Last spring I went to the meet at Carlisle, PA and looked at a 1963 Oldsmobile Dynamic 88 that had gone through the auction there. It had sold for more than $16000.00 as a 2 owner, original vehicle with 50k. I know 2 of these facts not to be true because I once owned this same vehicle. I was the 4th or 5th owner. The engine was originally equipped with a 2 barrel carb. This model did not have the option of a 4 barrel carb from Oldsmobile that year. However I did find a complete 4 barrel set up from a 1963 Olds. sitting in a junk yard which I used to replace the original 2 barrel. I attempted to contact the buyer through the auction company but, was unsuccessful. I was told that the buyer did not wish to speak to me about the car. Makes me wonder if there are any truthful people still left out there? If anyone recognizes this vehicle, please advise them of this tread. Thanks!

 

Why are you trying to rain on this guy's parade?

Yes, the car was not as advertised, and sure that probably grates on you a little bit, but it's not your car any more, and the buyer is apparently aware of this issue and doesn't care as evidenced by the fact that he wants to be left alone. So leave him alone.

 

trash

 

Plus, I'm not exactly sure what the relevance is of these two issues to the price the car ultimately brought. It's not a 2-owner car, it's a 5-owner car. That's a minor issue. The car is the car, and its condition is what really matters in terms of its value.

Second, the fact that it has a 4-bbl setup when none was originally offered by the factory is also not much of an issue. First, this information is not hard to come by, and either the buyer did his research, knows the setup is not original, and doesn't care, or he didn't do his research and doesn't care, anyway, as he likes the 4-bbl. In any event, it's not like the car couldn't easily be returned to the factory setup if one was inclined to do so.

 

Grates on me? No there are too many dishonest people out there. And no, I do not believe the buyer has all the facts. Would you want to be lied too if you were making a purchase for a car that is not as stated? If you were to sell a vehicle that you did not have documentation for, would you give false information on its facts? I am guessing you would!

 

In my book you did the right thing

 

Guy A got swindled.

Guy B knows it firsthand and is trying to let Guy A know.

Sounds to me like the decent thing to do.

I think you've done your duty by posting this information for Guy A to find, since he doesn't want to be contacted.
I think that the only other thing you could do would be to post the VIN, so that Guy A or a future owner could find this post through a search and then contact you if he wished.

My suspicion would be that Guy A plans to resell the car, and wants to be able to "truthfully" say that it is an all-original 50,000 mile, 2-owner (now 3-owner) car, which he could not do if he let you tell him that you knew different.
If the VIN is posted, Guy C might be able to avoid getting swindled himself.

- Eric

 

The 330 HP 394 four barrel engine was offered in the Dynamic 88. The 63 Olds sales catalog says so. Reference to a four barrel Dynamic 88 is also made in the parts catalog. I also owned one a number of years ago.
That being said, I have no doubt that this car may have been swapped over to a four barrel. Do you know if it had dual exhaust? Original 4 barrel jobs also had duals.

 

This is also invading the buyer's privacy. Whether his plan is to flip the car tomorrow or keep it until he dies, it's his car now. It's not yours. It's not the OP's. Leave the buyer alone. It's not someone else's place to be posting the car's VIN in public places.

 

No it's not. He owns the car, not the VIN.
Anybody can walk by on the street and read the VIN of any car (yes, I know that the VIN of a '63 Olds will not be at the edge of the windshield). It is in full public view, and so is not private information, any more than his license plate number is.

If the OP owned the car, happens to recall the VIN, and wants to post it with information about the car from when he owned it, there is nothing wrong with that.
If I wanted to post the VIN of the '68 Delta that I sold in the '90s, along with what I knew about it then, what I did to it, and where I went with it, there would be nothing wrong with that. In fact, it might be a service to a future owner looking to learn more about the car (as people are always searching for prior owners of their cars).

All we're talking about here is posting truthful information.
What could be wrong with that?

- Eric

 

I can see both sides of this thread but if he didnt want to talk to you about it why come out months latter to talk about it ? Not on ether side of the fence
just wonder why now ?

 

True, but there is a big difference between walking by a car on the street and casually reading its VIN to yourself versus broadcasting the VIN nationally with an attached statement denigrating to the owner.

And what you say IS true. On a '63 Oldsmobile, the VIN is NOT readable by a passer-by. You have to open the door to look at it, and doing so IS an invasion of privacy. The VIN may be a public number, but this doesn't give someone the right use any means, including trespassing, to acquire it. You want to know the VIN on this car? Go to the DMV and ask for it.

 

Interesting question.

 

I can think of a bunch of analogies to support being informed by whatever means.... your wife needs the dentist but your regular dentist retired so you make a decision on a new dentist...well after your wife went to the dentist a friend told you ohh that guy? he was accused of lifting skirts under the gas but never charged... i'd like to know such info, (a far fetched but probably true somewhere) comparison but it comes down to having as much info as available

 

You couldn't possibly have come up with a more apples-to-oranges comparison than this.

First, of course I would want to know if a dentist is misbehaving. But once I knew that, it's MY business as to whether or not I want to keep patronizing that dentist. If I do, it's not up to my friend to keep pestering me to stop going to him. He informed me. I'm now aware. He did his duty. End of his involvement.

In this case, the OP has made an attempt to inform the buyer that the car's history was not as advertised. He was rebuffed by the buyer. Fine. He's done his duty. End of his involvement. He should not continue to pester the buyer, and posting info here that would help others contact the buyer when he doesn't want to be contacted, is also a form of pestering.

 

Does not have duals. I did the swapping.
The motor is a high compression 394.

 

But there is no need to trespass if you already know it.

My point is that if the OP had no knowledge of the current whereabouts or situation of the car, but only knew what happened to it while he owned it, there would be no reason for him not to post this information.

In fact, any prior owner of any of our cars could do just that at any time, and I, myself, do not see how it would be an invasion of my privacy if someone did so regarding one of my cars. Frankly, I think it might be a service to the hobby if we were to assemble such a database (which aficionados of specific car models, such as the SX and the LS-6, already do with their "registries.")

Since this would not be wrong if the OP had no knowledge of the current status of the car, it stands to reason that it would not be wrong if he did know who owned it.

By the way, we have not yet been told exactly how the OP knew that his car had been his car. I postulated that he might remember the VIN, but perhaps there was some other characteristic that gave it away.

- Eric

 

My bad i was assuming the buyer contacted the auction house and did not talk to the buyer

 

I honestly do not know if he was contacted by the auction house. I just been informed of this today. I am no longer attempting to contact the present owner. I just thought that if he had no knowledge of my attempt, and he/she wanted to know the truth about the car, he/she would have it. I have nothing to gain by what I am doing except, believing I am doing the right thing.

 

No need to enter the vehicle. If I was aware of the state it was registered in I could enter the vin# into the DMV files and obtain all. Or if I had the plate# I could do the same. I do not need to obtain the information that badly. I do have access to both.

 

The OP, in good faith, contacted the auction company in order to give them information to correct their mistaken representation.
Since the auction company only sells the cars, and is not responsible for verifying all of the sellers' claims, it would be reasonable for the OP to believe that they might want truthful information, so that they would not inadvertently misrepresent the items they're selling.
Since the car had already sold, he asked the auction house to convey his information to the new buyer.
The auction house then told the OP to take a hike, which is what you would expect, because they have absolutely no interest in queering their $16,000 sale, and no legal obligation to act as a messenger.

Just because the auction house told the OP that the new owner did not wish to speak to him, that does not mean that they ever contacted him at all.
It would make no sense if they had contacted him. Would you?

There is every reason to believe that the new owner has been swindled, and that he has no idea of it, and no idea that the OP ever tried to contact him, hence his desire to do so outside of the control of the auction house.

- Eric

 

I am 100% sure. Down to the lamented Brochures I had used when I took the car to shows. Those brochures were in the auction house pictures. The pictures that I posted on my 1st tread is the car in question. I have many more for comparison. If I had known this treat would have started a controversy I would have had second thoughts about posting.

 

Eric, I only advised the auction company of this after I was was told that the buyer allegedly said he/she did not want to speak to me. I am not saying the auction company did anything wrong. The vehicle information is the responsibility of the SELLER.

 

If I was the new owner I would want to talk to you to get any info I could . I don't have a problem with the post just why so late but sounds like you may have had another one on it.

 

One last comment jaunty75. The training and experiences I have encountered in my profession, allows me to determine the character of the individual whom I am communicating with the majority of the time.

 

Not sure why someone's attempt to promote honesty is being lambasted.

But we already know that the owner isn't interested in speaking with a stranger so the matter should be put to rest. This thread is document that the info is out there if someone wants to find out more about this car.

 

But you're not the new owner, are you?

 

It's not this simple. He wasn't just "promoting honesty." No one is against honesty. He was and is attempting to invade someone's privacy.

 

It doesn't give you the right to impugn the character of others.

 

gee thank's for the info .

 

how is this invading someones privacy? I can see why folks may not want to get contacted especially in today's world. But most car guys would love to hear the history of their car but yes many wouldn't since it is not what they thought it was or want to tell the next person it is. But if I bought a car and someone tracked me down to give me info or buy it back I wouldn't consider it a privacy violation, as others have said its all out there. Heck I've traced my cars back as far as I can.

I think this was a good thing. In the end as been mentioned its not that much of a price differential. Its not like someone took a 4-speed Cutlass and made it a W30 - that's a huge jump. (though I'd dig the 4 speed cutlass just as much)

 

As I see it a PO of a car sees it being misrepresented at an auction. He doesn't like what he sees and tries to contact the buyer to give him the fact as he understands them.
For whatever reason he can't do that and airs his views on this forum.

Now he's under attack for poking his nose in where it isn't wanted.

C'MON GUYS!, this is supposed to be a forum for helping and sharing information with fellow Oldsmobile enthusiasts.
Let's not get into flame wars because we don't agree with each other.

I've found my views differ from others on a number of topics, I can live with that, maybe sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm right, but I can agree to differ and sleep soundly at night.

Roger.

 

Do NOT cuss when posting on Classic Oldsmobile.

Please don't flame other users.

 

only reasoning i can think that you wouldnt want to let someone know this info either prior to or after the sale is that you dont like the buyer...could care less about the sale, or the buyer is unstable...maybe you become involved in a legal situation to testify.... so there are reasons perhaps

 

The OP did the RIGHT THING.

The auction house said that the new owner does not want to be contacted by the OP. I think that's because they are now worried that the new owner may file a lawsuit against the auction house for misrepresenting a car.

No one knows whether the previous owner lied about ownership, or the auction house lied to boost the sale. Auction houses wipe their hands clean after a sale is completed, and claim they only sell cars authenticity to "the best of their knowledge" as being correct. That gives them a loophole to get out of. But if the auction house deliberately lied about the previous ownership or originality, that's why they don't want the OP to contact the new owner.

I would track down the new owner via the DMV, and send him a polite letter via snail mail. The new owner may thank you, and try to sue the auction house. On the other hand, the new owner may not care, and in that case, there's no harm done.

Me thinks some of the naysayers in this thread may have sold a car or two that had a shady history, they passed the buck, and now they're slamming those that say it's ok for prior owners to contact current owners.

This is a classic case of "show me the CarFax", but for a 50 year old car. There's nothing wrong with honesty, and I applaud the OP for doing the right thing.