I might just have to cancel my order with Paul, get my $200 back and order from Branda. Would have had it by now.
Paul said he was trying to match up book numbers with car vin numbers.
i don't think you'll get that from tony branda.
food for thought
COMMUNITY
1968 GT/CS & HCS
2007+ GT/CS
1966-1967 HCS
-
Welcome to the CaliforniaSpecial.com forums! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all our site features, please take a moment to join our community! It's fast, simple and absolutely free.If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.Please Note: If you are an existing member and your password no longer works, click here to reset it.
. Your thoughts on the new California Special book/registry
- Thread starter obwan93001
- Start date
Paul said he was trying to match up book numbers with car vin numbers.
i don't think you'll get that from tony branda.
food for thought
speedy02
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2003
- Messages
- 756
I guess that would depend on his VIN. If I remember correctly Paul is keeps 1-100 for himself anything over that will be sent to members of the forum. I requested my VIN and I was giving the last 3 digits the other book was in the 800 range. Also I am at a disadvantage due to last 4 are 2284 only 2000 books made so the only number I could get is 284.
It is a great book love looking at it and will enjoy showing others the story of the California Special & High Country Special.
It is a great book love looking at it and will enjoy showing others the story of the California Special & High Country Special.
68 special
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Messages
- 525
One of mine was the last 3 if my vin and the other is 322.
Bret
Bret
Sarge
Well-known member
Still waiting for mine, and I live about 2 hours east of Paul. I could have walked them here by now... Oh well. I waited this long, I can wait some more.
CougarCJ
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,216
Branda would not have prepaid and preordered books three years ago, like the members here diligently did.
robert campbell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,322
How do we know it was a debut car? Was the author there? Does he have some kind of proof other than it was early and the right color? Lots of early cars out there.
Rob
Ok the dead horse is starting to stink on this site. You guys are the best on this site I know that, so lets get on and above this negativity. There is plenty of that in our lives else where I do not want it in my hobby. Truth never needs to be defended.
Curtis can answer Rob's question better than I can but it seems as Kevin Marti was on board with the research. I would think that going buy the earlyist VINs, colors and options it would not be to hard to narrow it down. Marty
Curtis can answer Rob's question better than I can but it seems as Kevin Marti was on board with the research. I would think that going buy the earlyist VINs, colors and options it would not be to hard to narrow it down. Marty
Mosesatm
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 9,178
Sorry I misunderstood the title of the thread. I thought all comments regarding the book were welcome.
So you're saying the thread title should have been titled, "Only Your Positive Comments about the New California Special Book/Registry."
Rob wants to know how it's been proven that the car in question was a debut car. That is a legitimate question, and an important question. Is the answer explained in the new book?
So you're saying the thread title should have been titled, "Only Your Positive Comments about the New California Special Book/Registry."
Rob wants to know how it's been proven that the car in question was a debut car. That is a legitimate question, and an important question. Is the answer explained in the new book?
DLedin
Well-known member
Yes it seems to be. As Ruppstang alluded to, information from an elite Marti Report determined that the CS in question (8R01J131680) was the same vehicle that Lee Gray special ordered as part of the debut. It appears the CS was a "1-of-1" vehicle. For more details refer to pages 46-48, 60.
-DLedin
hookedtrout
Well-known member
I would agree and I think Rob's question is valid considering he had similar questions about his own car and was snubbed by the very same "registrar" simply because he (Rob) wouldn't conform to the registrars way of thinking and expectations if I remember correct. Rob's car could very well be a significant piece of all this history but the "registrar" couldn't see past the personal issues to the importance of the history which seems to be showing up in the book based on the amount of mistakes already identified. I for one would love to understand the importance of Rob's car in relation to all the early cars, is it discussed in the book?
Midnight Special
Well-known member
...Cory, Rob, - It would be cool to revisit Rob's threads of '07 - "09 as I too believe he was really on to something (search <debut>)...
The book is what it is, and despite being shadowed by our expectations as were the authors expectations of us - let's hope the "carcheology" continues freely from now on. I can respect Newitt for finally getting it done (and leave it at that), but it's by no means the end of the road...
The book is what it is, and despite being shadowed by our expectations as were the authors expectations of us - let's hope the "carcheology" continues freely from now on. I can respect Newitt for finally getting it done (and leave it at that), but it's by no means the end of the road...
robert campbell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,322
Cory/Tim/Arlie,
Thanks for the support on this issue. Maybe my comment "was he there" was off base. Does someone have the book to read what DLedin is referring to? His first sentence uses the word seems. Please to not take that as an attack on Dledin. I have the elite report on my car. It does not offer any information as to "who" ordered it. Many cars are 1 of 1 due to some obscure option. My brother-in-law has a 1 of 1 1967 Fastback. My car due to a rear window defroster option, is a 1 of 4 or something stupid like that. Just due to the matching of certain colors and options.
Just because his suspected debut car is the lowest vin in the Marti report with the "California Special " option in Marti, and is loaded with alot of similar options, DOES NOT MAKE IT A DEBUT CAR.
I firmly believe that the 14 or whatever the count was GT/CS cars on the stage at the debut WILL NOT BE MARTI VERIFIED with the California Special option on the the Marti report. The Marti report confirms that a car "is", but not that a car "isn't" in this case
I firmly believe these cars were already at the end of the production line and "converted" into California Special cars. Not ordered as a California Special as these cars were not even known until just a week or two before the debut.
There were a glut of cars on the line due to the Ford strike in late 1967, and a glut of cars finished at the plants.
And finally, I bet a lot of the cars ordered on the day of the debut were clones of the debut cars. The people would say, I want one just like that one! DUH.
And Tim, Arlie, and Cory are correct. The author, due to personal reasons that seem to surround many of his actions, would not hear of any of this and completely shut me off. Long before any real tension developed.
And the question of my car having the scripts in a high position was never answered. I am totally confident that the debut cars had the GT/CS script in a noticeably higher position that the cars later off the line later did not have. My car has those holes in the higher position.
Again, I do not know what the heck I have. It may be a clone, or dealer assembled. I just wanted the answer to the questions. The author has large pictures of the debut cars. I have seen a small picture of the car he feels was the debut car in front of Lee Gray on the stage. The script is in the lower position and does not match the car on the stage at the debut.
The author would not share even a copy of the picture to help me. They were copy righted of course..... That was so frustrating, and that is when I knew he did not care to find the real truth. So that makes many other aspects of his research suspect.
All of the above are facts. Not hype or emotion driven. All authors must have thick skin when the reviews come in. This thread is one of them. We get to share our opinions. And mine are not about a spelling error here or there. The above is a huge gap in the research of the early cars and I offered my help. I was shut off.
Rob
Thanks for the support on this issue. Maybe my comment "was he there" was off base. Does someone have the book to read what DLedin is referring to? His first sentence uses the word seems. Please to not take that as an attack on Dledin. I have the elite report on my car. It does not offer any information as to "who" ordered it. Many cars are 1 of 1 due to some obscure option. My brother-in-law has a 1 of 1 1967 Fastback. My car due to a rear window defroster option, is a 1 of 4 or something stupid like that. Just due to the matching of certain colors and options.
Just because his suspected debut car is the lowest vin in the Marti report with the "California Special " option in Marti, and is loaded with alot of similar options, DOES NOT MAKE IT A DEBUT CAR.
I firmly believe that the 14 or whatever the count was GT/CS cars on the stage at the debut WILL NOT BE MARTI VERIFIED with the California Special option on the the Marti report. The Marti report confirms that a car "is", but not that a car "isn't" in this case
I firmly believe these cars were already at the end of the production line and "converted" into California Special cars. Not ordered as a California Special as these cars were not even known until just a week or two before the debut.
There were a glut of cars on the line due to the Ford strike in late 1967, and a glut of cars finished at the plants.
And finally, I bet a lot of the cars ordered on the day of the debut were clones of the debut cars. The people would say, I want one just like that one! DUH.
And Tim, Arlie, and Cory are correct. The author, due to personal reasons that seem to surround many of his actions, would not hear of any of this and completely shut me off. Long before any real tension developed.
And the question of my car having the scripts in a high position was never answered. I am totally confident that the debut cars had the GT/CS script in a noticeably higher position that the cars later off the line later did not have. My car has those holes in the higher position.
Again, I do not know what the heck I have. It may be a clone, or dealer assembled. I just wanted the answer to the questions. The author has large pictures of the debut cars. I have seen a small picture of the car he feels was the debut car in front of Lee Gray on the stage. The script is in the lower position and does not match the car on the stage at the debut.
The author would not share even a copy of the picture to help me. They were copy righted of course..... That was so frustrating, and that is when I knew he did not care to find the real truth. So that makes many other aspects of his research suspect.
All of the above are facts. Not hype or emotion driven. All authors must have thick skin when the reviews come in. This thread is one of them. We get to share our opinions. And mine are not about a spelling error here or there. The above is a huge gap in the research of the early cars and I offered my help. I was shut off.
Rob
Last edited:
CougarCJ
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,216
One of my jobs at work is to perform Ford research; create, proof read, edit our online catalog, ....and I get paid to spend time on several enthusiast forums. ( :cheesy: I actually get paid to cruise californiaspecial.com at work!) With those skills, coupled with OCD, I had time to crack this book and really digest it with my unique set of skills.
"Carcheology", thanks Tim, I now have a title for work. I will hence forth be known as the 'Carcheogist'.
Kudos first.
Tons of good information that will aid me in the restoration of my GT/CS. I am talking about the specific GT/CS stuff. Stripes, script, Lucas fog lights, hood and hood wiring, tail light installation, etc. This is the reason that I ordered the book. I really like the Kevin Marti production numbers on pages 80-81. Really nice to see the information from ACSCO, with the drawings and what not.
Good reference stuff on the late model CT/CS cars, it I ever chose buy one of those.
OK, now for the inaccuracies and mistakes that I see. You MCA judges please correct me if I make a mistake. Book errors, if not mentioned could be detrimental to folks coming in late or those trying to authenticate a 1968 GT/CS from this book.
Page 91. Second line of the VIN tag 1. the “Body Code” section. Add code 65D - ‘Hardtop Décor Bench Seat’. Marti confirms this on page 80 ...Knitted Décor Bench Seat.
Page 116. That 289/302 air cleaner snorkel with the vacuum fitting was only used up until early April-ish 1968. The overwhelming majority of our cars will not use this snorkel.
Page 116. Reversible or ‘double’ cut keys began in 1967. New front suspension “hockey stick” lower control arms for better ride. Substitute ‘strut rods’ for ‘lower control arms’.
Page 117. I am pretty sure that the word “Challenger” only referred to the 289 engine. As was mentioned prior, the specifications listed are for the F code 302-2V (which was not available on the Mustang in 1968). The 302-4V also has 4 venturis. Single exhaust only, unless the GT option was checked off. On the 289 engine section – I do not believe that the 289 V8 engine was available in a 1968 Torino GT.
Page 118. ‘Thunderbird V-8’? ‘Thunderbird Special V-8’? I don’t think so. The S code 390-GT engines came with a Holley carburetor with 4 venturis, not 1 venturi.
Page 119. Pet peeve of mine. The 1968 W code 427-4V engine, was only installed in Cougars, nothing else.
Page 137. Caption is incorrect. The Knott’s Berry Farm show is called “Fabulous Fords Forever”, it is an iconic show in SoCal.
Page 149. Engine compartment concours detailing – Brake parts. Master Cylinder and Cap – Gloss Black. I thought that the master cylinder was ‘natural cast’ and the cap was ‘gold cadmium’??
Page 157. The California Special side script pins, were secured in the trunk with flat “speed nuts”. The industry name for these fasteners is “Flat Nuts”. Speed nuts are stamped nuts that are self threading.
You want OCD stuff? I scanned through the registry pages and found lots of errors. Cars with standard body code 65A with Décor interior codes, Décor interior code cars (65B) with standard interior trim codes. There are 2 - S code cars with C4 transmissions, 7 – J code cars with C6 transmissions, 6 – C code cars with C6 transmissions, 3 cars that have a code “N” transmission, and 1 car that has a code “V” transmission.
Page 195. T150309 65A M 2K 13C 72 4 W
Page 195. C150309 65C I 8U 15C 72 2 W Paul Batto.
There are a bunch of cars listed on page 194, that have date code errors, or correct date codes with consecutive VIN number errors.
If someone doesn’t see their VIN number it is likely out of sequential order, there are a bunch of those. I lost track before the end.
Page 193. C143053 65A I 2G 16B 71 2 W Jim and Shirley Kelley
Page 193. C143053 65A Y 2Y 16B 71 2 W Unknown
Page 202. J169958 owned by Rober Coutches. It’s there, about 16 from the bottom on the left column.
Page 203. C169958 owned by Art Sahlstein.
Too many other minor errors to list, mostly simple key stroke errors on trim codes and maybe dates.
Some of the dates worry me, they fall into the VIN sequence of cars built in Dearborn. If the dates are correct, then OMG the sequential VIN numbers are wrong.
"Carcheology", thanks Tim, I now have a title for work. I will hence forth be known as the 'Carcheogist'.
Kudos first.
Tons of good information that will aid me in the restoration of my GT/CS. I am talking about the specific GT/CS stuff. Stripes, script, Lucas fog lights, hood and hood wiring, tail light installation, etc. This is the reason that I ordered the book. I really like the Kevin Marti production numbers on pages 80-81. Really nice to see the information from ACSCO, with the drawings and what not.
Good reference stuff on the late model CT/CS cars, it I ever chose buy one of those.
OK, now for the inaccuracies and mistakes that I see. You MCA judges please correct me if I make a mistake. Book errors, if not mentioned could be detrimental to folks coming in late or those trying to authenticate a 1968 GT/CS from this book.
Page 91. Second line of the VIN tag 1. the “Body Code” section. Add code 65D - ‘Hardtop Décor Bench Seat’. Marti confirms this on page 80 ...Knitted Décor Bench Seat.
Page 116. That 289/302 air cleaner snorkel with the vacuum fitting was only used up until early April-ish 1968. The overwhelming majority of our cars will not use this snorkel.
Page 116. Reversible or ‘double’ cut keys began in 1967. New front suspension “hockey stick” lower control arms for better ride. Substitute ‘strut rods’ for ‘lower control arms’.
Page 117. I am pretty sure that the word “Challenger” only referred to the 289 engine. As was mentioned prior, the specifications listed are for the F code 302-2V (which was not available on the Mustang in 1968). The 302-4V also has 4 venturis. Single exhaust only, unless the GT option was checked off. On the 289 engine section – I do not believe that the 289 V8 engine was available in a 1968 Torino GT.
Page 118. ‘Thunderbird V-8’? ‘Thunderbird Special V-8’? I don’t think so. The S code 390-GT engines came with a Holley carburetor with 4 venturis, not 1 venturi.
Page 119. Pet peeve of mine. The 1968 W code 427-4V engine, was only installed in Cougars, nothing else.
Page 137. Caption is incorrect. The Knott’s Berry Farm show is called “Fabulous Fords Forever”, it is an iconic show in SoCal.
Page 149. Engine compartment concours detailing – Brake parts. Master Cylinder and Cap – Gloss Black. I thought that the master cylinder was ‘natural cast’ and the cap was ‘gold cadmium’??
Page 157. The California Special side script pins, were secured in the trunk with flat “speed nuts”. The industry name for these fasteners is “Flat Nuts”. Speed nuts are stamped nuts that are self threading.
You want OCD stuff? I scanned through the registry pages and found lots of errors. Cars with standard body code 65A with Décor interior codes, Décor interior code cars (65B) with standard interior trim codes. There are 2 - S code cars with C4 transmissions, 7 – J code cars with C6 transmissions, 6 – C code cars with C6 transmissions, 3 cars that have a code “N” transmission, and 1 car that has a code “V” transmission.
Page 195. T150309 65A M 2K 13C 72 4 W
Page 195. C150309 65C I 8U 15C 72 2 W Paul Batto.
There are a bunch of cars listed on page 194, that have date code errors, or correct date codes with consecutive VIN number errors.
If someone doesn’t see their VIN number it is likely out of sequential order, there are a bunch of those. I lost track before the end.
Page 193. C143053 65A I 2G 16B 71 2 W Jim and Shirley Kelley
Page 193. C143053 65A Y 2Y 16B 71 2 W Unknown
Page 202. J169958 owned by Rober Coutches. It’s there, about 16 from the bottom on the left column.
Page 203. C169958 owned by Art Sahlstein.
Too many other minor errors to list, mostly simple key stroke errors on trim codes and maybe dates.
Some of the dates worry me, they fall into the VIN sequence of cars built in Dearborn. If the dates are correct, then OMG the sequential VIN numbers are wrong.
robert campbell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,322
Thanks Scott. This is important stuff for people trying to verify their cars. The Dearborn sequence stuff is troubling. this could lead to all sorts of inaccuracies.
Rob
Rob
Mosesatm
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 9,178
Add Page 83.
DSO 53 not listed in the chart and DSO 65 is not shown on the map.
DSOs 71 and 72 show the earliest date as Jan 18th but the registry shows the build date of the premier car as January 31st. Does "earliest date" on the chart mean the same thing as production date on the data plate?
I'm still studying it but I think the Lucas information is incorrect because no mention is made of the early lights. The early cover is shown but not the early housing.
DSO 53 not listed in the chart and DSO 65 is not shown on the map.
DSOs 71 and 72 show the earliest date as Jan 18th but the registry shows the build date of the premier car as January 31st. Does "earliest date" on the chart mean the same thing as production date on the data plate?
I'm still studying it but I think the Lucas information is incorrect because no mention is made of the early lights. The early cover is shown but not the early housing.
rvrtrash
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2003
- Messages
- 3,665
I don't have the book, so can't speak to specifics, but I think it's fair for an enthusiast site to critique a book about the object of the site, i.e. the California Special, in this case. I've seen the same thing on other sites dedicated to my other interests, and see nothing unusual about it. We do the same thing with cars that come up for sale. I think that because of some of the angst with the author in this case, everyone wants to "tiptoe past the graveyard" or automatically assume that negative comments are personal. I'm sure New York Times book reviews are sometimes colored by the reviewers perceptions because we're all human, but we shouldn't be afraid to point out errors. We are all passionate about our cars and jealously guard it's heritage. In hindsight, it might have been wise to let a few others proof read and critique the book before it went to print, but it is what it is. Maybe finding and documenting the errors into a list that people can reference can be viewed as a positive, to enhance the book.
Steve
robert campbell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,322
Steve, could not have said it better. We, the site, could have been a great "free" spell and fact check.
Rob
Rob
franklinair
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,744
The C/S I'm going to look at Tuesday has DSO 53 (Kansas City), an early July production date.
The paragraph above the DSO chart says "only a handful of cars" being shipped to Dallas & Kansas City. No specific quantities specified.
As for the Debut models, that would seem VERY difficult to verify. Logic would dictate that they were "customized" production line cars, prepped for the unveiling. So there would be no designation on these units as California Special. True? If GT/CS production began January 18th, it would be interesting to see Marti Reports for VIN's of units produced for that month. (Where's Sherlock Holmes when I need him?) I would think there would be a lot of documentation during the embryonic stages of developement/marketing.
Neil
The paragraph above the DSO chart says "only a handful of cars" being shipped to Dallas & Kansas City. No specific quantities specified.
As for the Debut models, that would seem VERY difficult to verify. Logic would dictate that they were "customized" production line cars, prepped for the unveiling. So there would be no designation on these units as California Special. True? If GT/CS production began January 18th, it would be interesting to see Marti Reports for VIN's of units produced for that month. (Where's Sherlock Holmes when I need him?) I would think there would be a lot of documentation during the embryonic stages of developement/marketing.
Neil
