[Judge273]

Just last week I faxed my PHS to Jim M with a couple of question on my 71 Judge. My questions were about some extra line items on the invoices that I never saw before in the lower left hand corner that included charges, and I also asked if there was a why to verify no-charge options.

He responded within 20 mins of my fax via phone call, and answered my questions to my satifaction. The charges were actually credits for mileage. It turns out it was a executive demo car or show car that was built in August 1970, and sold to the dealer in May 1971 a 5% discount.

He also stated that there was no way for HIM to see the no-charge options broken out.

[Uncle Judge]

That's right Mike! I was not pullin' your chain about the Factory Show car or Executive staus of that 71 Judge! Very early build date and late dealer allocation.

Originally Posted by Judge273

Just last week I faxed my PHS to Jim M with a couple of question on my 71 Judge. My questions were about some extra line items on the invoices that I never saw before in the lower left hand corner that included charges, and I also asked if there was a why to verify no-charge options.

He responded within 20 mins of my fax via phone call, and answered my questions to my satifaction. The charges were actually credits for mileage. It turns out it was a executive demo car or show car that was built in August 1970, and sold to the dealer in May 1971 a 5% discount.

He also stated that there was no way for HIM to see the no-charge options broken out.

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

Every d@mn body in the hobbie already knows PHS is $35 well spent, that isn't even in question. I say Kenth was merely dis-pleased to know his could have contained even some more crucial information. And THAT is the topic.

If Jim M. personally gets your requests - you may hear something back. If one of his "apprentices" gets your request - it may go in a storage container that is emptied on a regular basis.

I don't even know what prompted Pontiac to begin providing us with this information in the later 80's. It was even FREE then. They have been especially good to us and that is no doubt.

Once a car has been determined to be what we had hoped for, paying additional charges for a billing history card or just the engine and trans unit numbers would be an attractive offering to very many, I am sure.

[Kenth]

Baron Von Zeppelin is correct.

What good are the CAR BILLING HISTORY to authenticate the driveline without the M.U.N and T.U.N.

Frustrating to know these #´s exist on the original papers and not shared with the buyer of the copies .

Why go through the trouble to remove these #´s?

[Steve Hoog]

Kenth

In my opinion the Engine Unit number is crucial to pre 68, as it is the only point of connection for car to block. But, that is not what year of car this thread started on.

On the 68 and up (I think 68 is the dividing line); as I have already stated, the VIN and Unit numbers are redundant to the concern. The copy of Pontiac invoice received through PHS is a mute point to connect the car to the block. The original block will already have the VIN stamped in it, so the invoice is not even needed to determine it was/is the original motor. Assuming restamping is not an issue.

It is entirely possible that there never really was a reason for the Engine Unit numbers to not be transferred past Pontaic’s own records, at least after the VIN’s were placed on the blocks. After that point in time, the Engine Unit number may have only been an inventory control number for the plant.

[md1twal3]

If it isn't already clear, I think I speak for most of us on this topic that we are indeed appreciative of the information that PHS provides. It is awesome to have such a resource to offer such authenticity.

I just don't want anyone at all to get the idea that PHS and JM are getting slammed here.

I know I personally don't imply that PHS specifically is holding out by not providing this valuable information, but if it is out there...someone is.

Myself, restampers or collectors or what ever....if you own the car that the data corrisponds with (and can prove it legally), I feel that by paying an established fee, you should be entitled to information out there pertaining to it....unfortunately those that own it the data don't feel the same way.

[taximan]

You're right on with that.

I know I've said it before, but it bears repeating. You can't believe the BS that is going on with Corvettes now. They are a scammers paradise. If you check the NCRS forum board, they have posts from knowledgable experts that pick apart about 80% of the stamp pads on EBay Big Block vettes, as frauds , and re-stamps. And people are paying $100,000 + for these cars !

Lets be thankful PHS exists.

[Steve Hoog]

I have said it numerous times and will again, PHS is invaluable. We should not throw unwarranted comments toward PHS and JM. There is a strong possibility it’s a sporadic data base with the Engine Unit number in the first place, and I do not know have a clue who is squandering the numbers. If PHS does indeed have full access to what’s left of this particular data, there would be a high probability GM is at the helm of control. That would make it a big mistake to slander or attack PHS and JM, there could also be any other number of possibilities.

[oxfordsteve]

I shudder to imagine what the hobby would be like if PHS disappeared today. I suspect that a six cylinder Tempest might become the rarest Pontiac of all as only GTO's would be left in a few years...

[sawyer]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that PHS is a money making proposition. PHS makes money because it provides a service to us Pontiac enthusiasts. If they have more information, I see no legitimate reason for PHS to withhold it.

[dancolkate]

PHS is a GREAT resource for us.....everyone agrees with that. And so far I've not seen a single direct accusation that PHS has (or has held) the info we're discussing.

The purpose of this discussion is to figure out IF in FACT the sequence numbers exist which (when used properly) are useful information to the hobbiest.

Until someone comes forward, this is ALL speculation.

1) Does the data actually exist?
2) If it does, is it contained within PHS or elsewhere?
3) If the data exists, why has it been held back (as perceived by the holder)?

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

No disrespect intended towards any person(s) or organization(s), but I AM in fact making the direct accusation that PHS has this information. Maybe not for all Cars, but then again maybe so.

Where the He|| do you guys think I got the documentation for my Red 67 H-O 4spd GTO posted earlier in this thread that lists these numbers ? Santa Claus ? The Keebler Elves ? It was just a general $25 PHS (yes $25 - the early days) . I'm no brass hat exec with strong ties to Santa or any elves.

Maybe it is sparodic information or fades off at some point, but they certainly had it for this Car of mine in the late 80's. I don't have all of my PHS packets here with me, but of the ones I have here - looks like at some point in late 1990 they stopped listing the engine and trans unit numbers. I have a packet for a 1966 GTO Vert with postmark of Dec 1990 and it doesn't list the unit numbers. I think I have 1 or 2 more for a 65 and 67 that DO have the unit numbers listed. Will try to dig them out next time I am over there. Will also try to check with some old friends around here and see what they have. Appears the trick is/was getting them in the early days of PHS's formation. It could very well be something Jim M., or a group of names, or GM, or PONTIAC decided we didn't need to know. But it does indeed exist friends, to what extent - I don't know.

Here is another example I will post that "looks like it has" the engine unit number, little blurry. This is a 1968 Firebird being offered for sale on this forum by image4you2see. He has owned Car over 20 years so maybe he acquired this PHS in the early goings as well.

The last thing I would ever want to see is PHS discontinue their offerings. Why some are taking it that way seems utterly ridiculous ! Get your minds right and get in the game here boys. This is not an attempt to expose any wrong-doings, we have been done nothing but right. This is an attempt to further our own knowledge and database. Why wouldn't you want this information on your Car if it is archived, or Car you may potentially purchase for big bucks.

If they can't/won't release the info anymore - so be it. But the old excuse of "we don't have any of that" is worn out and not true. I have presented prime examples that came directly from PHS that DO contain this info and confirm otherwise. Give us the info or give us a BETTER excuse, Please !

*** I also have no qualms if anyone wishes to re-document my Red 67 listed earlier. Just to see if it comes back with or without the unit numbers. My guess is it will not have them included this time. ***

[Steve Hoog]

This thread started off with a 69 car. I got my 69 Invoice for the car I have owned since 79 from Pontiac, WAY back. I did not get a sheet with the Engine Unit number. I know that special favors have been done for 69 cars of the years, and that information provided in private.

Now Baron has disclosed the concealment of the number on older vehicles starting at some point in time, until this thread I did not know that had happened. And I'm assuming these few examples are indication that it is purposely removed now as Baron suggest. Interesting to me, the pricing on my Pontiac provided invoice was hand marked through with black marker. Current 69 invoices expose the pricing, a reversal in the opposite direction.

All very interesting and I too think some real answers would be appreciated.

This thread got BIG real fast and is drawing a lot of attention, I felt like it could have headed off on a witch hunt. That’s why I reconsidered the nature of my post in this thread.

I suggest to anyone following this; if you feel it is worthy of the answers Baron is requesting, Write the POCI and or GTOAA president. We do not know who is dictating what data PHS releases. Since it could be a delicate matter; I feel the two presidents should determine if it is worthy of their attention as the representative of our clubs, and handle it accordingly for the Pontiac community as a whole.

http://www.gtoaa.org/

http://www.poci.org/

I'm not sure where the POCI Pres email is, but the GTOAA is right there for all to see.

[Judge273]

I am not familar with how the judicial system works for 69 judges. But, the presidents of car clubs seem to be your routes for justice?

Has anyone directed their accusations to Jim M at PHS? He is the guy on your hotseat? No?

How big is this thing? Will it change the way we buy cars of value? Heck, a few years ago without this info you could buy a completely restored matching RA IV Judge for 35K. That green 71 Judge vert was offered for 40K in the late 90's.

Who knows what the futures hold?

[Steve Hoog]

The culprit is unknown.

I don’t know if the positions of the two club presidents have ever taken on a matter like this; but if they haven’t, it seems like a good place to start in my view point.

And for JM answering us, I don’t think he would talk to some knuckle heads from a forum about such a matter hence my suggestion of the club presidents.

[dancolkate]

Baron had the best idea yet. We should have thought of it before this post.

Request PHS for a car we know already had PHS with sequence number listed. If the newer PHS came back without, that would sure tells us something.

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

STEVE: I think that's a good suggestion about seeking representation from POCI and GTOAA if this matter interests them in the way I think it should. I will gather as many examples of these PHS with unit numbers as I can over the following weeks. Others with older copies or ties to other old-timers of the hobby I ask you to investigate copies as well, Please. Especially 1964-1968 GTO's.

JUDGE273: Of course many of us have inquired of J.M. and/or PHS about this information. Some of these responses are even posted in this thread. An individual as one is just another John Doe asking too many questions. You get blown off about it with answers made to fit.

Individuals in charge of a World Wide organization armed with actual documents that are providing this information could get better recognition and maybe even gain further knowledge or further access for us all. It may lead us right back to where we stand now, but it seems like a good time to come forward - I have gotten nowhere with it for almost 15 years and I even have the proof of it's existence.

In General : Nobody is being grilled or down-trodden with this. Just trying to make more people aware of this information, and educate more about what it means and relates to. Many haven't a clue and therefore no interest or curiosity. I have known this information exists for at least the 1964-1968 Cars since my first $25 PHS packet for my 67 GTO, then some others came with it, then they stopped having it. It disappointed me somewhat and raised my hand. I have conversed with others over all these years and they have some with and some without as well.

I had never seen a billing history card for a 1969 Car before and that's what popped this thread when I found this one. It's not a question of IF for me really, it's more about how far does it go up in the years and why did it stop being revealed on PHS documents to us. It should at least be re-established on the 64-68 Cars, and with this 69 billing card, it should go at least as far as that Car - in the least. They are making things good for us, why not make it the best it can be ? If that is at all allowable on any given basis.

[Judge273]

If you read the 1969 GTO in question owner who sold the car describes his PHS package as :

Q: If you have purchased a PHS package, why would you not send it to a bidder or post it in your listing?
Dec-16-05
A: Yes, I do have a PHS package. The PHS package is a billing history, a build sheet and a window sticker. I have all but the window sticker. I figured the person who would invest in a car such as this would order their own. This is a true Judge, but with what options, I am unsure.



Q: Does the car have the Judge glovebox emblem? Is the rear wing an original part? What do you mean by finished trunk? Any pictures of the trunk without all the parts in it? Thanks
Dec-14-05
A: The car does not have the emblem on the glovebox, but I believe the early Judges did not come with the emblem. I will have to snap more pics tomorrow so I will get some of the trunk. I was trying to avoid having to remove all the trim. I mean finished as it has the trunk spray that looks good. As far as the wing I have never unwrapped it, so it may be original, a repop,or maybe even NOS. Can't be sure.



Q: can you send a copy of the phs? Does the car have hideaways? My e-mail is kdmat@prodigy.net
Dec-13-05
A: All that I have is the billing history you see pictured. I don't have the PHS docs that clearly outline options. You will need to order that from www.phs-online.com. I am pretty sure this car did not come with hideaways.

Did anyone ever get the PHS on this car? Appearantly this guy didn't! Is it a real Judge?

My favorite answer from this reliable source:

Q: Does the PHHS documentation you have, state the words, Judge Package, and the price of the package next to that option? thanks frank
Dec-18-05
A: I don't have that sheet. That was the one I lost. It is a genuine Judge. 100% guaranteed!

[Uprmich]

Steve and Baron, I can attest that the MUN's are not being hidden within the last 12 months on the 67's, and a '68, but the two 65's I have done the billing sheet is different and there doesn't seem to be a spot for a MUN as does the 67 sheet. I am trying to find some old 68-69 PHS packs to look. Steve, I can also say that when Pontiac used to provide the build sheets they blacked out all pricing per some of the stuff I ordered in the 80's, at least until '88(ouch!) and now that PHS exists it is no longer blacked out so that may be the answer to that. It might be that is year specific not an agenda by someone. Has anyone ordered a PHS on a 70 recently?? I know that the '79 PHS stuff I have doesn't have a spot for a MUN but with vin stamping it seems redundant although that started in late 67.

[md1twal3]

Here is more discussion information from another post many of us were heavily involved in...

http://216.178.81.108/forums/showthread.php?t=452297