Tweet
I hear that Tank Stickers/POP/Window Stickers can be faked or recreated. What is the value of having these original doc's if they are easily faked? Engine blocks are restamped and many unoriginal options are added. Has the line been so blurred between an original car with doc's and a fake, that it is pointless to spend the extra money for a car "with papers"?
-
-
Use Provenance; the ownership history *NM*
-
Re: Are '67 docs pointless?
Hi Gary,
In my opinion, there's ALWAYS going to be someone out there who can fake info if they want to bad enough.. I would simply block that topic out altogether in your mind, and look from the perspective of the lineage it provides your car to have the REAL DEAL when it comes to documentation. I would think people would be much more appreciative of a vehicle that has true docs from its lifetime on the road.
A guy on my Registry was recently provided with info regarding the window sticker to his car, which actually appeared in an old issue of Motor Trend magazine. He was euphoric to say the least- The old papers ALWAYS mean something, even if it's NOT in the financial sense.
Hope this helps,
Jim Brady III
1959 Corvette Registry, Webmaster
NCRS member #44671Comment
-
Re: Are '67 docs pointless?
Gary, The POP is a very important document as they cannot be faked but you need to know what you are looking at. I believe NCRS will publish more information on the POP in the near future. Reproduction tank sheets and window stickers are easily obtained. I think the only way to be sure is to have an expert look at the document.Comment
-
Re: Are '67 docs pointless?
I've been to many Corvette shops that will build any year Corvette with any engine or options you wont and will guaranty you a Bloomington Gold or Top Flight and also give you all the papers needed that verifies it.
How do you spell Money.
That is why I use my experience when buying, I just looked at a 57 FI at a dealer asking 128K and was told it never was hit when screws not ribbit were used to hold the inner front panels on and to many other items wrong.But the dealer said it was never hit and original.
Paper works mean nothing to me any more or what some one said.Comment
-
Re: Are '67 docs pointless?
No.
However, if there is a buck to be made, someone will make it. So you have to be careful of the docs as well as the car. Some are obvious, others very good. Only be observing lots of originals do you know the differences.
Sometimes, the only thing we have going for us in deciding if one is real or not, is a gut feeling after looking at everything. Very unscientific, but unfortunately true.
It is easier to pick out phony $20s sometimes than cars.
Over 6 months ago, I checked a silver '67 400 hp coupe. Stack of docs, lots of old receipts, lots of paper, looked really good, numbers all checked. But my gut said something was wrong that I couldn't put my finger on.
The car is still there for sale, so others evidently felt the same way.
At this stage of the game, I think I'd rather just buy a known fake at a low price, or build a clone from a project, than go through all the hassles of trying to ensure the car I got was real.
There was a 435 hp '67 convertible on ebay a few months back. The guy said he was building a clone. It was about 85% done. Overall sounded like a realistic and honest guy. After all, everyone selling a car is either 100% restored or 99% finished. Who would estimate at 85%?
He wanted something like $45,000. Nice car, just wasn't original. But in the light of all eternity and when you sit behind the wheel, who really cares unless you are investing or judging the car.Comment
-
Re: Are '67 docs pointless?
Well thought out and said Mike, N.C.R.S. the name speaks for itself it is a organization that promotes restoration of Corvettes and the closer a restorer gets to the original condition the better....right or wrong? Sounds like sometimes there's a penalty for bringing a car back to as original as possible which would include restoring the original numbers...engine pad etc. if one was unfortunate enough to lose an original engine somewhere in time. I have not read the judging manual but would hope that one who restores a Corvette which has lost it's original engine would get points for trying to duplicate the original pad and block and heads #'s rather than heading in the opposite direction. As we age and the "drivers" god bless them...are still out in public for their sunny day rides in the country...I would hate to think if one loses an original engine that he takes a 30,000-40,000 hit in value and his Top Flite status goes out the window also. On top of that he gets in return no value/points added if he replaces every lost part with numbers matching and original parts vs replacing with non matching parts.Comment
-
Re: Are '67 docs pointless?
Gary:
On very rare models, such as the L-88, or L-71/L89 combination, factory documentation I say would be a must. Without it, all you have is hearsay.
There are people producing fake paperwork, however if you look at enough genuine documentation, the differences are apparent.Comment
-
Re: Are '67 docs pointless?
Original engines are often a sore point for many and if this thread were closer to the top, there would be many who add in.
Originally, the original engine was an indication the car had not been messed with. Corvettes were typically run hard, put up wet, and run hard again. It was an icon, and simply arriving at the front at a traffic light meant whoever showed up next to you would try to race you. Everyone wanted to beat the Vette.
Also, engine building wasn't as common as today, so the fast way to a hot engine was literally a hot engine, stolen out of a Corvette.
So Corvettes lost their original engines at a rate no Chevy, Ford, Dodge, or anything else ever did.
In many ways, the original engine was equivalent to finding any other car that was owned by the little old school teacher who only drove it to church on Sundays.
That is what made it valuable in the '70s, not the restoration stuff.
And realistically, after a car has been 99% restored, it is a new car, so what happened before really doesn't matter. So the need of the "little old school teacher" condition is irrelevant on a fully restored car.
And for those with the argument that NCRS is about originality, I think that doesn't carry any weight either.
Transmissions are not checked for VIN, frames are often replaced and not checked, fiberglass panels on nearly all parts of the body can be replaced, non-original soft parts like seat covers, door panels, dash pads, carpets fill the cars, and who knows where half of the hard parts like intakes, exhaust, suspensions, calipers, and such come from.
Yet, the engine HAS to be original?
I think you can literally start with a block and a pile of cash and build a Top Flight/Bloomington Gold car. I think some have.
You can paint the car to look like the factory and get full points, even using non-original materials, but if you stamp an engine pad to look like the factory and get caught, you are crucified. With paint, or any other part, you get judged on how well you fooled them. On the pad, it is Pass/Fail.
Why? Because those in power and those with the bucks have the original engines, and they won't relinquish that ever. But if the original engine lost this points advantage, and people were allowed to stamp engines to complete the restoration process, this NOM vs Original Engine price differential would soon disappear. Maybe not completely, as the original will always be valued by some as more, but you won't have the original at $80,000 and the NOM at $30,000 when the rest of the car is equal.Comment
-
Re: Are '67 docs pointless?
I agree Mike...Comment
-
Re: Are '67 docs pointless? MIKE
Mike your so right ! but using common seance in your languish telling it like it IS "truth" your scaring people with Halloween coming.Comment
-
Re: Are '67 docs pointless? MIKE
I'm hoping to drop those '67 prices to rock bottom, and then I can offer you $5000 for yours, Roy.
That isn't an insult, as it is more than double the price I paid for my '67 big block coupe.Comment
-
Re: Are '67 docs pointless?
This brings up a point that I have been mulling over for some time. I come from the toy train/toy car hobby, where originality is extremely important. If a piece is restored/repainted, the Toy Train Collectors Assc. requires that it be so marked. I stamp 'repaint' on the frames of all the Tonka's I restore. It's only original once, but 10 or 20 years from now, it is possible that a repaint could be misstaken for an original.
My concern is reproduction parts. Many judges will tell you they can tell the difference, but I'm sure there are repro parts out there that are indistinquishable from originals. So, if someone builds a car with perfect repro parts, 20 years from now, it could be misstaken for an original, thus degrading the value of the true original car. The point being that a repro part takes too big of a hit in the judging, thus allowing the repro market to florish and potentially hurting the origianl cars. If repro parts were so marked, and only docked a minimum point, then original cars would retain the status that they deserve. A restored car is just that. Sure they look great, and I intend to do the best I can on my 396, but it will still restored, and should not comand the price that a nice original one should. I know that money is driving this, but maybe if we/NCRS were concerned about origianl cars, that maybe the judging criteria should be looked at. I'm not so concerned about a newly restored car, but rather what happens down the road with the restored cars. I'm just affraid that there is potential for problems and maybe unintentional phony cars.
KenComment
-
Re: Are '67 docs pointless?
It is already happening. There have been people here pulling up 25 year old restoration carpeting and thinking it was original.
Unfortunately, we have gotten to a point that many of the unrestored cars still around are really not nice to look at. Too many unrestored nice ones were restored early because it was easier. And how many people can be so secure as to keep a car original if it begins to get ugly?
I remember the first couple of years of Survivor at Bloomington, there were some nasty looking cars. They were original, and had their own beauty in that, but very few could be strong enough to keep a car in that condition.
And as much as many paying out the dollars try to fit in with the old timers and appreciate the original aspect, a shiny paint job often wins out for the dollars.
The courage Joe had to show his '57 Daytona car has to be incredible.Comment
-
Re: Are '67 docs pointless?
Mike
I agree. I have seen some original cars that I wouldn't think twice about restoring, but that just makes the nice ones even more valuable. I'm just afraid of what will happen down the road with all the 'perfect' restorations.
KenComment
Comment