When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Very pretty, very well documented 1963 Jetfire, though appears to be priced at the high end of the market.
Originally Posted by ebay seller
The Engine and Transmission are numbers matching, and by that I mean the engine and transmission are THE "born with" units. V.I.N.s were not stamped on drive train components in 1963 so this is only proved by the Protecto-Plate that I have and it has those same numbers on it. Engine number S213349T. Transmission number: OX5632125.
So what it used on the older cars to verify authenticity if there is no POP? Just look for signs that the engine or transmission has ever been out of the car? Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that the unit isn't original, but that would be a start...
So what it used on the older cars to verify authenticity if there is no POP? Just look for signs that the engine or transmission has ever been out of the car? Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that the unit isn't original, but that would be a start...
Short answer is that there is nothing that can prove authenticity without the P-O-P on pre-1968 Oldsmobiles. Certainly you can review the preponderance of evidence, like correct date codes on everything, appearance of untouched fasteners, etc, but the reality is that you just can't prove it. Unfortunately, this usually becomes an issue on a high dollar, body-off resto, where EVERYTHING has been touched.
That sound you hear is the BS detector going off...
And keep in mind that even the P-O-P only proves that ONE HEAD and the trans case are original.
Short answer is that there is nothing that can prove authenticity without the P-O-P on pre-1968 Oldsmobiles. Certainly you can review the preponderance of evidence, like correct date codes on everything, appearance of untouched fasteners, etc, but the reality is that you just can't prove it. Unfortunately, this usually becomes an issue on a high dollar, body-off resto, where EVERYTHING has been touched.
That sound you hear is the BS detector going off...
And keep in mind that even the P-O-P only proves that ONE HEAD and the trans case are original.
Wow, in that case I hope the P-O-P is in the glovebox in the 63 I'm getting soon. Not that it would be as big of a deal on a sedan/non-Jetfire...but still.
That is one NICE car.
I came back to my computer because something didn't look right. He put one of those aftermarket Turbocharged emblems on the front fenders.
Looks correct but not right.
Originally Posted by ebay seller The Engine and Transmission are numbers matching, and by that I mean the engine and transmission are THE "born with" units. V.I.N.s were not stamped on drive train components in 1963 so this is only proved by the Protecto-Plate that I have and it has those same numbers on it. Engine number S213349T. Transmission number: OX5632125. Shrewsbury Joe,
After reading your sermons about numbers matching for years in different forums, I knew you'd have a tear in your eye about this one.
Frank
Last edited by ignachuck; Mar 18, 2016 at 03:34 PM.
One of the problems I had with this car, is the seller claimed it was "rust-free" when it obviously isn't in the pictures. People need to be a lot more careful with using that term. If "rust-free" simply means less rust than other examples of this car I've seen...then that's acceptable. But the term simply doesn't mean that. Sellers re-define the terminology in order to supplement their marketing efforts. That would be a red flag to me because I would wonder what else they are exaggerating.
I mean, seriously, what is the big secret? Do you want to sell the car or not? Ads with the starting price miles below the reserve just waste everyone's time, in my opinion.
He needs to get rid of those Cooper Cobra Radial GT tires that did not come on the car. It probably had whitewalls.
I tend to agree. For a car that is otherwise so original I think they look out of place.
Question for you guys - what do you think constitutes matching #'s?
I have a friend with a 1969 Cyclone SCJ which he calls matching #'s because it has the orig block & heads. It's got an aftermarket intake & carb & the wrong year distributor. I say that's not #'s matching. To me, matching #'s is VIN matches where applicable and casting number / date codes are appropriate where applicable for parts that don't carry the VIN.
Question for you guys - what do you think constitutes matching #'s?
To me, matching #'s is VIN matches where applicable and casting number / date codes are appropriate where applicable for parts that don't carry the VIN.
What say you?
I say I slightly disagree.
Having correct casting numbers and date codes is NECESSARY, but not sufficient. The whole point of a "numbers matching" car is that the parts with VIN derivative stamps MATCH the VIN. That proves that the parts are the ones the car was born with. There are thousands or tens of thousands of parts with "correct" casting numbers or date codes. Those could have been added later, so this doesn't prove they are original. Only matching VIN derivatives (or in the case of pre-68 Oldsmobiles, matching Protect-O-Plate unit numbers) can prove the parts are original.
Since the whole point of a "numbers matching" car is that the car has the parts it was born with, saying that a car with aftermarket engine parts is "numbers matching" is ridiculous. Your friend's car could be said to have the original block and heads, for example, but that's all.
Even worse, of course, are the idiot sellers who advertise a "numbers matching" engine for sale - WITHOUT the car.
I even once saw an ad for a set of steel wheels that were advertised as "numbers matching". Yeah, I guess they all matched each other...
I mean, seriously, what is the big secret? Do you want to sell the car or not? Ads with the starting price miles below the reserve just waste everyone's time, in my opinion.
For those who are saying not to ask what the reserve is, obviously they have some control issues. They are afraid if they disclose it then they will only receive the reserve and not a cent more...but often times these reserve auctions end in nothing but a waste of everyone's time, especially on these higher dollar cars.
You're right, and I've heard it before from that Mecum auctions show..."Are you here to sell the car or not?" Put your goods in front of the audience most likely to spend the money on them. Unfortunately, it seems with eBay that many of the cars like this aren't being displayed to those likely to buy...only those likely to look. Many don't go to real life auctions just to look, but for eBay it has become another revenue stream. That's why they turned to all of those display ads a while back. Ugly, distracting, and potentially driving sales away from eBay. But who am I to know this???
Having correct casting numbers and date codes is NECESSARY, but not sufficient.
We totally agree.
I have another friend who calls his car matching numbers because the original, complete engine with all accessories is under a work bench in his shop. LOL.
One of the problems I had with this car, is the seller claimed it was "rust-free" when it obviously isn't in the pictures. People need to be a lot more careful with using that term. If "rust-free" simply means less rust than other examples of this car I've seen...then that's acceptable. But the term simply doesn't mean that. Sellers re-define the terminology in order to supplement their marketing efforts. That would be a red flag to me because I would wonder what else they are exaggerating.
OK, show me where you saw rust in ANY photos. Remember, the primer is Red Oxide. That car is 100% rust free (as in never had rust, does not have rust) period.
OK, show me where you saw rust in ANY photos. Remember, the primer is Red Oxide. That car is 100% rust free (as in never had rust, does not have rust) in the photos.
From the photos the seller posted online, I have to agree. That car is extremely solid. I saw some VERY minor surface rust at a couple of seams. To me, that's "rust free". From a body standpoint, I would have no issues with this car whatsoever.
OK, show me where you saw rust in ANY photos. Remember, the primer is Red Oxide. That car is 100% rust free (as in never had rust, does not have rust) in the photos.
From the photos the seller posted online, I have to agree. That car is extremely solid. I saw some VERY minor surface rust at a couple of seams. To me, that's "rust free". From a body standpoint, I would have no issues with this car whatsoever.
I'm surprised someone like you, with your "numbers matching" requirements and other nitpicky detail searching would consider very minor surface rust to be "rust free." The presence of ANY rust would, by definition, cancel out the rust free claim.
I'm not saying the car doesn't look great, it does. Just that the term rust free seems to be overused.
I'm surprised someone like you, with your "numbers matching" requirements and other nitpicky detail searching would consider very minor surface rust to be "rust free." The presence of ANY rust would, by definition, cancel out the rust free claim.
I'm not saying the car doesn't look great, it does. Just that the term rust free seems to be overused.
Are you saying that I'm ****?
Seriously, surface rust that can be cleaned up with a minor hit from a blaster is trivial. To me, RUST means holes that require welding to fix. Any 50+ year old car will have surface rust.
As for the trunk, are you talking about this photo?
Look again. That's not rust. That's cardboard stuck to the trunk floor over the stamped ribs in the trunk floor. The black dots appear to be sealer or sound deadener spray.
Seriously, surface rust that can be cleaned up with a minor hit from a blaster is trivial. To me, RUST means holes that require welding to fix. Any 50+ year old car will have surface rust.
As for the trunk, are you talking about this photo?
Look again. That's not rust. That's cardboard stuck to the trunk floor over the stamped ribs in the trunk floor. The black dots appear to be sealer or sound deadener spray.
Actually I think your ability to find small defects is a gift. More people need it.
No I was talking about that particular pic, but more so the trunk lid itself.
Actually I think your ability to find small defects is a gift. More people need it.
I suspect my ex-wives would disagree...
No I was talking about that particular pic, but more so the trunk lid itself.
Yeah, I really have a hard time getting excited by that. Look, the factory built these cars like crap. There was probably zero primer or protection in that crimp joint. I'd be THRILLED if that was the extent of rust on any car I owned. Dab a little POR on that can don't look back.
Yeah, I really have a hard time getting excited by that. Look, the factory built these cars like crap. There was probably zero primer or protection in that crimp joint. I'd be THRILLED if that was the extent of rust on any car I owned. Dab a little POR on that can don't look back.
LOL on the ex wives.
No, I know what you are saying...but if it were my ad, I would have advertised it as "rust free except for, spot A, spot B, etc." I do really feel that being detailed when you are selling cars like these lets the potential buyers know that you are trying to help show all you know about the car. To a serious buyer they would really appreciate the extra effort that went into the listing.
Kind of like those with 20 great pics but 2 blurry ones. Get the great pictures for every single one. Make the listing your best attempt with no regrets.
Not following you, the lighting is different, flash makes the red primer show thru
Ok, let's put it this way then...which picture is the better picture for an auction? The one that was in the auction listing or the one you just posted?
Ok, let's put it this way then...which picture is the better picture for an auction? The one that was in the auction listing or the one you just posted?
Yes, I agree and have changed the photo. Now you see this car really is rust free! I also have almost 100 close up photos linked to the auction as well.
When I look at a car, the first thing I do is lay on the ground and look up. If I see red primer and factory overspray I get excited. That to me tells a lot about the car. The surface rust bleed through areas can happen even on Arizona cars over a 50 year span due to the thin areas or areas never hit with paint. That car screams rust free and is deserving to the term. At least you know what you are getting. a fully restored car doesn't have rust......anymore
Ok, look...I'll admit, I'm no professional...not even close. But the thing is, there are many people like me out there buying nice cars every single day. When they see pictures that *look like rust* then they may be inclined to think that the car has some rust on it. I don't know anything about surface rust bleed through areas or the like. But many people just like me are a potential buyer. I observed rust, but yet it was termed rust free. People here acknowledge there is rust, but they still claim it is rust free. It is kind of like calling a coin MS 70 when it is MS 69. Not really much difference, but there is a different grade for a reason.
At any rate, I like the car a lot. My apologies if I made you feel like it wasn't one of the best examples out there, because I'm sure it is. But to me, rust free means no rust just as it left the factory. That's high standards, I know...but so is "numbers matching."
Are there truly any rust free cars of this age in existence with their original paint? I don't know. I'm not being pretentious, just saying the term "rust free" is probably overused. Kind of like people that say their car has a new wear part A or a new wear part B. Well, if those parts are zero miles then I suppose they are new, however when you put 1 mile on them then they aren't new anymore.
But anyway, you probably think I'm an idiot. Sorry for that. I do like your car.
These cars had rust by the time they hit the dealer lot. Finding one with out any rust whatsoever is not even possible. Rust means different things depending on what part of the country the car came from. My first parts car had heavy Ohio rust..
This is my opinion on what has previously been said. The car is in beautiful condition, and you probably can not find one un-restore nicer. But the under side rear in photo 18, in the top left of the photo, the rust issue is more substantive than just surface. It is pitted enough to warrant more than just sanding to repair. We can get into semantics and "splitting hairs", and it is fairly inconsequential but negates rust free stature.
On the numbers matching dialogue, touched on earlier. My opinion is:
A vehicle that still sports all of its VIN stamped items; body, engine, transmission, frame is technically numbers matching. How much weight does this numbers matching scenario carry? A vehicle could be numbers matching but have a aftermarket intake, carb, distributor, headers, etc. and not sport one Oldsmobile item except for the VIN derivatives. Ask yourself how impressed you would be that it is numbers matching?
Another vehicle but the owner spun a bearing in the early 70'. The original block is gone but he transferred all the components over to the new block. It looks identical to the day it left the factory. Ask yourself how impressed you are now? The point I am getting at, a vehicle restored with correct original parts fits the definition of restored further than a "numbers matching " one that does not. Don't get me wrong, numbers matching counts as it pertains to VIN stamped parts. And it is easier to change the incorrect parts than it would be to find,say a numbers block. Having a vehicle with all its original components is exceedingly implausible. Having one with the matching VIN derivatives is the next. The next reasonable alternative is to source original date preceding components to the car. That is the best scenario most are ever going to find.
