5F07K634945

nice car, and strong bidding $$ so far - agreed.

Edited by - 66gtk on 07/13/2007 06:04:04

That is a nice car and a very early GT. Good to see 25k+ for a K coupe with a standard interior. Encouraging for all of us and our heirs!

Three bids went in within one minute from the same bidder, who appears to be an eBay "Power Seller" that bid on multiple cars and boats within the last 30 days...

Excellent observation Fred. Also .. Ford may not have been producing GT's as early as Valentine's Day in '65 Can someone chime in on that?

A couple of things bother me about the GT status of this car. The fog light switch is in the later production location rather than hanging under the dash and the drivers side fog light wires come through the core support which is unlike the early ones that I have seen wrapped around through the headlight area. It just looks to me like someone wanted to make it look correct and was unaware of how the early GT's were done. I would love to see the dash cutout behind the instrument cluster.

-Fred-

[/quote]

Someone check on the unit number. The Feb date might be a little early for this car.

Fog light switch hole does not appear to be in the right location.

Edited by - caspian65 on 07/13/2007 09:19:30

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Someone check on the unit number. The Feb date might be a little early for this car.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana" size=2 id=quote>

The unit number falls into line with cars <i>scheduled</i> for the second and third week of February at DAP. According to the Smart and Haskell <i>In Search of Mustangs</i> book, the earliest <i>documented</i> GT Mustang is a San Jose car from February 20th, and the earliest Dearborn built GT is from February 29th. Since that book was published in 1994 and hasn't been updated, it's possible that earlier GT's may exist, but aren't officially documented.

The seller states that the car was built February 14th, 1965. Interestingly, there are NO cars listed in the Smart and Haskell Mustang Registry with a scheduled date of "14B" at any of the three assembly plants. That's because February 14th of 1965 was a Sunday, an impossible build date...

<center>1965 Calendar</center>

Would agree that the scheduled build date is probably too early to be a factory GT.

I wonder what the Warranty plate looks like on this car. The seller doesn't show any pictures of it for us to see what the scheduled build date is, but if it's stamped for February 14th, there's a real problem...

Interesting observations from all. No doubt the car has a repop door tag. I never got why people would want to change those. These days, if a car is nicely restored, what does it matter if the color combo matches the door tag? If you have to replace a door, then maybe I can see it, but recently, I have seen more repop door tags than original ones (on nice cars anyway).

That being said, this looks like a nice car. Whether or not it is an original GT would not stop me from buy a car like this. If the drivetrain is all there, and it's not rotting from the inside out, anything below $30K looks like a good deal to me. You just don't see that many nice Koupes for sale these days. I applaud whoever restored it for taking the time to do a nice job, especially when you consider what sellers of K cars with virtually no K parts are asking for their vehicles.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Three bids went in within one minute from the same bidder, who appears to be an eBay "Power Seller" who has bid on multiple cars and boats within the last 30 days...

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana" size=2 id=quote>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Sold for <b>$26000</b> to the only bidder

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana" size=2 id=quote>

Very strange...<img src=images/icon_smile_question.gif border=0 align=middle>

It could be a case of the buyer wanting to be sure he was successful in the auction and second-guessing his own bidding with subsequent higher bids.

Or a shill bidder...

Not with ebay; never happens.<img src=images/icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle>

Hi Guys,

I have a memory way back in my head

that this car or one looking exactly

as this one used to be in the Denver

area and was showned in Mustang Monthly

in the beginning of the 90's. Something

about this guys parents looking after

his car when he was in Gulf war.

/Bo

Thanks for the call Fred! The car had a "Buy It Now" at $33,000 when listed. I bid $24,000, then $25,000, then $26,000 which is when the reserve was met and the Buy It Now went away per Ebay. Now that the GT is in question I am a little uncertain whether or not to close. I'm going to call the seller and ask for a picture of the door tag. Thanks for the input everyone! I'll keep you informed.

You may all be wondering about this transaction, here is where I'm at. If anyone thinks I am being unreasonable in any way please let me know.

Scott Ales

Edward,

The car is listed on your auction as a Ford Mustang GT. You should have listed the car as a 1965 Ford Mustang K code, period. I noticed that the auction where you bought the car would not even list that! Let alone the GT option. Your comment that it cannot be proved that it is not completely undermines your case. You just don't sell things that way. I do not believe that your intentions were malicious in any way but the auction process has brought out the issues at hand. If I were to offer this car to anyone else would I be correct in saying it was an original K code, GT? No, because I cannot substantiate that, nor can you by your own admission. It would be like saying Elvis owned this car once, you can't prove he didn't! The burden of proof is clearly on the seller, you. You listed it as a GT, you cannot prove it is one. It simply doesn't seem right to award you the full amount with this knowledge. A $1000 reduction was more than fair and at first your gut was to agree.

By the way, you have attacked my credibility by your comments. That is a shame, why take the time to create absolute fabrications of what you think of me. My reputation stand as my true record, not your opinion. I have never suggested any comments such as this towards you. I'm not at all interested anymore in taking the car for the first adjusted offer. That would have been a gift to you and you passed. Sadly enough I believe you will wish later that you had taken it.

The Sunday issue aside, the K code issue aside, everything else aside, it's in the heading as a GT, and you agree that you cannot prove that.

My offer stands. I will not buy the car unless you guarantee it to be what you listed.

Scott

Edward wrote:

Scott,

Your response to the date is incorrect. Read the following from a mustang website:

“Data tag build dates are really the scheduled build date of a Mustang. Often times these cars were days or even weeks later than the data tag scheduled build date. Generally speaking, scheduled build dates and actual build dates were very close in time.” This would lend even more credibility my belief that this is an early GT.

I can not sign an affidavit stating that I have absolute knowledge of the build date, if it is the original engine or if it is a factory GT. The only person that can do that would be the person that built the car. Based on all of the information that I have available to me and all of the people that I have spoken with, there is nothing to indicate that this car is not an original K code or an original GT, and that is something that I would attest to. Every question that you raised was answered to indicate that everything that I stated was correct. This car was produced over 40 years ago and there is no way to prove whether or not, in any 40 year old car, a motor is original to the car. Even paperwork can be forged to indicate something that is not true. My point is that I can not imagine someone going to the trouble to try to forge a doorplate, a matching fender stamp (which appears to be original), correct plates on all of the other various parts indicating a K code, etc for a few extra thousand dollars in value. I think that it would cost more to go to all of that trouble. Even you admit that the car is a kcode body. If that is the case, the numbers would not have to be changed since the VIN would already indicate a K code. Therefore, why would someone bother to change the numbers? The date codes on all of the parts indicate a February 1965 build date also. It does not make sense.

The bottom line is that it can not be proven that this car is not exactly as I have listed. I have done my best to respond to every one of your inquiries, which have affirmed the authenticity of the car. Under the terms of ebay, it is not my responsibility to respond to a counter offer once a buyer has agreed upon a price, it is the responsibility of the buyer to send the deposit according to the terms of the sale, which was $2000 within 48 hours, and to arrange for payment of the auction price. You did not do that, therefore you have violated the ebay user agreement, not me. I 100% believe this listing to be 100% accurate with all of the information that I have available to me and all of the information that I put down, even after the auction started. There has been nothing that I have stated that can be proven otherwise.

The authenticity of any car, especially one that is over 40 years old, can be refuted. To quote you, “Ford was not building classic, collector cars in 1965”. In my opinion, this car is exactly as I have listed it. In my opinion, and I may be wrong, I believe that you were just looking to lower the price after the fact. If you average only $100 dollars in all of your transactions, that would be over $40,000 in savings. For me, it is not the $1000, or if that is a fair counter offer as you say, it is a matter of principle. We had a contractual ebay agreement that I was prepared to honor. You had asked me early on if I would stop the auction if I did not get north of $30K. I would not do that if my reserve was met, which it was, by you.

For the record, I never turned down your winning bid of $26,000 and you had until 10:17AM this morning to send a deposit according to the terms of ebay. You did not do that. What I turned down was your attempt at a renegotiation for $25,000. You did not even see the car to be able to refute its authenticity.

Edward

Edward,

I did wait all day to hear from you with no response.

There are several significant issues with your car. I was willing to accept it at a slightly reduced price simply because of the discrepancies that came to light after the auction closed. If you are suggesting that you are willing to sign an affidavit in front of a notary that you will guarantee the car to be a K-code, original engine, Gt equipped, and built on the 14th of February, 1965 then I will absolutely pay the $26,000 for the car. The real problem here is that the factory never produced cars on a Sunday! It's not that it was built so early, it's just that it could not have been actually produced on that day. Which means the door tag is bogus. I do believe the car is a factory built Hi-Po, K code body, but I don't believe that door tag. So now what you have or me if I am to pay for it, is a car with less history.

I spoke to several experts on this matter. There are no cars in the registry that have a build date on a Sunday, none. It is surprising to me that you didn't accept my offer of a slight adjustment in light of this. If you have the only car Ford produced in 1965 on a Sunday you should be thrilled to relist it at a much greater reserve.

This is the main issue for me. You stated that I would have to pay more if the GT issue were irrefutable, the title of your auction states GT yet now you take the position that it is refutable. If it's not irrefutable then it is refutable! This is a clear and obvious deviation from the auction listing and makes my point perfectly.

Another issue is that we are leaving on vacation tomorrow for NC and will not be back before August 5th. That is the reason I needed to hear from you yesterday. I cannot get a cashiers check on a Saturday. I bid on the car knowing of our schedule and that I had plenty of time on Friday or Saturday, the lack of contact over the last 20 hours negates my ability to close on a timely basis. This was no fault of mine, I was ready and waiting. I waited for you, now I at least deserve the same consideration.

For the record, I offered you $25,000 yesterday for Ebay item # 270144569740 as long as I could verify that the body was an original K code body. You immediately responded on the phone that my offer seemed fair but you wanted to check with your wife first. I had every intention of coming to pick up the car yesterday afternoon or this morning first thing. I have a paper trail with my bank showing the transfer of money into my account to prepare for this transaction. That offer would not carry with it an obligation to prove or verify that it was as you listed it, a 1965 Ford Mustang GT, numbers matching, built on the 14th of 1965.

You have declined the offer today the 21st of July 2007.

Edward, I think I understand your disappointment, I just don't think it's me as much as it's the description of the car you listed. I really tried to go beyond fair with my offer, I'm sorry you don't agree. Since you declined my offer above the only offer now on the table is for me to pay $26,000 with a notarized statement as suggested above and waive your right to a trial if proof is provided by me later. An independent third party mediator would make any final decision. This costs you nothing as long as the car is as listed. I can't be more fair than that and must ad that I look forward to both of us honoring the "terms" of Ebay. Here is a statement from the Ebay "Listing Practices" section,

Creating titles for listings that do not accurately describe the item for sale.

I have sent our emails to Ebay for their records.

If you agree with this final offer, the closing will need to take place after the 7th of August. I have meetings on Monday and Tuesday scheduled with the City.

I await your decision.

Scott

Edward wrote:

Scott,

I am sorry that I did not get back to you yesterday. My wife got in later than expected and then she had a girls night out and I was busy with meetings in the afternoon, so we did not get to discuss the issue. That being said, you can call me later if you want to.

I must admit that I am disappointed about you trying to renegotiate the price of the car. Yes, it is only a thousand dollars but, it is also a matter of principle. You had more than ample opportunity to ask any questions that you had during the auction. In fact, you did have questions, which I answered and you requested some additional photos, which I provided. If you did not want to pay an amount for the car, you should not have bid that amount.

The K code is not in question. It was also registered in the K code registry. With regard to GT, I also found out that an original GT would have a steering gearbox with a number of either HCC AX or HCC AW to indicate a factory GT package installation, not a HCC AT. This car has HCC AX which further strengthens the argument that the car is a factory GT. As far as I am concerned, I believe this car to be a factory GT. If there was irrefutable proof, you would not be able to get this car for anything less than $30,000.

I am not willing to let the car go for less than what you originally agreed to pay for the car. You placed the bid and, under the terms of ebay, you are obligated to pay that amount. Unless you do so, that is exactly what I will report to ebay.

Edward

<font color=blue></font id=blue>