Posts by Dawsongrant98_old

FYI

Here is a line from his latest description,

The only potential bodywork is the front left fender and the rear left quarter may have been replaced.

I am the only person to see this car first hand other than the current owner. I showed him the choke hole thing and the fact that the rear left fender was clearly torched off and a new one mudded in, potential? I'll bet my life on it! I also find it very interesting that his comment is the "front left fender"! It is the front left INNER fender. There is bare metal showing around the edges of that inner fender where surface rust is and I also showed him where someone stick welded it first before spot welding other areas. To make matters more clear, the spot welds do not match the other fender. He absolutely agreed with me that it was not the original inner fender. I have been curious how he was going to describe it in his new ad. This is exactly why I didn't want the car. If I ever wanted to sell it after going into an accurate description I doubt anyone would believe it was a correct car. Why fight it when there are other documented cars available. I violated one of my oldest rules, know who you are buying from or look at it first.

This was the final conclusion I made in his driveway. It has parts of an original K code but the first place any person will look to start the verification process is that left front inner fender VIN #. As soon as you see it you know it was welded in. It surely could have been in a collision years ago and the body shop might simply have performed the swap but who knows for sure? It just wasn't the car that I bid on and now it is back up on Ebay. He does seem to have found new evidence that it is a real GT and K code. My argument with him is that he told me face to face in his driveway that his wife would refund the deposit with PayPal. I even remarked to him that I didn't think it was correctly described in the ad and my preference was not to buy it but since he had my deposit I was kind of leveraged. He said "I wouldn't do that". I took him at his word, my fault. After I left either he changed his mind or his wife changed it for him. It was just too easy for him to keep it once it was in his account.

Well guess what happened?

I sent the $2000 deposit and drove all the way down to West Palm with my trailer and $ in hand. The VIN section of the inner fender was clearly welded into the panel! The front inner panel was a replacement as well as the left rear quarter. After pointing this out to the seller he agreed that it looks as if it had been welded in there. I explained to him that I felt that was a huge issue since it is the first thing to check on any Hi-Po Mustang and would surely be a problem for me later and now. When I asked for my deposit back he said his wife does the PayPal stuff. Four Days later he decided that it was my responsibility to check it before bidding and if when he relisted it the bidding goes over $26,000 he would refund my deposit! I expected that the moment I left his house so this was no great surprise. A great lesson for me after 30 years of cars. I did tell him that I was very interested to see how he describes the car in his new auction. I hope someone else doesn't get taken too.

Thanks everyone for all your efforts.

Scott

Thanks for all the input folks. I have decided to buy and drive the car with no strings attached. If even one person questions my reputation by not buying it that will trouble me. After I pick it up I'll look into all the details listed here and let everyone know. I just got tired of all the brain damage, at the end of the day, how far wrong can the price be. I have owned fake A code GT 350s for close to the same $. Scott

I have sent pictures of the underneath to one of the members here, he feels it looks correct to be a Hi-Po body. It does trouble me that BJ Auction had it listed as a Mustang, not a GT or even a K code. It was sold this year at the Fl. sale.

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>

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.

Ok, it's my birthday and I have won an auction on ebay for a decent K-code coupe. I have bought and sold cars as a dealer for years and this is my first purchase personally since not renewing my license. Oddly enough I am a little nervous about the authenticity of this car since it is missing the fender tag. I know about the choke cable hole in the firewall, it should be stamped not drilled. What are a few more secrets to look for when I inspect it? I plan to keep the car for 6 months to a year or till something else gets my attention. I promised my bride of 26 years just 1-2 a year from now on. I owned a K-code fastback several years ago and really enjoyed it. The item # is 270144569740. I'll be going down tomorrow with money and my trailer so any help would be great.