Re: You are nasty. I never sausage a thing.

[Loren Smith]

The car is back for sale again. For only $10,000!:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1967-Chevrolet-Corvette_W0QQitemZ4583284687QQcategoryZ6168QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Tom B.]

Re: You are nasty. I never sausage a thing.

Someone hijacked Dennis' pictures and put up a fake auction. It's already been pulled by Ebay. That was exactly the reason Dennis gave for posting the tank sticker with the errors on his site if you read his post in the CAC thread.

Tom

[Jack W.]

Re: You are nasty. I never sausage a thing.

Tom -

I have no dog in the little sideshow debate over the linkage or lack of alleged linkage between the CAC name and the old "action center" as that name is associated with GM.

But on the matter that gave rise to the original topic of this thread - where a member of the CAC (and of other Vette sites too) placed on ebay (a public auction site) what he represented to be a "Matching number 3904351 block w/correct orig dated 3904392 heads" (his words) and accompanied that auction with pictures of various documents "proving up" the fact that this was an original L89 '67 Corvette as ordered from the factory - I wanted to give you some solid facts.

Since the seller put an alleged "real deal" 1967 L89 Coupe for sale on ebay, and since GM records show only 16 of the L89 option Corvettes being sold in 1967, this would be a rare car indeed. If the "original, numbers matching '67 L89" claim (his words) was true, it would fetch big money; if the car was "just" a L89 clone, certainly a few hundred thousand dollars less. Plenty at stake, and among those who would be likely to buy such a car are certain members of the NCRS. Certainly, the NCRS membership contains those who are most qualified to opine on the originality of a car and its documentation. And many folks out there appreciate the commentary from such wise men on the likely originality of rare corvettes being sold, since no one likes to pay $400,000 for a $75,000 car.

When folks began questioning the car's authenticity, a "fight broke out" on the CAC forum since those who had reason to doubt the seller's claims posted their doubts, and were met with those who seemed intent on supporting the seller (that's fine with me) as well as supporting the seller's claim of authenticity in the face of serious flaws in the story (that's less ok); these "blind supporters" including a few adminstrators. I would say those who spoke the truth were basically shouted down, called names, and chased off by your administrators. You lost some valuable members, some of whom I know won't be back. Maybe you don't see it that way. I recall a time when another Corvette forum lost a great asset to the hobby, and now Joe can now only be found here, and that forum lost the input and wisdom of a great resource.

Hey, it's a public internet forum, that's fine with me. I don't really care much for moderators getting involved in the name-calling though.

As for the car, there are a whole host of reasons why it is doubtful (kind choice of words) to be a "real" L89. The owner-restorer knows what he did, he also knows how he misrepresented the car in the latest ebay auction, as well as in his earlier ebay effort in 2003, in the glossy magazine article, possibly to his internet "friends", etc. He is not alone, and I know he is otherwise a nice person. But fakers, forgers, restampers for profit, sellers of rare corvettes that ain't - that is the profit-motivated plague in this hobby, and we (Corvette enthusiasts) are "self-policing" - your site now seems to be a protector of the sellers of fake cars represented as authentic cars, the very cars this organization of enthusiasts cherish. Is that in your mission statement? Tough call I admit, the line between freedom of speech and association, vs. aiding and abetting fraudulent activity. I can't make that call myself, and my training would seem to afford me that skill.

For me, I really hate to see honest people who are trying to shine the light of truth get worked over and disparaged like they did.

As for the car and the "paperwork", it seems the seller claims he was forced to intentionally create a flawed tank sticker after having his real tank sticker misappropriated off the net by scam artists. I guess we interpret this to mean the second, lighter tank sticker, and also the one that appeared in his ebay ad, is the "fake" one. Meaning the other tank sticker, the one the seller had orignally posted up on his website back in 2002, the one that got missapropriated, the one that was posted on Corvetteforum in 2003 and defended as original when Jerry B took issue with its originality - that must be the "real" one, right? (In order for the seller's story to hold true, that he created a false one to deal with the misappropriation of the real one, the first one published by the seller, defended in 2003 as real by the seller, must be the "real" one that was being stolen, I guess). Don't know why the seller would use the second, admittedly fake sticker in his most recent ebay ad, since he had pictures of the real one laying about. But that's just one of many problems with that story.

The BIG Problem is, the first one is a fake too (impossible expected date of production specified, among other things, see below for how the car was found in seperate parts, outside). [I would surmise he created the second one after seeing how his first effort fared]. It is also quite likely true that the other "supporting documents" shown in the ebay ad are created too - and is it a real big stretch to imagine that someone who advertised "67-69 Corvette Tank Stickers and Dealer order forms! Made to order, a great display item! coming soon, PDI sheets!!!!!!!" (quoting from his website) would also create the same items (the tank sheet, the Delaer order form, the PDI sheet) for his own use, with his own "find"? Everything else that supposedly supports this as a documented L89 car (the "discovered" crayon marks, for example) can also be shown to have been created or doctored.

A simple before and after comparison of a few shots shows this to be the case - here is a shot of his driver's door, "before":


Looks like a "96" but if nothing else not a "196"

and then "after":


tada, a strong "191"

these things are easily spotted elsewhere too. I would sugest the before and after pics of the passenger door, the firewall, etc. as interesting. As you can imagine, I don't give all that much credence to an "L89" crayon mark (as the seller shows to exist up near the blower motor location) seeing as someone was obviously getting a little carried away with the crayon in 2001 here.

You know the oddest thing, Tom? When the owner/seller of this car first posted on his own site about his 67 Black coupe in 2002, the one that he also supposedly had been given SOLID documentation supporting the fact that it was undeniably an "L89", he merely described it, over and over, as a "Basket case Black 67 435hp Coupe" and summarized the car thusly:

"Car was optioned with the following options:

AO1 Tinted Glass

G81 Positraction

K66 Transistor Ignition

L71 435hp 427

M21 Close Ratio 4spd

N14 Side Exhaust

N40 Power Steering

QB1 Redline Tires

U69 AM/FM Radio

Tuxedo Black w/red stinger and Black Vinyl interior. There were only 815 Black Corvettes made in 67, 37% were coupes which drops the number to 302, approximately 42% of these were Big Blocks (127) and only around 50 would have been 435hp cars. figure in factory sidepipes and we are looking at around 1 in 16 cars built. keep in mind that there were 7 available interior colors....."

That's taken from his website as it appeared on June 3, 2002, you'll have to click on the "1967 Black cp" link on the left side:


you can also scroll down the "1967 cp" page to pictures of the tank sheet (the first one) and, on the far right, the "PDI" for this car [New Vehicle Inspection and Adjustment Schedule] in what appears to be pristine, never folded, never exposed to the light of day, condition - wow, must have been kept at the Smithsonian. As for the tank sheet, what a find, considering this car was once a "drag car" and found as a neglected hulk outside, BODY AND FRAME SEPARATED - that's right, this tank sticker sat on top of a tank directly exposed to the elements outside for years, and it survived. Wow. No, not wow, but BS.

[sidenote - many in my business use the "Wayback machine" to go back in time and see just what it was Mr. so-and-so had posted on his website then, it trips up many]

The owner-seller seems to have understood then (in 2002) that he had acquired a 1967 L71 Corvette, and certainly not "one of only 16 67 L89s" as would have been quite clear from all of the documents he supposedly had obtained with the car. No mention at all of the car being an L89, just a picture of L89 heads that he had acquired or that perhaps came with the car (which came to him with a CE engine he admitted.), and we all know that those were sold in large quantities over the counter. He was interested in demonstarting how rare his car was (1 of 16 L71 coupes with sidepipes, in that color) - don't you think he would have been over the moon and willing to share about the fact that he had a real live L89 on his hands?

I posted this largely because my integrity (for daring to be among those to question the authenticity of the car, and label it a deceiptful sale) was called into question by your moderator, who then locked the thread. Plus, it seems folks on this forum are more interested in the truth anyway.

I am not even close to being in the same class as the folks here, I just know how to research, and speak my mind.

[Richard S.]

Re: You are nasty. I never sausage a thing.

Jack,
A very big thanks for posting............I am grateful to you for clearly expressing the facts about this car as you understand them to be.

[Dave McDufford]

Well said Jack

Jack,

Well said. I also tried to keep the discussion active on CAC. I do not understand how Dennis's explanation about people stealing his pictures in anyway answered the question, but many people over there seemed to think it did.

Oh well, buyer beware.

It will be for sale again in the near future...

Dave

[Rob Loszewski]

Re: You are nasty. I never sausage a thing.

Jack,

You state:

"When folks began questioning the car's authenticity, a "fight broke out" on the CAC forum since those who had reason to doubt the seller's claims posted their doubts, and were met with those who seemed intent on supporting the seller (that's fine with me) as well as supporting the seller's claim of authenticity in the face of serious flaws in the story (that's less ok); these "blind supporters" including a few adminstrators. I would say those who spoke the truth were basically shouted down, called names, and chased off by your administrators."

Ummmm, I just reread that entire thread from start to finish. Please show me the fight that broke out and where my Administrators, "shouted down, called names and chased off...."

For the most part, everyone in that thread remained relatively civil to one another AND my Administrators DID NOT shout down, call names or chase anyone off. If I'm wrong, then please show me the link to the posts where they did that in that thread.

Last but not least, I see a lot of people here playing judge and jury, when they really have no business doing so what-so-ever. I haven't seen the car, I haven't see the documents, and I haven't judged it as an NCRS judge would. I also don't have experience judging mid-years and therefore wouldn't think to pass judgement on this car. I don't know the owner and I don't know his history. Unless you are an experienced NCRS judge, you've physically examined the documents, and you have physically been in the presence of this car and inspected every single part number and date code for authenticity and validity, then you really have no business sitting here like armchair quarterbacks playing judge and jury.

-Rob Loszewski, Site Administrator
Corvette Action Center

[Steve Pettit]

Re: You are nasty. I never sausage a thing.

Very nicely said. Well-reasoned, well documented and structurally sound argument. If someone has a different side of this question, all they have to do is rebut this argument point by point and give the same level of analysis and documentation. Personal attacks or shouting down are pointless and a waste of time. Answer or concede.

Steve

[Tom B.]

Re: You are nasty. I never sausage a thing.

Jack,

This thread did stray off topic for a bit didn't it? On that subject I back Rob and know what he says to be 100% true. I have been there since the beginning of the CAC and even before when it was Corvette NH.

As to the L89,I wasn't aware that the CAC thread was closed this morning. It seems like the other admins involved felt that no good would come from allowing this to go on and that it had run it's course. There are obviously many things about this car that are still questionable and I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert. I have only owned one '67. I pulled the tank sticker around 1979 and preserved it for the future. It was a Goodwood Green 390 hp coupe with very few options. I hope it still is.

There are many members here that it is their passion to know all that is possible about the 1967 Corvette. They are the ones that will hopefully save the hobby from fraud and deception through their unending quest for knowledge. We are all fortunate that there are people like this that take the time to bring our hobby closer to perfection. As you have said, when they point out discrepencies in a car they should be listened to. Your posted pictures taken from the owners own site showing differences in markings from one date to the next bring up a lot of questions extending further than his explaination of the 2 tank stickers. Also other points of how the sticker could have survived in the weather for many years are worth noting. I know that he doesn't have to answer these questions but I would think that he would want to try to clear this matter up for his own sake. One thing about accusing someone of wrong doing is that once you have spoken the words it can't be taken back. Appologies don't erase the damage. This takes us to that fine line where you don't accuse someone but ask for an explaination of something you don't think is right. If I have done no wrong I won't have any problem with explaining what is going on.

So how do we determine if this is a legitimate car or not? Even if the right people could inspect the car and it's documents and make a determination would it make any difference to the guy that bought it? Maybe. Maybe not. It might protect someone else from buying a suspect car in the future. In the end I think it still boils down to buyer beware, do your homework and ask the experts for their opinions.

I regret that you feel that our integrity was questioned on the CAC. You and I have had some great conversations in the past and I respect your opinion. When we are dealing with online forums, as administrators or moderators, we have to first and foremost remember that forums are not cars they are people. We have to walk a fine line to allow members to have their discussions without letting them turn ugly or become personal attacks. When to step in and when to just let things work themselves out is always a question that we discuss among ourselves. John does an excellent job of that here on the Tech Board. In an ideal forum the staff would just set back and watch until it is necessary to step in. Many mods and admins have a lot to offer in kowledge and experience though and it would be a shame to not allow them to speak. Again, they are individuals with their own opinions.

I hope that in the end we can have even a heated debate on a car and still be friends.

Tom

[Jack W.]

Re: You are nasty. I never sausage a thing.

Tom - I assure you that I remain your friend and would never let a good, spirited, proper debate on the merits (which you and I seem capable of) leave hurt feelings - if anything, good, solid point-counterpoint debate, without resort to argument ad hominem (personal attacks) leaves me with a greater sense of respect for my debate partner, even if we end up "agreeing to disagree".

As I said in that thread on the CAC site, I thought it was time to close the thread. As Paul himself said, to keep it open as long as it was kept open was a credit to the site's willingness to allow open discourse. Perhaps I was a bit miffed because I did not get a chance to post up the sort of information as I did here earlier, to let folks know that "I wasn't tossing around unsupported conclusions and out to get the seller of the L89" (Regrettably, I think that relationship will forever be lost, but I will say again that he is a friend to many and a nice fellow - I just might not buy a rare car from him, but then again I have some good friends for over 25 years that I would not go into business with either, and they nonetheless remain among my best friends.)

In the end, those who needed to know what this car was and wasn't (prospective buyers of rare 1967 Corvettes) certainly came to know, or more likely knew all along, what they needed to know to make an informed decision. I tend to get a little zealous when I see someone [in our midst, no less] who seems to be engaged in the biggest problem in this hobby (creating and selling a falsely represented car) that drives some folks to point the finger at the NCRS itself (you've seen those kinds of posts, we've all seen them) when in fact the knowledge among the NCRS membership is doing more to weed out the fakers than anything. Here, the system seemd to work, at least in my warped view of the world. And it is warped, I assure you.

Thanks for taking the time to read my post and respond.

Peace.

Jack

[Rob Loszewski]

Re: You are nasty. I never sausage a thing.

http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/forums/showthread.php?p=630044#post630044

Fraud in our Hobby

[Richard S.]

Re: You are nasty. I never sausage a thing.

Rob,

I followed your link to the CAC Forum and I think your post is a very mature way to deal with the issues that have arisen. Thanks for posting.

[loren smith]

Re: You are nasty. I never sausage a thing.

On the fraud issue, legally it's only fraud if someone relies on a misrepresentation when purchasing the car. $100,000.00 for an L89 clone of that quality is probably not out of the realm of reason. For a real L89, that price would be an absolute steal. So looking at it objectively, I would venture the guess that there was full disclosure to the buyer prior to the auction being ended early to sell to the high bidder at the current bid price. As such, no fraud from a legal standpoint.

[Richard S.]

Re: You are nasty. I never sausage a thing.

The VIN number on the PDI document and on the VIN tag shown in the pictures is NOT the same as the VIN number of the car in question......what gives??

[Jack W.]

The long lost Black L89 Vert?

the VIN reflected on the PDI contains the Vert indication (a "6" in the fourth digit rather than the "3"). For those interested, here is what the VIN and Trim Tag look like, the VIN tag here of course has the appropriate "194377" for a 67 Corvette Coupe:

[Richard S.]

Re: The long lost Black L89 Vert?

So not only were the two tank stickers made up for this car....so too was the PDI document.