774.html (https://losangeles.craigslist.org/sfv/ctd/d/van-nuys-1965-shelby-gt350-trunk/7266281774.html)
1965 Shelby GT350 GT350 Coupe
1965 Shelby GT350 trunk battery "double digit" car
Exterior Color: White
Interior Color: Black
VIN: SFM5S089
License Plate: 562S
Mileage: 28,000
Engine: 289 K code
Fuel: Gasoline
Transmission: 4 Speed Manual
Drivetrain: Rear Wheel Drive
Title: Clear
Please Call for Our Price
This exceptional GT350, chassis SFM 5S089, is a highly desirable, early example of a true automotive legend. Starting with Ford's already exceptional K-code" Mustang fastback, Carroll Shelby and his team at Shelby American loaded the GT350 with numerous suspension upgrades and improved safety equipment, and beefed up the engine, adding approximately 35 horsepower over the standard Ford Hi-Po" 289 V-8. The result was a production class-racing powerhouse that easily met the challenge from other cars of the day, including the Sunbeam Tiger and Jaguar E-Type, as well as Ford's arch nemesis, the Chevrolet Corvette.
Shelby American produced only 562 of these tough-and-ready GT350s in 1965, and they are considered the most desirable and collectable among all Shelby Mustangsthe purest interpretation of Carroll Shelby's original vision. To this day, the GT350 remains an ever-popular choice for vintage racing and touring events around the world. Subsequent Shelby Mustangs became less racy and more about fast comfort, with smoother rides and larger engines, available with air-conditioning and automatic transmissions, as well as the addition of a convertible.
Shelby-Ford Mustang 5S089 is one of the earliest examples produced and is known as one of the double-digit" serial-number cars. These GT350s were the first 100 produced (numbers 015-113) for homologation purposes to qualify for SCCA racing. Due to the car's early production sequence, this example benefits from the trunk-mounted battery, which appears (approximately) on serial numbers 001-338. The battery relocation was found to be one of the more time-consuming modifications, and in the interest of saving time, it was left in the front of the car on later-production cars. In addition to the relocated battery, the early-production GT350s benefit from unique features, including their fiberglass hood design and construction.
This exceptional early-build '65 GT350 is presented without the usual twin racing stripes, but sporting modest steel wheels, a look which represented the purest form of the original GT350s, as seen in period PR photographs. Significant is the original body shell that displays the Shelby American modifications performed in just the one year of 1965. Historical research, along with supporting documentation, reveals that 5S089 was completed at Shelby American in late March 1965 and then shipped to the Ford Shelby dealership (Hayward Ford Motors) in Hayward, California, where it was sold new to a local owner. This was an original California-built and -delivered car with California black plates from new.
Tony Conover was commissioned to perform a very comprehensive, historically correct restoration in the mid-2000s. This outstanding GT350 has had a careful few miles since restoration. It presents in beautiful condition throughout and remains overwhelmingly authentic, including correct Goodyear Blue Dot tires and a four-speed T-10 aluminum-case manual transmission. The confidential Ford identification number has been verified with the SAAC, with a letter on file from Shelby Mustang registrar Howard Pardee, and this number can also be found stamped on the engine block pad, suggesting that this GT350 retains its original engine.
The 1965 Shelby GT350 is certainly classed in the upper echelon of American collectable automobiles. The opportunity to acquire an early-production, highly documented, authentic two-digit" example such as this is rare and worthy of serious consideration for any collector or enthusiast.
Prices are plus California sales tax where required. Sold as is, extended warranty available at extra cost. Inspections are welcome. We are a full sales service facility for all types of luxury, exotic and sports cars.
Contact Info:
5901 Sepulveda Blvd
Sherman Oaks, CA 91411
Neil 310 739 7180
https://www.rpmmotorcars.com/vehicle-details/07a116d22f9048eebc08df5c214810c7 (https://www.rpmmotorcars.com/vehicle-details/07a116d22f9048eebc08df5c214810c7)
I am just curious about something in general.
When the cars were sold new, was it commonplace for the front of the car to be a slightly different shade than the rear 2/3's of the car?
I see this more often with repainted metalflake paint (all makes and models) and understand how it occurs in that situation.
I also understand hoods and later fiberglass pieces in lacquer will be different.
Since it just sold at RM a few months ago at $417,500... One would assume the asking price is higher than that 8)
Aren't asking prices supposed to be posted?
2112–you are a cruel, cruel man. Cruel! : )
Quote from: Don Johnston on January 23, 2021, 01:10:40 PM
Aren't asking prices supposed to be posted?
Only in the "For Sale" sub-forum is what I can see. This is also just a Craigslist ad, but I included the text and picture so when the Craigslist ad expires we still have it here.
Quote from: Tinface on January 23, 2021, 01:17:55 PM
2112–you are a cruel, cruel man. Cruel! : )
If I was paying for a $6 figure restoration, and assembly line correctness was the goal, I would be ok with a 2-color car if that is the way they came originally.
Quote
When the cars were sold new, was it commonplace for the front of the car to be a slightly different shade than the rear 2/3's of the car?
I think that was on the cars with fiberglass parts that were painted in a different place than the Ford factory. This car should the fenders the same paint as the rest of the unibody...Someone correct me if I am wrong... ;)
TOB
Quote from: TOBKOB on January 23, 2021, 08:26:46 PM
Quote
When the cars were sold new, was it commonplace for the front of the car to be a slightly different shade than the rear 2/3's of the car?
I think that was on the cars with fiberglass parts that were painted in a different place than the Ford factory. This car should the fenders the same paint as the rest of the unibody...Someone correct me if I am wrong... ;)
Your correct that the fenders and other parts, individually painted body color were painted at approx the same time and from the same source as the unibody and the parts already attached to it at time of painting such as doors and trunk lid.
Hoods that would eventually be installed on the car much later at Shelby were painted later at Shelby
I spent most of today examining this car for a potential buyer. Specifically I was asked to inspect the integrity of the structure. I do not know the seller. The SAAC registry casts severe aspersions upon this car, stating without attribution: "In '72 the car had a straight front axle and the shock towers had been removed to install a 427 engine."
There was a three page thead on this forum two years ago on this car when the -then seller- reported that "...not aware of (possible) shock-towers removal until last week with Howard Pardee conversation - Have seen no pictures of any evidence of them actually being done - Howard said it was a planned removal and install of a 427 motor BUT IT NEVER HAPPENED." (italics and caps as per original poster). There has never been a corrective follow-up. OUCH.
As one who has done it, cleanly changing the shock towers on an assembled/installed front clip can be very problematic. The compound radii of the stampings at the mating areas, the drilling out of each of scores of original spotwelds and attendant cleanup/metal refinishing of each damaged area, the double sheetmetal overlays, the angles of which the original spotwelds were performed (dismounted vice mounted), the hurried imperfections of the factory spotwelds and the inherent problem of the 'new' spotwelds being in the same line of sight of other originals is an area wherein you have your 'doers' and your 'talkers'.
Regarding 5S089: all sheetmetal stampings comprising the front clip from the core support through the floor frame supports were all date coded corrrectly centering on Dec 10 64; all spotwelds were visible and consistent, all of the sheetmetal flanging showed no signs of workmanship and was of uniform thickness. VINS/SAI handstamp intact, There was some undercoating (w incorrect stipple) but all factory joinery clearly visible and nowhere was it 'glopped' on to perhaps obscure scrutiny (I am also aware of the high level of craftsmanship produced by the Conover shop).
I'll leave it to fellow forum jockeys to opine, but if anyone is interested in a high-end 65 they may be well advised to either themselves or hire/obtain inspection expertise for a dispassionate first person analysis. The Registry put a hit job on this car, perhaps decreasing it's value ~30%??, the SAAC Registrar seemingly acknowledged the hit job, and let it stand (if the info in the 2019 SAAC Forum thread were to be true ??). Who knows where the truth lies when dealing with forums and 'Registrys'?
A couple other quick subpoints on aforementioned areas: the radiator is a Y2 W-MO 12-64, the paint is of uniform coloring throughout, and the hood -which is a fiberglass/fiberglass porthole mesh- is fitted way better than any original. There are areas of restoration accuracy for another discussion.
Thanks for the great info, +1 ;D
Don't know if the person who wrote up the listing is part of the "uninformed", but why do some of these used musclecar dealers call the early Shelby's coupes? ::)
Looks like they want... $529,995.... Or... DID 8)
1965 Shelby GT350 for sale in Sherman Oaks, CA | Vin #: SFM5S089
https://www.rpmmotorcars.com › vehicle-details
Engine: 289 K code. Fuel: Gasoline. Transmission: 4 Speed Manual. Warranty: As Is - No Dealer Warranty. Title: Clear. VIN: SFM5S089. Internet Price: $529,995
Quote from: 69mach351w on January 24, 2021, 12:55:53 PM
Don't know if the person who wrote up the listing is part of the "uninformed", but why do some of these used musclecar dealers call the early Shelby's coupes? ::)
Believe that certain national and international auto organizations and regulatory agencies classify all closed two door bodies as coupes.
Interesting how far off the vin is from the cut out and how the star is not open with clean star in center. Does anyone have a photo of off center vins on other 65 gt350's? Also is that a silk screen tag? I can't tell if the letters are raised.
Quote from: 427hunter on January 24, 2021, 02:50:26 PM
Interesting how far off the vin is centered from cut out and how the star is not open with clean star in center. Does anyone have a photo of off center vins on other 65 gt350's? Also is that a silk screen tag? I can't tell if the letters are raised.
Not terribly uncommon to see. This one is more off center than usual though.
The pass side stampings are the most "off" on early 65s generally- being fully exposed and not under the fender as usual.
Kind regards,
Vern
I would also add to this thread that Howard Pardee is one of the most respected figures in this hobby.
The registry can make mistakes but the registrars do their best with what is supplied to them in terms of information on the cars. Personally, I cant imagine doing the job they do...trying to parse through the BS and the truth, trying to treat everyone and every car impartially, trying to be a resource for all in the hobby. I have come across so many examples of times where owners and general enthusiasts have contributed false information (positive and negative pertaining to the cars) to the registrars. It is a shame that it happens...but it happens all the time. Its a flaw of human nature that someone like a registrar has to TRY to combat on a daily basis.
Further, I cant even begin to imagine the amount of time they give so that all of us can be more well informed on the cars and their histories.
All that to say- IF what is written in the registry is untrue- I'm sure Howard is willing to correct the record. Ive personally helped histories of cars get corrected alongside Howard when it is determined that what is in the registry is not accurate. I am also certain that Howard would have had VERY good and what he determined to be reliable, factual information on the car before he wrote what is written in the car's entry.
Again, mistakes happen......but I think we can all start off by agreeing that a guy like Howard is not going to put a "hit job" on any car intentionally.
Kind regards,
Vern
Are Philips headed bolts or screws correct for holding on the oil pan? I would not think you would be able to get enough torque on them without rounding them off. Also I find it hard to believe but the car was driven only slightly more than 500 miles a year on average. It states the car has 28,000 miles on it when the odometer shows over 29,000?
Roy
Quote from: Vernon Estes on January 24, 2021, 03:04:56 PM
Quote from: 427hunter on January 24, 2021, 02:50:26 PM
Interesting how far off the vin is centered from cut out and how the star is not open with clean star in center. Does anyone have a photo of off center vins on other 65 gt350's? Also is that a silk screen tag? I can't tell if the letters are raised.
Not terribly uncommon to see. This one is more off center than usual though.
The pass side stampings are the most "off" on early 65s generally- being fully exposed and not under the fender as usual.
Kind regards,
Vern
I so far have not been able to find a good 65 off set like this, also the star stamp does not look right (maybe it's paint) but it looks off, also the tag (maybe it's just the photo) but it looks flat not raised. It's interesting that these vin issues appear on a car that Howard says was modified for a big block.....
Hello everybody i am the seller of this car, and i would invite prospective purchasers to to come and inspect the car, i have a rack at the dealership and i will happily answer any questions, it would seem based upon an inspection by a knowledgable expert yesterday that the inner front sheet metal is factory original with correct date codes and factory spot welds. This would suggest that the information in the registry is incorrect. The shock towers have never been cut on this car. The VIN stamps are correct with the correct stars. If anyone has any questions please email me.
thanks
neil
Quote from: 69mach351w on January 24, 2021, 12:55:53 PM
Don't know if the person who wrote up the listing is part of the "uninformed", but why do some of these used musclecar dealers call the early Shelby's coupes? ::)
no not uniformed the software that processes listings does not have a fastback button only coupe so thats why you see that
Quote from: TA Coupe on January 24, 2021, 03:56:06 PM
Are Philips headed bolts or screws correct for holding on the oil pan? I would not think you would be able to get enough torque on them without rounding them off. Also I find it hard to believe but the car was driven only slightly more than 500 miles a year on average. It states the car has 28,000 miles on it when the odometer shows over 29,000?
Roy
Yes phillips head screws were OE for the earlier cars. They transitioned later in 65 to the typical hex head. it probably transitioned when Ford started adding the Cobra items. I have a belief the phillips head had to do with the tight clearance between the fastener and the oil pan sides when SA was installing oil pams. Trying to get a socket on the bolt head can be difficult. The philips head on the other hand provides easy access. You don't need a lot of torque on a oil pan gasket 10-15 pounds which can easily be obtained with the phillips head
thank you "camp upshur " for letting us know the true about 089 ,i have been offered this car and i didn't go for it cause of the" 427, straight axel " story in the registry .For me the sfm plate looks original , and the ford stamping looks fine to me too. 089 looks like a nice car and i think it deserve no more suspicions , i agree to talk about a car for concours correctness , but not putting some shadow on it with out some personnal inspections from somebody with the knowledge ,"camp upshur" inspected it and in 2020 the story about it should be corrected in the registry.
I sent a pm to the consigner and he said is going to post photo's in this thread of the date codes on the inner fenders, better photo's of the tag (also checking to see if the lettering is raised or not) and a clear photo of the exposed portion of the vin number.
No offense to "camp Upshur" but it would be very strange to disregard the registry and what we can see as potential issues based on his statement without any evidence to support it - in effect he is doing the same thing he is complaining about with the registry - making a statement without any proof.
I don't know why "Camp Upshur" has bad blood is with the registry, but on two 67's and one 66 that I looked to buy in the past, the information given was spot on correct and saved me from buying air cars.
I agree with the above post. I don't think that you can simply discard the information in the registry entry short of extraordinary evidence. Again, I'll reiterate that generally things don't get included in the registry unless Howard believes he has reliable information to go off of. Even with proper date codes being supplied on the car by the seller (assuming they are posted)- that doesn't prove anything other than the car currently has the correct date codes in the front of the car. An example of "extraordinary evidence"- how about some pre-restoration photos?
That said, I want to make clear that I am, in no way whatsoever, motivated to cast dispersions about the car. I have no motivations here other than to defend the registrar.
I'd recommend that anyone interested in a car like this to get in touch with guys who have owned and inspected many 65s. Those guys might be inclined to point out specific details on cars privately which they would feel are improper for sharing on a public forum.
Kind regards,
Vern
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
Quote from: camp upshur on January 25, 2021, 01:50:00 PM
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
Ha ha ha, you will "resist ad hominem attacks" and then you use them.... to quote the princess bride "You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means."
Here are some of the front sheet metal date codes as requested
Neil
and some more
and the VIN tag that has raised letters. If anyone wants more pics let me know
thx
neil
I hope this doesn't devolve into defending Steve or defending Howard. I think Steve Algorri (camp upshur) and Howard Pardee (1965-66 registrar) are both doing this community a service. Howard does a great job with the Registry, and Steve is doing a great job providing first-hand information about a specific car. I see no problem with either of those.
Keep in mind that no one is perfect. I bought my car in 1979 and still own it. I quickly informed SAAC about my purchase and was listed as the owner in the 1987 Registry. Imagine my surprise when the 1997 Registry came out showing someone else owning my car. I contacted Howard and got things straightened out. But until the next printing, the Registry had false info about my car. Why? Because one person gave Howard the name of a new owner. And no effort was made to confirm or refute that information. Had I not spoken up, that false info would still be there - in the printed Registry and in Howard's data about my car.
Was I disappointed? Yes. Was I angry? No. Howard is one of the nicest, most honest and helpful people I've ever met. But he's not perfect and neither is the info in the Registry. And it's not fair to hold him or the Registry to that standard.
I thank Howard for the hard work he does on our behalf, and for the honest and ethical way he performs those duties.
And I thank Steve for sharing the first-hand information he has learned about this particular car – 5S089.
As more people get to inspect this car in person more facts will come to light. If those facts prove the current Registry information is accurate, then that's fine. But if those facts prove the current Registry information to be wrong, then I feel certain a correction will be made.
My two cents,
Steve Sloan
one more
Compare San Jose 65 vin star on this t code San Jose car I found on the internet to the 65 gt350 star.
Here is a k code vin..
The star on the gt350 vin does not appear the same as the other two.
Quote from: SFM6S087 on January 25, 2021, 07:06:32 PM
I hope this doesn't devolve into defending Steve or defending Howard. I think Steve Algorri (camp upshur) and Howard Pardee (1965-66 registrar) are both doing this community a service. Howard does a great job with the Registry, and Steve is doing a great job providing first-hand information about a specific car. I see no problem with either of those.
Keep in mind that no one is perfect. I bought my car in 1979 and still own it. I quickly informed SAAC about my purchase and was listed as the owner in the 1987 Registry. Imagine my surprise when the 1997 Registry came out showing someone else owning my car. I contacted Howard and got things straightened out. But until the next printing, the Registry had false info about my car. Why? Because one person gave Howard the name of a new owner. And no effort was made to confirm or refute that information. Had I not spoken up, that false info would still be there - in the printed Registry and in Howard's data about my car.
Was I disappointed? Yes. Was I angry? No. Howard is one of the nicest, most honest and helpful people I've ever met. But he's not perfect and neither is the info in the Registry. And it's not fair to hold him or the Registry to that standard.
I thank Howard for the hard work he does on our behalf, and for the honest and ethical way he performs those duties.
And I thank Steve for sharing the first-hand information he has learned about this particular car – 5S089.
As more people get to inspect this car in person more facts will come to light. If those facts prove the current Registry information is accurate, then that's fine. But if those facts prove the current Registry information to be wrong, then I feel certain a correction will be made.
My two cents,
Steve Sloan
+1
Quote from: SFM6S087 on January 25, 2021, 07:06:32 PM
I hope this doesn't devolve into defending Steve or defending Howard. I think Steve Algorri (camp upshur) and Howard Pardee (1965-66 registrar) are both doing this community a service. Howard does a great job with the Registry, and Steve is doing a great job providing first-hand information about a specific car. I see no problem with either of those.
Keep in mind that no one is perfect. I bought my car in 1979 and still own it. I quickly informed SAAC about my purchase and was listed as the owner in the 1987 Registry. Imagine my surprise when the 1997 Registry came out showing someone else owning my car. I contacted Howard and got things straightened out. But until the next printing, the Registry had false info about my car. Why? Because one person gave Howard the name of a new owner. And no effort was made to confirm or refute that information. Had I not spoken up, that false info would still be there - in the printed Registry and in Howard's data about my car.
Was I disappointed? Yes. Was I angry? No. Howard is one of the nicest, most honest and helpful people I've ever met. But he's not perfect and neither is the info in the Registry. And it's not fair to hold him or the Registry to that standard.
I thank Howard for the hard work he does on our behalf, and for the honest and ethical way he performs those duties.
And I thank Steve for sharing the first-hand information he has learned about this particular car – 5S089.
As more people get to inspect this car in person more facts will come to light. If those facts prove the current Registry information is accurate, then that's fine. But if those facts prove the current Registry information to be wrong, then I feel certain a correction will be made.
My two cents,
Steve Sloan
Just so everyone is aware...Steve and I are friends and we "shot the sh$t" on the telephone today for almost an hour and a half about this and many other topics. We spent the entire time seeing eye to eye on a number of subjects (this car and our admiration for Howard P and the service he does the hobby...just to name a few)...
Kind regards,
Vern
Quote from: 427hunter on January 25, 2021, 07:59:08 PM
Here is a k code vin..
The star on the gt350 vin does not appear the same as the other two.
All those stars appear to be the same Ford unique star stamp to me. Why do you think they are different? A "star within a star" stamp. Do you think the star looks bigger in the "089"s pic.
Quote from: shelbymann1970 on January 26, 2021, 10:59:30 AM
Quote from: 427hunter on January 25, 2021, 07:59:08 PM
Here is a k code vin..
The star on the gt350 vin does not appear the same as the other two.
All those stars appear to be the same Ford unique star stamp to me. Why do you think they are different? A "star within a star" stamp. Do you think the star looks bigger in the "089"s pic.
Look at the size, shape and imprint of the star on the gt350 compared to the other two, they are not the same. You can do a layover with your computer.
It could be some optical illusion from the photo or paint work - whatever it is we would need to know if other gt350's have vins that far offset.
If the car did have inner fender work to accommodate a 427 it would explain things not lining up - either way the car is the car, lots of things happen over the years...
Just to clarify, the "Steve" I spoke to yesterday was Steve A (aka Camp Upshur) not mr. sloan who is also on the thread! Just wanted to clarify so there is no confusion!
Kind regards,
Vern
Quote from: 427hunter on January 26, 2021, 12:01:55 PM
It could be some optical illusion from the photo or paint work - whatever it is we would need to know if other gt350's have vins that far offset.
I think the star is affected by the paint. They look the same to my eye.
Quote from: 2112 on January 26, 2021, 02:34:07 PM
Quote from: 427hunter on January 26, 2021, 12:01:55 PM
It could be some optical illusion from the photo or paint work - whatever it is we would need to know if other gt350's have vins that far offset.
I think the star is affected by the paint. They look the same to my eye.
Do a layover with your computer then let me know what you think...
Did a layer over in photoshop, don't see any issues. IMO any differences can be easily explained by reflections, camera angle, etc.
i agree with you Dave ,can't see differences that would indicate a different stamping .
I am not well versed on the early cars, were panel date codes stamped in with hand stamps or pressed into panels?
PS: I am not going to try to take sides or evaluate this car over a couple interweb photos, just trying to learn.
Quote from: Coralsnake on January 27, 2021, 06:51:30 AM
were panel date codes stamped in with hand stamps or pressed into panels?
Date codes were pressed in at time of stamping.
Bill
Thank you, sir.
🧐
Quote from: s2ms on January 26, 2021, 09:56:33 PM
Did a layer over in photoshop, don't see any issues. IMO any differences can be easily explained by reflections, camera angle, etc.
Depth of stamp can vary also. It is put in by humans and pressures and such can determine a stamp. Stamps wear out and have to be replaced. What was Ford's quality control to the company who made the stamps for them. If it was a 3/16th "star" stamp whose to say they couldn't vary. Ford a long time I worked in the stamping field for GM and we just changed stamps on a daily basis off of what was ordered. A friend of mine said he thought he had a bunch of those star stamps given to him by his dad who worked for Ford down in an Ohio plant. He has yet to find them but his 3 car garage is filled up with Home Depot products(don't ask) and he hasn't found them yet. I'd love to see if they were all exactly the same. Also look at Little Red's vin stamps. I got pics of the DS fender apron stamped twice and they are offset front to back. So the placement means little to me. I'd think anyone trying to re-stamp would sure as heck make sure it was in between the notches of the fender opening. Gary
Quote from: Coralsnake on January 27, 2021, 06:51:30 AM
I am not well versed on the early cars, were panel date codes stamped in with hand stamps or pressed into panels?
PS: I am not going to try to take sides or evaluate this car over a couple interweb photos, just trying to learn.
I don't think a person could make a stamp that deep stamping by hand. We used to change date stamps daily and by shift in my facilities at GM where I used to work. The differences in depth could and can be changed by shimming the stamp block that holds the stamps. Done that many times. Of course date codes were there for quality control. Gary
I by no means have the professional experience you have, but some of the stampings in reply "27" look hand stamped to me. Thus likely indicating a replacement panel.
Pete must be looking at the 1 & 3 # fonts and the group # alignment on the date code.
Quote from: Special Ed on January 27, 2021, 11:05:34 AM
Pete must be looking at the 1 & 3 # fonts and the group # alignment on the date code.
The radiator support stamping?
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/8-270121120924.jpeg)
In the picture above (turned side ways I believe) do we believe/agree that to the left hand side is the up or top of the radiator support?
Quote from: Coralsnake on January 27, 2021, 12:11:13 PM
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/8-270121120924.jpeg)
Do other 1965 date code number ones have an underscore like this? Or a number two without the little curl up at the end of the underscore?
Can someone who owns a 65 post the number font used.
Quote from: 427hunter on January 27, 2021, 03:45:58 PM
Do other 1965 date code number ones have an underscore like this? Or a number two without the little curl up at the end of the underscore?
Can someone who owns a 65 post the number font used.
If your going down that path suggest examples focus on same stamping plant and time period just to be sure
Quote from: J_Speegle on January 27, 2021, 04:16:21 PM
Quote from: 427hunter on January 27, 2021, 03:45:58 PM
Do other 1965 date code number ones have an underscore like this? Or a number two without the little curl up at the end of the underscore?
Can someone who owns a 65 post the number font used.
If your going down that path suggest examples focus on same stamping plant and time period just to be sure
I agree - someone with a SJ 65 please post front inner Sheetmetal 1,2,3 and the letter C please..
This is the number font I would expect to see on a SJ date code these cars are 5 days apart.
vs the 65 in question.
Quote from: 427hunter on January 27, 2021, 05:18:44 PM
This is the number font I would expect to see on a SJ date code these cars are 5 days apart.
Believe you meant to write "these two parts have dates 5 days apart" ;) We don't really know when either were really completed. It's the date stamp that is the focus
As you have likely found, front inner fender panels were stamped at another plant
Quote from: J_Speegle on January 27, 2021, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: 427hunter on January 27, 2021, 05:18:44 PM
This is the number font I would expect to see on a SJ date code these cars are 5 days apart.
Believe you meant to write "these two parts have dates 5 days apart" ;) We don't really know when either were really completed. It's the date stamp that is the focus
As you have likely found front inner fender panels were stamped at another plant
Rather then play word games, lets stick to the font. Do you have an example to provide ?
P.S. it would stand to reason that if similar date coded parts arrived at SJ for k code assembly to fill orders for cars sent to Shelby, the font should be the same. This is why I am asking for someone to post some date codes of 65 SJ cars. Both above examples are from GT350's with very close date codes yet the car that was said to have inner fender work has different font, other examples may shed some light on this discussion.
Quote from: 427hunter on January 27, 2021, 06:08:19 PM
Rather then play word games, lets stick to the font. Do you have an example to provide ?
P.S. it would stand to reason that if similar date coded parts arrived at SJ for k code assembly to fill orders for cars sent to Shelby, the font should be the same. This is why I am asking for someone to post some date codes of 65 SJ cars. Both above examples are from GT350's with very close date codes yet the car that was said to have inner fender work has different font, other examples may shed some light on this discussion.
Most of the other inner fender date stamps are 'D' (Dearborn) metal stamping plant. The rad support has a 'C', which if I remember right is Cleveland.
Quote from: 427hunter on January 27, 2021, 06:08:19 PM
Rather then play word games, lets stick to the font. Do you have an example to provide ?
P.S. it would stand to reason that if similar date coded parts arrived at SJ for k code assembly to fill orders for cars sent to Shelby, the font should be the same. This is why I am asking for someone to post some date codes of 65 SJ cars. Both above examples are from GT350's with very close date codes yet the car that was said to have inner fender work has different font, other examples may shed some light on this discussion.
Sorry didn't mean for the post to come across that way.
Yes agree that the font details should be the same from, the same stamping plant - the reason for the earlier post. Sorry didn't mean for the post to come across that way. Other Mustangs T through K built Mustangs around the same time could have received radiator supports stamped at Cleveland the same day and included in the shipment to San Jose. They are stamped from the engine side so they can be difficult to read or even find since the battery and tray can be in the way. During 65 were also located lower and differently orientated from the period where they were vertical as shown in the picture. During the days when they were stamping these panels they may have used multiple die sets with different date lug locations but have not run across that yet.
You will find Cleveland stamping plant also provided hood and trunk assemblies as well as floors during 65 if your looking for other locations to check
Would it be reasonable to assume that several different stamping machine were used to stamp the same part? with nearly 680k mustangs produced in 1965 i find it hard to imagine one machine stamped every single left front fender apron for example. There must have been dozens of machines stamping the same part, and possibly in several different locations, and therefore different stamps on the same part, after all we see different dates on the same car, so why not different stamps ?
Quote from: J_Speegle on January 27, 2021, 10:45:38 PM
Quote from: 427hunter on January 27, 2021, 06:08:19 PM
Rather then play word games, lets stick to the font. Do you have an example to provide ?
P.S. it would stand to reason that if similar date coded parts arrived at SJ for k code assembly to fill orders for cars sent to Shelby, the font should be the same. This is why I am asking for someone to post some date codes of 65 SJ cars. Both above examples are from GT350's with very close date codes yet the car that was said to have inner fender work has different font, other examples may shed some light on this discussion.
Sorry didn't mean for the post to come across that way.
Yes agree that the font details should be the same from, the same stamping plant - the reason for the earlier post. Sorry didn't mean for the post to come across that way. Other Mustangs T through K built Mustangs around the same time could have received radiator supports stamped at Cleveland the same day and included in the shipment to San Jose. They are stamped from the engine side so they can be difficult to read or even find since the battery and tray can be in the way. During 65 were also located lower and differently orientated from the period where they were vertical as shown in the picture. During the days when they were stamping these panels they may have used multiple die sets with different date lug locations but have not run across that yet.
You will find Cleveland stamping plant also provided hood and trunk assemblies as well as floors during 65 if your looking for other locations to check
Thank you very much, I am glad to hear it just read that way to me, I really apricate the clarification.
To the font issue, I have not seen different fonts from the same plant. You have a lot more expertise then I do, have you seen different fonts from the same plant?
Also so far I can not find an example with an underscored number 1 or that shape letter C, further investigation is needed, hopefully some 65 and carryover owners can post some photos of the date code fonts on their car.
Now a no-sale on eBay for $100,100.