Mecum Dallas
#41
That's exactly why I am telling my story. This all started by my statement that the car in question was bogus because of the cowl tag change which I have proof. Then the debate started over the cover plates. This car was built in Lansing and therefore should have the Lansing plates,not the non Lansing plates.
#42
Allegedly? you're kidding right? That makes no difference because the cowl tag is bogus. So the time frame makes no difference. You seem to keep over looking the fact I know who did it,when he did it and why he did it. FYI,it was not built during the 66 W30 time frame. The car in question isn't a W 30,so what does that have to do with it?
Last edited by 66-3X2 442; September 7th, 2014 at 05:31 PM.
#43
#44
#45
#48
The two known 66 W-30 cars used the round blower cover but the PIM shows the plate you pictured. You can see in the picture of the plates in Joe Donnelly's 66 W-30,it has the round cover. I can't remember which blower plate cover I got with the plates I got from Hawaii but the main cover was of the Olds/Lansing type.
#49
That's a possibility and I don't know why they had different plates but with different vendors,that could be the answer. I have no reason to doubt Joe about what he's done. All I can do is go with what I have observed. I wonder if he wants to get into the factory A/C delete plates that were used?
#50
Happy birthday, the post count quote made me choke on my coffee.
#51
Whew, do I win anything for actually reading this whole post?
Actually, the best part is that although displaying intense disagreement, it ended amicably.
That should happen more often... good job!
Actually, the best part is that although displaying intense disagreement, it ended amicably.
That should happen more often... good job!
#52
auction result
The white & red 65 442 post coupe sold for $31K. Damn I love that car.
http://www.mecum.com/lot-detail.cfm?...=DA0914-193480
http://www.mecum.com/lot-detail.cfm?...=DA0914-193480
#53
The white & red 65 442 post coupe sold for $31K. Damn I love that car.
http://www.mecum.com/lot-detail.cfm?...=DA0914-193480
http://www.mecum.com/lot-detail.cfm?...=DA0914-193480
You might have a chance to buy it soon. Its not a 442, and this is the third time its been thru an auction. Seems the buyers find out its a fake and get rid of it. Mecum briefly updated the listing to 1965 OLDSMOBILE F85, but it became a 442 again the day of the auction.
From 2011, and most of the details are wrong.
http://www.mecum.com/lot-detail.cfm?...=CA0811-113167
Last edited by TK-65; September 7th, 2014 at 09:22 PM.
#54
curious
You might have a chance to buy it soon. Its not a 442, and this is the third time its been thru an auction. Seems the buyers find out its a fake and get rid of it. Mecum briefly updated the listing to 1965 OLDSMOBILE F85, but it became a 442 again the day of the auction.
From 2011, and most of the details are wrong.
http://www.mecum.com/lot-detail.cfm?...=CA0811-113167
From 2011, and most of the details are wrong.
http://www.mecum.com/lot-detail.cfm?...=CA0811-113167
Although I am a 1965 442 owner I am not a 1965 442 expert. Please tell me what evidence you see that proves this to be an F-85 & not a true W-29 car. Thanks in advance.
Even if it is a clone I still love the car but no one wants to pay W-29 money for a clone.
#55
You might have a chance to buy it soon. Its not a 442, and this is the third time its been thru an auction. Seems the buyers find out its a fake and get rid of it. Mecum briefly updated the listing to 1965 OLDSMOBILE F85, but it became a 442 again the day of the auction.
From 2011, and most of the details are wrong.
http://www.mecum.com/lot-detail.cfm?...=CA0811-113167
From 2011, and most of the details are wrong.
http://www.mecum.com/lot-detail.cfm?...=CA0811-113167
#56
See post 24 of this thread.
#57
I don't take any of this personally,it's just debating the history of these cars.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post