Hi, did 67 interior seats include not only knitted seating areas, but could they also include smooth or non-knitted seating areas? If so, was it random, due to some changeover? Thanks
Quote from: Hockeylife on May 09, 2019, 03:41:24 PM
Hi, did 67 interior seats include not only knitted seating areas, but could they also include smooth or non-knitted seating areas? If so, was it random, due to some changeover? Thanks
The very early and very late 67 Shelby production used the smooth instead of the typical comfortweave. The changes were not random but coincided with issues at Ford during the 67 Mustang production year.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on May 09, 2019, 04:54:31 PM
Quote from: Hockeylife on May 09, 2019, 03:41:24 PM
Hi, did 67 interior seats include not only knitted seating areas, but could they also include smooth or non-knitted seating areas? If so, was it random, due to some changeover? Thanks
The very early and very late 67 Shelby production used the smooth instead of the typical comfortweave. The changes were not random but coincided with issues at Ford during the 67 Mustang production year.
Thanks Bob!
For the future readers, who may want to know more details on the different interior trim for these '67's please check out this thread with more specifics.
http://www.saacforum.com/index.php?topic=5847.msg50528#msg50528
Quote from: Richstang on May 12, 2019, 11:00:24 PM
For the future readers, who may want to know more details on the different interior trim for these '67's please check out this thread with more specifics.
http://www.saacforum.com/index.php?topic=5847.msg50528#msg50528
You didn't address white Vs. Parchment interiors or that early white cars are smooth. You just addressed black.
Parchment interiors are addressed in some other places, such as on the '1967 Shelby Research group" in the paint and trim post.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/shelbyresearch/xMh2RMLAXdc
The white interior myth is addressed in the 2011 registry on page 783.
There are no Ford records showing white interior cars. The numerous Marti Reports I have gathered don't account for any white cars in their totals.
Those totals equal the full production run of 3224 cars (the brochure car #0176 was not ordered by Shelby, so it isn't included in that total).
The only trim codes found in Ford records for '67 Shelby's are 6A black 'smooth', 5A black 'comfortweave', and 5U parchment 'comfortweave')
All of the 5U parchment trimmed cars are accounted for in total and broken down further by paint colors.
The earliest car (parchment interior car was built on 12/30/66 on DSO 84-2539. (All previous cars that were built had black interiors in 6A or 5A trim)
The reason I am addressing the later built black 6A trimmed cars is because those cars are not all clearly identified...yet.
Marti Reports will help us to define that trim in the later June July SJ builds. That is why I've asked for help in the other 6A black trim post.
Additional details and theories on the 6A trim can be found at the "1967 Shelby Research Group" in this link: http://bit.ly/67Shelby6Atrim
Well, you're wrong. It is white. The vehicle is as delivered. It exactly matched 1966 white. While it is not a pure white, it is a buttery white, but not a parchment. The vehicle was as delivered and was removed from service in 1977 and I have owned it since 1982.
Quote from: 1967 eight barrel on May 13, 2019, 05:47:57 PM
Well, you're wrong. It is white. The vehicle is as delivered. It exactly matched 1966 white. While it is not a pure white, it is a buttery white, but not a parchment. The vehicle was as delivered and was removed from service in 1977 and I have owned it since 1982.
Your suggesting that SAAC is wrong too.
Check out the 2011 registry on page 783 for the full page "Mythbusters: 1967 Shelby's with white interiors"
Do you have a Marti Report or any Shelby American documents to state it was born with white (or buttery white) interior?
The records indicate your car was built on DSO 84-2528. That group is documented as having 5A black 'comfortweave' trim as ordered by Shelby American.
All cars built in a DSO group were identical, other than paint colors. (except for a materials shortage where they would use 6A trim to keep the color black.)
It doesn't specify white, but it is '66 white. I don't give a damn what the SAAC thinks or says in this regard. It's not parchment. I went crazy trying to figure this out before finally getting a sample of material that matched what was under the seat trim.
-Keith
As long as you are enjoying your car, as you built it, that all that matters. Since you're not chasing any factory correct concours awards there is no need to worry about how it was built at San Jose or how it left LAX.
Your opinion is just that. YOUR opinion. It was built as was interior wise. I didn't change it, and knew the original owner, and the vehicle had 30,000 miles on it when I purchased it after it had been wrecked in 1976. I don't appreciate the indicators here and you don't even own a Shelby. I don't buck most information, but this time it's wrong. I have personally seen at least 500 cars. I have seen plenty of untouched parchment vehicles. Bob and I had many discussions. Yes, you're right. I don't own a trailer queen. It actually looks better than most concours vehicles. Do you even own a Shelby by the way, or do you just feel the need to jump on every post and comment?
The Ford build data and the SAAC registry are both in agreement, there was only one color other than black and that was parchment.
That shade of color is debatable whether it is off white or parchment. I tend to agree with you it is more of an off white color.
That said, the Ford record would be the authoritative document in this discussion.
A Deluxe Marti Report would confirm how the car was actually built (not just how it was ordered, VINed and/or found)
Do you have a Marti Report for your car you can share with us?
Here are some FACTS (not opinions) which assumes your car is #0171 as you have indicated in the past.
#67400F7A00171 as published in the 2011 registry was ordered on DSO 2528, along with 144 other cars, all with 5A black trim.
The SAI VIN plate shows the trim code as "A" = Black. We have a photo of the VIN from 2012 confirming the VIN # is correct.
Photos from 2012 also clearly show the car painted Lime Gold with 5A Luxury Black Knitted Vinyl trim.
Not currently owning a '67 Shelby doesn't make me wrong, just like currently owning a '67 Shelby doesn't make you right.
YOU asked ME to address the white vs parchment in reply #4.
Eight barrel, please allow Rich to work on this and collect valuable info from owners and those who have paperwork to prove it. His work is much appreciated! Sharp tones are just not needed here. He is not accusing, blaming, or calling you out. Can we work with him and not be biased??
Everybody here works for one another. This is what makes this forum work so well. Come on in for the home run! 8) ;D
Quote from: 6972boss on May 13, 2019, 11:32:21 PM
Eight barrel, please allow Rich to work on this and collect valuable info from owners and those who have paperwork to prove it. His work is much appreciated! Sharp tones are just not needed here. He is not accusing, blaming, or calling you out. Can we work with him and not be biased??
Everybody here works for one another. This is what makes this forum work so well. Come on in for the home run! 8) ;D
^^^this
8)
Quote from: 1967 eight barrel on May 13, 2019, 06:59:08 PM
Your opinion is just that. YOUR opinion. It was built as was interior wise. I didn't change it, and knew the original owner, and the vehicle had 30,000 miles on it when I purchased it after it had been wrecked in 1976. I don't appreciate the indicators here and you don't even own a Shelby. I don't buck most information, but this time it's wrong. I have personally seen at least 500 cars. I have seen plenty of untouched parchment vehicles. Bob and I had many discussions. Yes, you're right. I don't own a trailer queen. It actually looks better than most concours vehicles. Do you even own a Shelby by the way, or do you just feel the need to jump on every post and comment?
Are you kidding? Why all the hatred? You sure seem super insecure about your car, so much that you felt the need to attack one of the true, honest, hard working guys in this community that doesn't even have a dog in this fight. He's here purely for the love of the marque, not to legitimatize a car he may own. I'd like to think you just had a bad day or something and decided to take it out on someone else. Everyone is here because they love these cars and want to contribute to the discussion. Don't make it personal.
This is an interesting thread.... ;)
Is there a separate interior code for "white" ?
Or is this merely one person's interpretation of a color they think they have?
That's the point. According to Ford, there is only one color.
In reality, the color variation is obvious to a lot of people. Lots of people have expressed opinions as to why the color could have varied so much.
Officially it's Parchment but literally it could look white, and various versions of it.
I'm personally glad I only have to wrestle with the Charcoal Black Metallic and the degrees of flatness or gloss?
I don't think Ford ever intended or suspected that anyone would ever care or rate interior colors?
The '67s seem to be the booby prize with Ford records not matching what was actually built.
As an owner of a '67 GT500 that has a K engine code in the Ford number, I'm critical of Ford's records too simply because it is their mistake, and their records saying the car is a Q is just an untruth on their part. It makes me look like a fraud. So personally, at least on '67s I'd be cautious of going to war over what Ford records say vs. what they actually built.
I hold some sympathy here for an owner being outraged by being told his car doesn't match the records. I'm in that group too. When I get kicked in the chachkas I'm not too polite either. ;)
"Looks white" or "is white" is still a variation of Parchment if there is no other code
Regarding Parchment 5U trim interiors; I'm not debating the shade of color (as white, off white, or parchment).
However I will debate the time frame and DSO groups which they were built in.
There were NO 'early' cars. They were all built within just three months with the first built on 12/30 and the last built on 3/28
(with one exception...a special order single unit mid May).
They were all ordered as 5U 'comfortweave' trim. Not one was ordered as 6U 'smooth' trim. All the Marti Reports I have on hand confirm the 5U trim.
Quote from: Richstang on May 14, 2019, 12:27:51 PM
Regarding Parchment 5U trim interiors; I'm not debating the shade of color (as white, off white, or parchment).
However I will debate the time frame and DSO groups which they were built in.
There were NO 'early' cars. They were all built within just three months with the first built on 12/30 and the last built on 3/28
(with one exception...a special order single unit mid May).
They were all ordered as 5U 'comfortweave' trim. Not one was ordered as 6U 'smooth' trim. All the Marti Reports I have on hand confirm the 5U trim.
I've never seen a smooth Parchment seat? What did I miss? :o
Quote from: shelbydoug on May 14, 2019, 04:22:39 PM
Quote from: Richstang on May 14, 2019, 12:27:51 PM
Regarding Parchment 5U trim interiors; I'm not debating the shade of color (as white, off white, or parchment).
However I will debate the time frame and DSO groups which they were built in.
There were NO 'early' cars. They were all built within just three months with the first built on 12/30 and the last built on 3/28
(with one exception...a special order single unit mid May).
They were all ordered as 5U 'comfortweave' trim. Not one was ordered as 6U 'smooth' trim. All the Marti Reports I have on hand confirm the 5U trim.
I've never seen a smooth Parchment seat? What did I miss? :o
Check out reply #4...
OK. Now I'm confused. Eight Barrel never used the term 6u. You did. I thought we were talking about 6A and 5A, and you went and told him that his car was built as a black interior?
I have to stop multitasking with my porn time here. I must be confusing 34DD with 5A? Where does he say he has a 6U interior? ???
Quote from: shelbydoug on May 14, 2019, 09:07:27 AM
That's the point. According to Ford, there is only one color.
In reality, the color variation is obvious to a lot of people. Lots of people have expressed opinions as to why the color could have varied so much.
Officially it's Parchment but literally it could look white, and various versions of it.
I'm personally glad I only have to wrestle with the Charcoal Black Metallic and the degrees of flatness or gloss?
I don't think Ford ever intended or suspected that anyone would ever care or rate interior colors?
The '67s seem to be the booby prize with Ford records not matching what was actually built.
As an owner of a '67 GT500 that has a K engine code in the Ford number, I'm critical of Ford's records too simply because it is their mistake, and their records saying the car is a Q is just an untruth on their part. It makes me look like a fraud. So personally, at least on '67s I'd be cautious of going to war over what Ford records say vs. what they actually built.
I hold some sympathy here for an owner being outraged by being told his car doesn't match the records. I'm in that group too. When I get kicked in the chachkas I'm not too polite either. ;)
Hi Doug,
The '67 Shelby owners are lucky to have a paper trail to follow. We know precisely how these '67 Shelby's were ordered by SAI (DSO microfilm), how they were planned to be built by Ford (SVO - Add/ Delete sheets), how they were built at San Jose (Marti Reports), and how they were completed at LAX (SAI Production Orders and Invoices). Other year Shelby's don't have this luxury.
The Ford build data is the authoritative document. It tells us exactly how the units were built by package, paint, and trim. Those are not variables. I disagree with them not matching how the cars were built. While the Ford data can certainly have mistakes (We are talking about 50 + year old computer punch card technology) I have yet to find a definitive error in these areas.
The gray area on a Marti Report is where they interpret the Shelby supplied details. It does not come from Ford, so it vulnerable to human input errors. That's why I keep repeating owners also should get the SAI documents to confirm their options on the PO such as the wheel type, radio, and lemans stripes. (Yes, the lemans stripes were likely never added at the factory). SAI Invoices further detail how it was equipped and sold to the dealers with the listed charges.
When it comes to the engine code / stamping, that is a factory error, not really a Ford Data issue, but still is a Ford related mistake. (It's not exactly the same issue as what started this mess.) It is a shame Ford made those mistakes for owners like yourself, but I believe the SAAC '67 Shelby registrar has this well covered. (We can't thank Dave (and Nancy) enough for all their efforts here).
Do you have a Marti report for your car? Does it note the stamp code error or is it listed correctly in there?
Also what is the interior trim if you don't mind sharing? The DSO group calls for it to be 5A black, but the Marti will tell us if there was a shortage that day and if 6A was used as a replacement. Thanks for any help on this research.
Quote from: shelbydoug on May 14, 2019, 05:12:05 PM
OK. Now I'm confused. Eight Barrel never used the term 6u. You did. I thought we were talking about 6A and 5A, and you went and told him that his car was built as a black interior?
I have to stop multitasking with my porn time here. I must be confusing 34DD with 5A? Where does he say he has a 6U interior? ???
From reply #4
"You didn't address white Vs. Parchment interiors or that early white cars are
smooth. You just addressed black."
He doesn't mention 6U directly, but he mentions "early white car are smooth" meaning 6U 'smooth' not 5U 'comfortweave'.
Also his interior photo, previously posted elsewhere, shows parchment smooth seats, not parchment comfortweave.
"DD" holy crap!
Yes I have a Marti on this car. I got a note from Marti, basically trying to break it to me gently that my car was a fraud.
I had to get Dave Mathews to intervene, so to speak.
Marti's data clearly indicates to him that the ORIGINAL CAR was stamped with a Q. Dave says he has about 25 cars around mine that the engine codes are incorrectly stamped on including A codes on the GT350's.
So if you want to die on the cross of accurate Ford data, you've been warned that they admit no mistakes. What that data shows ain't necessarily what they built. Like I said. I've got an example right here.
So there you go.
DD is nice. You need big hands to appreciate that. She's a nice girl. A bit free...but nice. ;)
Die on the sword...hell no...it is 50 year old punch card data. (Also have to wonder how Marti interprets that info)
Yes, now I remember you telling us this before. Something is a foul there.
What does it say at the top in the VOI (Vehicle Order Image) section in the Ford vin; 'S' or 'A' or maybe 'K'?.
Would love to know the trim code if you have it?
maybe this will help...
Now I'm going to have to debate 6U 'smooth' trim. OY VEY!
We have no orders from SAI for 6U trim, no SVO sheets with Ford planning to use 6U trim, and no Marti Reports listing 6U trim (that I'm aware of). If anyone knows of a Marti with 6U noted please jump in here with a posted copy. (please redact the Ford VINs) If we ever do find a Marti with 6U trim we will have to consider it a replacement on a material shortage for 5U parchment 'comfortweave' trim. I'm not buying it, so please prove me wrong!
In all fairness to JD's post, it does answer Doug's question.
Ford did make 6U trim. It was only available on Mustangs as far as I know.
It was my understanding that the smooth material(s) were intended for convertibles and why (no?) '67 closed cars (Shelby's) got it.
If one did - installation mistake at Ford???.
Quote from: Richstang on May 14, 2019, 06:04:51 PM
Now I'm going to have to debate 6U 'smooth' trim. OY VEY!
We have no orders from SAI for 6U trim, no SVO sheets with Ford planning to use 6U trim, and no Marti Reports listing 6U trim (that I'm aware of). If anyone knows of a Marti with 6U noted please jump in here with a posted copy. (please redact the Ford VINs) If we ever do find a Marti with 6U trim we will have to consider it a replacement on a material shortage for 5U parchment 'comfortweave' trim. I'm not buying it, so please prove me wrong!
In all fairness to JD's post, it does answer Doug's question.
Ford did make 6U trim. It was only available on Mustangs as far as I know.
My car was missing it's orginal seats when I got it. In my '68 so far I found three copies of the build sheet. One under the springs on the rear seat bottom. One in the same place on the driver's seat and the other in the wiring harness.
I didn't expect to find the one under the drivers seat. This is uncommon for a '67? A build sheet would prove to me the way the car was built...probably. ;D
Quote from: 1967 eight barrel on May 14, 2019, 06:58:20 PM
I'm done here. It serves no purpose and the forum serves no more in purpose than attacking anyone who doesn't comply with concours standards of KNOWN vehicles. The admin and its hostile responses, or lack of justification for actions is what is wrong. The forum really doesn't serve those who actually work on their vehicles, it serves those with deep pockets who look down their snoot at others. Perhaps you missed the exchange and the fact that I am a newbie after six years here. Even suggesting that those who are legally qualified should be barred from Constitutional rights at events. I'll pass on the high school clique' behavior and the good ol' boys club.
Fist of all I value your inputs. I was especially thankful for your recent posts concerning dash restorations and contacts that have pulled through for you. I think that we all have our personal focuses concerning our projects and production data but the willingness to share information about our personal experiences both good and bad holds a lot of value for me and a lot of others. Time to take a deep breath and move on.
Dave
Quote from: JD on May 14, 2019, 06:40:59 PM
It was my understanding that the smooth material(s) were intended for convertibles and why (no?) '67 closed cars (Shelby's) got it.
If one did - installation mistake at Ford???.
A "mistake" like that would have required multiple mistakes and choices by a group of non-connected workers at multiple plants.
No reason to go down that rabbit hole in this thread ;)
Quote from: shelbydoug on May 14, 2019, 07:26:51 PM
Quote from: Richstang on May 14, 2019, 06:04:51 PM
Now I'm going to have to debate 6U 'smooth' trim. OY VEY!
We have no orders from SAI for 6U trim, no SVO sheets with Ford planning to use 6U trim, and no Marti Reports listing 6U trim (that I'm aware of). If anyone knows of a Marti with 6U noted please jump in here with a posted copy. (please redact the Ford VINs) If we ever do find a Marti with 6U trim we will have to consider it a replacement on a material shortage for 5U parchment 'comfortweave' trim. I'm not buying it, so please prove me wrong!
In all fairness to JD's post, it does answer Doug's question.
Ford did make 6U trim. It was only available on Mustangs as far as I know.
My car was missing it's orginal seats when I got it. In my '68 so far I found three copies of the build sheet. One under the springs on the rear seat bottom. One in the same place on the driver's seat and the other in the wiring harness.
I didn't expect to find the one under the drivers seat. This is uncommon for a '67? A build sheet would prove to me the way the car was built...probably. ;D
As far as I know, the only papers found in the '67 Shelby's have been the SVO&PS sheet sets, aka Add/Delete sheets.
(Found under the carpets, or the front seats/rear seat cushion, and under the dash)
These SVO sheets may not always accurately represent how the vehicle was built. They are a more detailed version of the DSO, both of which represent how the car was ordered. So in the case of trim, and the later 5A to 6A substitutions (explained previously, in this topic link I posted), the DSO and SVO would more than likely have specified the 5A trim. The production line may have substituted 6A due to a materials shortage, and the SVO in the car likely would not have been updated. In your case, we do have a copy of your VIN #3074 Shelby GT500 cars' SVO sheets in DSO group 89-2608. It does show the 5A trim and of course the entire group was built with the 400F package.
The Ford record (Marti Deluxe Report) still remains the most authoritative document as to how a car was actually completed at San Jose, even with a few issues on how the data is interpreted, the Marti is still the BEST source to find the correct trim, as built by San Jose. The SAI documents never specified the full trim code only the colors, per the VIN.
OK but go back and read YOUR words. Words can kill. You are basing your statements on what the Ford documentation says.
I'm pointing out that there is a case here, MINE, that is documented AND very clearly shows beyond a reasonable doubt that there is more then one mistake in those documents. Not a preponderance of evidence.
I do realize that you mean well and I personally would NOT take arms against you. What I would say though is that if I was your commanding officer I would not allow you to be a silo commander. You have a tendency of wanting to push the launch button prematurely. We all need better then that here.
I think that there is enough evidence, even circumstantial that a case of a 6U interior should be left as undetermined. Now what you do or any of your supporters do with that is up to you and any of you can go and have whatever kind of a fit that you care to?
Just sayin'...respectfully. ;)
Doug your comments keep my smiling...that's a good thing.
:P
Yes, I understand any of those documents could be flawed, no doubt it happened in the engine coding.
(From your position I would be very annoyed with them, but your VIN plate should be stamped as a '400F' package.
That's your first line of defense, especially if it is the original VIN plate from Shelby American.)
I'm not saying the documents are perfect, but they are the most accurate pieces of info that we have available for the packages, paint, and trim.
Beside all those papers, I have collected photos of about 1000 cars, 250 Marti reports and an unknown number of SAI P.O.s and Invoices.
I'm not bragging, as I know that is not enough, but it's all part of the research for these crazy complex '67 Shelby with too many running changes.
I'm just not convinced there were any '67's built with 6U parchment 'smooth' interiors.
We have numerous Marti Reports that show the later built 6A black 'smooth' interiors. Those care were ordered as 5A 'comfortweave' black trim.
We know something happened (shortage of materials is most likely) that forced Ford to use the 6A as replacements for the 5A.
We don't have ANY Marti's that show the use of 6U parchment 'smooth' trim, (no orders or replacements.)
That's why I'm sticking to my theory, until proved wrong.
If anyone out there has a hint of proof for a 6U trim on a '67 Shelby please share it with us...a Marti, survivor photos, anything.
Now where's that code 34DD?
Quote from: Richstang on May 15, 2019, 06:48:21 PM
Doug your comments keep my smiling...that's a good thing.
:P
Yes, I understand any of those documents could be flawed, no doubt it happened in the engine coding.
(From your position I would be very annoyed with them, but your VIN plate should be stamped as a '400F' package.
That's your first line of defense, especially if it is the original VIN plate from Shelby American.)
I'm not saying the documents are perfect, but they are the most accurate pieces of info that we have available for the packages, paint, and trim.
Beside all those papers, I have collected photos of about 1000 cars, 250 Marti reports and an unknown number of SAI P.O.s and Invoices.
I'm not bragging, as I know that is not enough, but it's all part of the research for these crazy complex '67 Shelby with too many running changes.
I'm just not convinced there were any '67's built with 6U parchment 'smooth' interiors.
We have numerous Marti Reports that show the later built 6A black 'smooth' interiors. Those care were ordered as 5A 'comfortweave' black trim.
We know something happened (shortage of materials is most likely) that forced Ford to use the 6A as replacements for the 5A.
We don't have ANY Marti's that show the use of 6U parchment 'smooth' trim, (no orders or replacements.)
That's why I'm sticking to my theory, until proved wrong.
If anyone out there has a hint of proof for a 6U trim on a '67 Shelby please share it with us...a Marti, survivor photos, anything.
Now where's that code 34DD?
A 6U right there in front of you is a really good indicator that one might exist? ;)
I remember testifying in a murder trial as an eye witness for the Prosecution. I said something like, "I saw that person there (the defendant) shoot the victim three times with a handgun". At that, the Defense Attorney jumped up and objected. He said, "that's just YOUR OPINION of what you saw".
So the point is, what some consider facts, others don't. All you can do is raise or lower the percentage of likeliness that something did or will happen. I might add, that the percentage of likeliness that the identity of the 34DD in question will be revealed to you is absolutely zero. That you can take to the bank. ;)
Incidentally, the bullets didn't kill the victim. The hemorrhaging caused by the bullets did. The percentage of likeliness there was very high. It could have been the shock also?
Let's revisit the white vs parchment conversation.
I have looked for anything that supports 67 cars came with white interiors and there does not seem to be any specific Ford codes?
Has anyone found anything?
Lets suppose I wanted a white interior...how would it have been ordered?
Another instance of "I don't remember where I saw this": Comfortweave upholstery was NOT available at the Ford plants until the middle of December of 1966.
I have always preferred documentation.
Interpretation is fine, but I find it hard to believe Ford eould have two different interiors for the same code.
I checked through Kevin's reference books, that he based on his Ford database access, snd the only 67 code is for parchment.
I think very under rated in this conversation is the DSO code. Most people don't understand that Shelby DSO codes tell a lot about how a car was built and not where is was sent. DSO is just a larger category of specific special order categories.
The 67s like the 68s used the same Ford ordering system. Cars with similar DSO codes share body styles, engines, trans, options, etc
Here's a current pic of my car & it looks like I'd expect a vintage parchment to look like kinda off white, buttery or creamy whatever you want to call it & other pic came with my car from previous owner . I don't know the context of the picture but I'm thinking late 70's or early 80's but it looks almost white way brighter than it does now ,so maybe over time they change colors from a more brighter white like a good ole leather jacket ,I also collect vintage Rolex's & the patina that they can acquire over 50 yrs is amazing .
My first Mustang was a '66 with a Parchment Pony interior. It was more of a flesh tone than the creamy '67 Parchment.
I love '67 Parchment in a dark car.