[CH3NO2 Pontiac]

Hey, Don Keefe:

What ever happened to Cliff Gromer and Jerry Heasley?

[pont406]

Don Keefe, or rusticoaf, is Randy's museum open to the public yet? if so what's the address, as i'm only a little over an hour away from Columbia City! would love to see his collection of SD pontiac stuff!

[rusticoaf]

pont406 you have pm

[pont406]

Rusticoaf, you have a PM as well.

[spartazoo]

what is the "race car getting found in a ditch" story all about. Not sure if I have heard that one before.

[Jim's EEK!]

Originally Posted by CH3NO2 Pontiac

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blown Nitro Pontiac:
The pretty little bow ain't tied up yet.

Where's the original PA title?

Why would Union Park put the title in their name?

It costs more money to do so, and it puts another owner on it.

On a car that was originally $3800 new, it's now a "C" title to whomever bought it used. Now, with the Alabammy title, it's a "D" title. Since, by '64, this car has now bounced through 3 states, it remains an "A" title in the last state to record it?

There seems to be no plausible reason for this, but it's possible. Even probable.

If the SD program was discontinued in February of '63, would Union Park have installed another SD engine by August of '64? Or a 326? Was aluminum sheetmetal still available new by August of '64?

The car was sold new for $3800 (or thereabouts), but was resold as a year old car in '64, for $2300?

So, according to Bill Blair's story, GMAC must have lost $1500 on this car (as DeNick likely owed more on it than he paid), not to mention the cost of a new motor (SD or otherwise) and new sheetmetal, and repo/storage fees? Who paid the difference?

What did Union Park Pontiac pay for it? $100? Dealers didn't buy cars for resale back then unless they could make good money on them.

Did they buy it back at auction? If not, did GMAC just call Union Park and say "we'd like you to have this car, because we like you?"

What?

This is why who DeNick financed the car from is HUGELY relevant. DeNick wasn't known at the time as being a particularly good credit risk. His '62 Plymouth, for example, was repossessed prior to this debacle. GMAC was a little more choosey about their credit risks back then than was Chrysler Credit.

Interesting.

If that car was worth ANYTHING, doesn't the reasonable person think that Harold Ramsey would have bought it back (for next to nothing)and either raced it or would have sold it and made money? The fact that he did neither suggests it was worthless. Yet, a guy from Alabama supposedly drives a day up and day back down, to buy the car for $2300?

Geez. Six months later and STILL no answers.

Interesting. But not surprising.

[tom s]

Scott,like I told you in my email,no one but you really gives a crap!Tom

[tom s]

Scott or Jim,if you really want something to do with your time there is a rebodied RAIV 69 T/A at BJ this year!See what you can stir up on a car someone might REALLY care about!Tom

[Jim's EEK!]

Hello, Schlocky.

I missed you, too.

Get us some information on the fake T/A. Maybe when we start a post discussing it here, that criminal will register and post for the first time, in a similar, lame, attempt to exhonerate himself.

Sound familiar?

[tom s]

actually this seller did admit it was rebodied.LOL

[Jim's EEK!]

Boy, THAT'S a switch.

Somebody who will actually admit to a tag job.

Let's watch to see if he bothers to put in IN WRITING for the BJ auction.

[tom s]

he did not admit untill a buyer wanted to pull the heater box.Tom

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by tom s

he did not admit untill a buyer wanted to pull the heater box.Tom

Ahhhhhhh, another opportunistic douchebag presenting a car as something it isn't.

[chief many horses]

Boy some of you guys really are proficient at slandering one of our own. After going through the first ten pages I finally decided to skip the bull and get to the end- it's cleaner that way. As far as Randy Williams and Scott Teimans reputation being on the line-- I don't think so, their creations speak for themselves. Randy was a true Gentleman as is Scott and both have always been a encouragement to our hobby. As the very proud recipient of the first Randy Williams Memorial Award of Excellence given at Norwalk in 2005 I feel nauseated at how, for whatever reason we try to slay our own. Wouldn't it be a little more politacally correct to chop down a F--- or Ch--- restorer.
C'mon guys, they're just hunks of iron with a great memory behind them- We can only revive them the best we can - of course they'll never be EXACTLY as they left the line, At least craftsmen like Scott will tell you when he had to cut some corners, can you say that about many "restorers"?
One more thing-- Recently I have dug up another ORIGINAL 62 S.D. G.P., it's a mess and you wouldn't believe it's history!

[Brian Baker]

Tieman's reputation? Which one? The one involving awesome quality restorations or the one involving his expressing his personal opinion in an international publication about it being acceptable to restamp engine blocks to in effect produce a "numbers matching" car?

[chief many horses]

No I don't agree with all aspects of some, so called, "restorations", and the dollar value of the final product should definately be affected by its correctness. If the restorer tells the truth of the "cloned" part from the beginning is he a criminal. On the other hand, if the decking and re-stamping or whatever is done to deceive someone - burn him at the stake!
As with the Gartzman and Williams cases I think that there are some dissimiliarities in case histories.

[Brian Baker]

If the purpose of the restamping were not to deceive for profit, what other purpose could there be? The restorer may only be following the directions of their customer, but they're the ones commiting the act, therefore they are at the very least an accessory to the deceipt.

[chief many horses]

Yes and no---- In the S.D. case, if it's the truth, the car was replaced and the vin tag was installed - so to speak. In a re-stamp or remanufacture of a part, (such as to make the trans. hydraulics work), again, if changes are documented and to be used as a museum piece to show the way it should have been - there is a difference. Museums around the world are full of re-manufactured history. Documentation of changes are the key issues here, is it done to decieve? I've personally sat in on Scott's seminars at times and really had to do some hard thinking when he would say right out what he had to do in circumstances where parts were just not available. I don't suppose that if someone is outwardly saying what he is doing that he is purposely causing deception. He's telling you like it is, but maybe you do know more of this situation than I do.

[68Prix]

I just say it is a sweet car. Every one can say what they want but it is well known what that car is as I remember it back in Pontiac Entusiast and they showed the body work and all. How could you "deceive for profit" if every one in the hobby knows about it?

[R 70 Judge]

Here are the restoration photos Mr. Keefe was referring to on page 5 just in case no one has access to them. Such a beautiful car.

Hmmm...Where have I seen one of those transaxles before?