1968 I’d tag and production run number

[Mosesatm]

Tail light panel screws.

 

[Mosesatm]

Neil,
I’m home today so go ahead and call or FaceTime if you need me.

 

[robert campbell]

Neil,
I’m home today so go ahead and call or FaceTime if you need me.

Correct 6 panels for the taillight assembly as seen from inside the truck.

 

[Mosesatm]

I think he's messing with us by keeping us in the dark.

 

[Mosesatm]

Neil and I discussed the car and decided that it can't be verified as a GT/CS. On the other hand we can't prove it isn't a GT/CS either, but due to the numerous errors and oddities I can't in good faith add it to the registry.
The fact that it was actually built in August is a huge stumbling block. All the other potential early cars were built in November.

 

[stangfan]

Neil and I discussed the car and decided that can't verify it as a GT/CS. On the other hand we can't prove it isn't a GT/CS either, but due to the numerous errors and oddities I can't in good faith add it to the registry.
The fact that it was actually built in August is a huge stumbling block. All the other potential early cars were built in November.

I think you have made a logical decision.

 

[J_Speegle]

Neil and I discussed the car and decided that it can't be verified as a GT/CS. On the other hand we can't prove it isn't a GT/CS either, but due to the numerous errors and oddities I can't in good faith add it to the registry.
The fact that it was actually built in August is a huge stumbling block. All the other potential early cars were built in November.

Good choice. No reason for such an early car to be saved for a conversion later in the production year that I can see. We've all seen plenty of cars that were converted/faked by prior owners to explain why and how often this was done

 

[Jerryowens1]

That is a pretty low VIN. Do you have any more pictures of the car? I am wondering if it may have a Parchment Vinyl Top?

289 2v

 

[Mosesatm]

This car doesn't have a dash VIN tag but it does have a visible fender VIN. Since the dash VIN became a federal requirement in 1968 is this car correct for an August 1967 build date?
In other words, was it January 1st that Ford started adding the dash tag and hiding the fender VIN?

 

[Ruppstang]

No, all 68 model year cars have the dash VIN tag. I would bet his dash has rivet holes. My 68 8R01S102161 built 08/24/67 has a dash tag.

 

[robert campbell]

No, all 68 model year cars have the dash VIN tag. I would bet his dash has rivet holes. My 68 8R01S102161 built 08/24/67 has a dash tag.

So the car has a visible fender VIN? Is it the same as the door tag? Is it in a 1967 spot on the left front fender apron?

Rob

 

[Mosesatm]

It’s visible and it matches the door tag.
Being it’s such an early build I wonder if the stamping person forgot the rules changed for 1968.

 

[Ruppstang]

There are many early 68s that have the double stamp. IMHO some PO found some GTCS parts and made a beautiful car with them. There are a lot of Shelby clones out there and I take it as a complement. What is wrong is to sell it as a real Shelby.

 

[robert campbell]

There are many early 68s that have the double stamp. IMHO some PO found some GTCS parts and made a beautiful car with them. There are a lot of Shelby clones out there and I take it as a complement. What is wrong is to sell it as a real Shelby.

A real clue to the clone thought is if it has original fiberglass. If it is all aftermarket fiberglass, the clone thought always applies. The availability of original fiberglass today is scarce to almost unobtainable. Certainly, a piece here, and real grill there, but it would take some time to collect it. The rear taillight wiring harness. Can't remember if Neil looked at that? There is also a possibility of a wrecked GT/CS long ago. That would allow for the collection of a lot of parts to build a GT/CS clone. One thing that tempers this is most wrecks are either rear end or front end. There goes some of the parts. But certainly, a possibility.

This car is so out of the realm of the production it should be questioned. And if to be considered it should be thoroughly inspected on a hoist by the best of the best. Possibly even disassembled a bit. I had to perform this on a 1968 427 Cougar GTE that was red flagged by the Cougar GTE experts, but it turned out to be the real deal.

Neil did not have enough time to really look it over and until such time it should not be included in the current registry until inspected.

Rob

 

[Mosesatm]

 

[robert campbell]

View attachment 54814

Is this a picture of the subject GT/CS?

 

[Ruppstang]

Boy that looks like a mess.

 

[franklinair]

That's one of the photos I took in my shop.

Neil

 

[robert campbell]

That's one of the photos I took in my shop.

Neil

Would love to look at that wiring harness. As it goes up to the front of the car. Not enough in the pic to tell if it is original. Certainly, laying in the wrong spot on the taillight panel .

 

[franklinair]

Here are the photos I have. I was unable to do a comprehensive inspection of the car due to late arrival (2hrs) & early departure. The car had a heavy PS fluid leak and I was worried that they wouldn't make it back home, but he insisted on leaving regardless. The rear filler panels were glued on (no screws) with the black goop.
My worst fear is that he bought a bogus GT/CS from someone familiar with GT/CS's ($33K IIRC). IDK if the seller was aware of the car's status, but the VIN makes it far outside the production dates for CS's (even for the preliminary intro models). Perhaps someday he can bring it back. It's a nice Mustang with a nice paint job.

Neil