i have a 1968 gtcs for sale it was rolled at 10mph

[nineofive]

I may show some ignorance here, so thanks in advance for the KIND education.

I just BREEZED over the master registry. (I found the lowest VIN number with a date code) VIN: 8R01C112667 / Day, Month: 15,B

Questions for consideration:
Why is it that the 68 GTCS model option appears for the first time in Feb 1968 but not before? (yes, I know the registry is not complete with 498 out of 4k)

Why would someone in the 90's restore a car to a CS over a Shelby?
I am guessing here, but it sounds like the car was restored to sell - so why go thru the all the work to get a smaller profit by building a CS?

I would guess that there is a hole in the Ford build data that got plugged in early 68.

Ref: previous post about the 5 cars in question that COULD BE GT/CS cars
C132803 Date=23A Actual build date = Jan 27
J131333 Date=22A Actual build date = Jan 23
C133798 Date=26A Actual build date = Jan 25
J134396 Date=27A Actual build date = Jan 25
C136238 Date=31A Actual build date = Feb 5

 

[nineofive]

cougarCJ - love that video clip!!!!

 

[franklinair]

I'm sure we could collectively come up with a "shopping list" of specific items to look for in order to try and verify this car. (VIN, production date, tail light harness in trunk, etc) It may very well fall into the category of the cars that Arlie listed. Interesting...

Neil

 

[gt/csj4]

I may show some ignorance here, so thanks in advance for the KIND education.

I just BREEZED over the master registry. (I found the lowest VIN number with a date code) VIN: 8R01C112667 / Day, Month: 15,B

Questions for consideration:
Why is it that the 68 GTCS model option appears for the first time in Feb 1968 but not before? (yes, I know the registry is not complete with 498 out of 4k)

Why would someone in the 90's restore a car to a CS over a Shelby?
I am guessing here, but it sounds like the car was restored to sell - so why go thru the all the work to get a smaller profit by building a CS?

I would guess that there is a hole in the Ford build data that got plugged in early 68.

Ref: previous post about the 5 cars in question that COULD BE GT/CS cars
C132803 Date=23A Actual build date = Jan 27
J131333 Date=22A Actual build date = Jan 23
C133798 Date=26A Actual build date = Jan 25
J134396 Date=27A Actual build date = Jan 25
C136238 Date=31A Actual build date = Feb 5

Well first and foremost it's because Shelby never made a coupe. Fastbacks and verts are a lot harder to come by then a coupe. So why would you put Shelby parts on a coupe when you would be ridiculed rather quickly for passing it off as one (or for a shelby price tag)? Whereas a CS, it really only takes a tail light panel, fogs, scoops,louvered hood and some striping to make it into one. The significance of these cars were still well known back in the 90's as well, so IF you were trying to gain a little more money for a "plain jane coupe" by throwing said pieces on it would be relatively easy, and if not in the know, someone could get ripped of pretty easily. Some cals just got lost in the mix early on, and its kinda difficult to know why. Speculation aside, it's anyones guess :undecided

All that needs to be done here is someone to just go look at the car, just to verify, since Dan got screwed with his marti report. I myself have gotten screwed on a marti (didnt say my GTA came with ANY options but after resubmitting it to marti the next one he sent out was correct, we all make mistakes :smile

 

[Mustanglvr]

Looks like many posts have been deleted from this thread, so with that, lets try to move forward in a positive direction and try to help OCBAMBAM sell his car, and/or help any potential buyer make an informed dicision. Arlie, your documentation on the early cars heeds merit that this could be a factory conversion from a stock vehicle already assigned a VIN. I'm not sure Ford records/Marti information would neccessarily show the California Special Option. We have five cars now, all built in within a week of each other, which are currently wearing CS clothing, and all have no CS option listed on the Marti Report. Clone Conspiracy Coincidence, IMHO, unlikely.

OCBAMBAM has offered to have the car inspected and I for one would like to see it inspected by someone who knows what to look for and put this to rest. Until a definative is reached, he deserves the benifit of the doubt. If it does check out to be a factory CS, than that just furthers our knowledge and suspicions about early converted cars.

Mike, you make alot of sense. Of those five cars, did all of them have the California Special script screwed up on one side? It would be great if someone knowledgeable could check out this car. It could be an important piece to the history of the GT/CS. We could all make an educated guess if we had a bunch more pictures. We've done it before. :smile:

 

[Mustanglvr]

Bambam I hope this doesn't offend you but I couldn't read the post as written so I cleaned it up.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Boy we are on to a new day. I do not want to continue to argue with people on this web site, and I apologize for any of my unprofessional remarks, but Joe please give it a rest!

The car is not a clone and if you guys care about the history of these cars that much then send someone over to my house and I can show you the documentation of the restoration of this car 20 years ago. I can also show the documentation of the auction I bought the car from twenty years ago and you can come check the rear wiring harness and see that it was clearly done by the factory and that the rear tail and glass work was no add on

But if you’re so mad that you are willing to call this car a clone without doing that then i would have to question the integrity of your web site and say that this web site is not an accurate place to keep track of these cars.

Because the people on the site are too into their attitudes and not enough into finding the true count of cars left. So please someone give me a call because I’m really not that much into arguing with anyone ok?

Like I said sorry for the attitude I had a bad day and it will not happen again, and I thank any of you for taking any time to help me!

Arlie, you have way too much time on your hands. Go back to collecting data. You don't need to correct peoples spelling or language skills. Thats not what were about, remember? :wink:

 

[cityofangels17]

I'm sure we could collectively come up with a "shopping list" of specific items to look for in order to try and verify this car. (VIN, production date, tail light harness in trunk, etc) It may very well fall into the category of the cars that Arlie listed. Interesting...

Neil

That list would be a good idea. Would help this rookie out lol, since i have never encountered gt/cs clones

 

[TexAg]

I think a list would great for all of us. There is a likelihood that any of us encounter this situation. I for one would love to know the "secrets" of recognizing a true GT/CS without a Marti. Maybe it should be a sticky..

 

[bambam]

what other pictures do you want me to send to you ? i will take pictures of anypart of the car close ups pull panels what ever you guys want ok my cell number is 714 927 6895 feel free to call and like i said sorry for the attitude ! i am going through some tough personal issues , and i appoligise for bringing them to this site!

 

[bambam]

ok city of angels call house number 562 690 4073 the car is located in la habra hts california off the 60fwy and hacienda blvd call and i will give you an address thank you dan

 

[rvrtrash]

I think a list would great for all of us. There is a likelihood that any of us encounter this situation. I for one would love to know the "secrets" of recognizing a true GT/CS without a Marti. Maybe it should be a sticky..

Just to throw the thread off track a little, even though we've discussed various details of most, if not all, CS specific identifiers on our cars at one time or another, a comprehensive list does run the risk of making it easier to build a clone that would pass inspection. In the Sunbeam Tiger community, they have inspectors (called TAC, Tiger Authentication Committee) that have "secret details" that they don't let anyone know so they can spot Alpines that have been converted. There is no "Marti Report" to provide documentation so they go to great lengths to make sure clones don't slip in to cheat people. Just an observation.

Steve

 

[Mosesatm]

And it's just not as easy as making a list that someone can use to inspect a car because such a list, and the required narrative, would take dozens of pages, and photographs as examples.

Another problem is that there is really nothing that proves the car to be a real GT/CS, only clues that suggest it may not be. That's why we depend on the VIN, the build dates, and the Marti report.
Remember, almost anything can be faked, and parts can be used from junked GT/CSs to build clones.

That said, this would be a good starting point
http://californiaspecial.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=19

Another good source is the new GT/CS Recognition Guide.

CityofAngels,
For what it's worth I can send you a somewhat comprehensive list I put together years ago of things to look for.

 

[Mosesatm]

Here is an a car that I can tell from the photos is a true GT/CS.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1968...3582546?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2a22ddb8d2

http://s1252.photobucket.com/albums/hh577/fastercash4cars/1968MUSTANGGTCS/

The biggest clue for me from the photos are the huge holes on the underside of the hood for the hood pins.

Other clues:
The DSO is correct
The Date Range is correct
The first part of the VIN is correct
The tail light bezels are all chrome - no black on the edges
It has the round tail light covers in the trunk
The California Special scripts line up perfectly
It has the correct gas cap
The fog lights and posts look original
The lower grille panels also look original with the original charcoal paint
It has the fog light brackets, and they look original
I don't like the rusted rivets in the side scoops, or the placement of the rivets, but it looks like there may be a hint of a witness line on one of the scoops.
The hood pins have the proper patina
The screws in the tail light panel are in the proper position and seem to be the correct size

With all that said I see are at least two flaws, like I think the driver's side scoop has been repaired because of how the mesh is riveted on and the background is body-color instead of black.
And then there is that rear stripe, but the car has been repainted (see the data tag overspray) so stripes aren't a red flag to me.

I know some people get annoyed when we mention the red flags we find on cars that are for sale but IMO this is how people learn what to look for. It's certainly how I learned.

 

[gt/csj4]

Here is an a car that I can tell from the photos is a true GT/CS.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1968...3582546?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2a22ddb8d2

http://s1252.photobucket.com/albums/hh577/fastercash4cars/1968MUSTANGGTCS/

The biggest clue for me from the photos is the huge holes on the underside of the hood for the hood pins.
Other clues:
The DSO is correct
The Date is correct
The first part of the VIN is correct
The tail light bezels are all chrome.
It has the tail light covers in the trunk
The California Special scripts line up perfectly
It has the correct gas cap
The fog lights and posts look original
The lower grille panels also look original with the original charcoal paint
It has the fog light brackets, and they look original
I don't like the rusting rivets in the side scoops, or the placement of the rivets, but it looks like there may be a hint of a witness line on one of the scoops.
The hood pins have the proper patina
The screws in the tail light panel are in the proper place and seem to be the correct size

With all that said there are some red flags, like I think the driver's side scoop has been repaired because of how the mesh is riveted on and the background is body-color.
And then there is that rear stripe, but the car has been repainted (see the data tag overspray) so stripes aren't a red flag to me.

I know some people get annoyed when we mention the red flags we find on cars we find for sale but IMO this is how people learn what to look for. It's certainly how I learned.

This is a great starting point Arlie, at best it gives some ramification onto what to look for. Cityofangles17, utilize this knowledge so it gives a "certain concrete" place of point of what to look for when looking at Dan's car. The taillight harness is the biggest giveaway, but it does not give the entire story.

At best, if you have questions without a reasonable doubt, take plenty of photos and upload them so that 'we' can survey them and figure out if there are any indifference's. Have fun and please give a better description as to the damage involved, the pics really dont do it justice as i can't see the full extent of damage, it's not Dan'd fault, it's just the witnesses eye compared to digital photography :sad:

Cheers,
Joe

 

[cityofangels17]

I wont be able to check out the car anytime soon guys since i im here in the hospital recovering from my appendix being taken out

 

[Mosesatm]

Wow, what an awful way to get out of inspecting a car!!!

Hope you have a speedy recovery.

 

[gt/csj4]

Wow, what an awful way to get out of inspecting a car!!!

Hope you have a speedy recovery.

Haha :icon_lol:

 

[cityofangels17]

Lol i know .. i was looking forward to it .. i was also gonna check out the red gt/cs in covina. =( lol
Morphine does the body gooooood lol

 

[robert campbell]

Bam bam,
I am sorry to see how this thread went, as I have a car that is not a Marti identified. It is early and wears the GT/CS parts that are all original Ford pieces. You are correct with the wiring harness to the tail lights. Many “clones” (please please, not saying yours is) have the wiring harness spliced into a normal 68 harness somewhere in the trunk. If you pull the rear seat, you can pull the left rear interior panel and the rug scuff plate and see the complete harness. Also it has a purple tag with the Ford number on it sometimes if it has not been destroyed over the years in the trunk near the taillights. The other thing to look for is a special “fuse breaker” attached to the fuse box on a strip of metal kinda by itself. This breaker is about 1/2 inch by 1 inch and is part of the fog light system. If the wiring from the fog light switch and the wiring going forward have this breaker and look original that is a huge plus. Mine has both complete wiring harnesses in it. Of course a car with a fog light option in 1968 would have this stuff.

Another note your car seems to have a 1967 GT pop open gas cap. My car also has this. In the first GT/CS book the author mailed out a very detailed form and a bunch of the early cars came back with 1967 GT pop open gas caps listed. The letters are filled with black not red. Your car also has the early recessed reflectors on the rear quarter panel. Mine also does. This marks it as an early build.

One other thing easy thing to look at is the date codes in all the sheet metal. Usually a letter and two numbers. They are in the trough around the trunk that keeps the water out of the trunk. On the fender lip in the engine compartment where the fender bolts on. The steering box usually has a well preserved grease covered tag with a date code in it. Right all these down and post them. Normally they are somewhat close to each other and I can decode them for you. This can help establish things like the front fenders being replaced and the fact you have a horse emblem on them. The bottom side of the hood has them if you look carefully.

This stuff is kinda fun. My GNS car is still a mystery and I take no offense. Your car may be a very early car that was already complete and sitting on the Ford line. It has been verified that completed cars were converted into GT/CS cars during the first few weeks. How many is unknown. These cars would not be Marti identified by the report, but still non the less they came out of San Jose and were authentic GT/CS cars.

Yours may be one of those. By the way, if we every crack this, a very valuable early GT/CS!!

Rob

 

[nineofive]

Joe,

Thanks for the quick refresher. I should have know about the fastback vs coupe but what can I say but "Dooh"