SAAC Forum

Deals and Appeals => Up For Auction => Topic started by: 5s386 on October 29, 2025, 06:00:14 PM

Title: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: 5s386 on October 29, 2025, 06:00:14 PM
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1969-shelby-mustang-gt500-25/
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: 683760 on October 29, 2025, 06:11:11 PM
Nice car. Should bring good money
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: FL SAAC on October 29, 2025, 06:54:40 PM
Certainly is a pretty car and according to the M statistics report only 165 fastbacks in this color ;D
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: shelbymann1970 on October 29, 2025, 09:02:08 PM
I've seen the car in person a few years back when Dan,the owner, was almost done restoring it. I bought some parts left over from his resto. It is a nice looking car not far from me.
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Coralsnake on October 30, 2025, 05:19:32 AM
The primer choices seem confusing?
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Coralsnake on November 03, 2025, 12:26:03 PM
Among other things.... 😬
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: FL SAAC on November 03, 2025, 06:28:00 PM
Great job by the restorer to come up with all the detailing marks

Well the car should do well

Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Bill on November 03, 2025, 06:56:33 PM
Quote from: Coralsnake on November 03, 2025, 12:26:03 PMAmong other things.... 😬

Like detailed production marks  ::)
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Bob Gaines on November 03, 2025, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: Bill on November 03, 2025, 06:56:33 PM
Quote from: Coralsnake on November 03, 2025, 12:26:03 PMAmong other things.... 😬

Like detailed production marks  ::)
and other finishes. ;)
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: J_Speegle on November 03, 2025, 08:10:23 PM
Quote from: FL SAAC on November 03, 2025, 06:28:00 PMGreat job by the restorer to come up with all the detailing marks

There are only a few of the maybe 50+ that were originally typically applied that were placed on the car so of them came with the restored parts they purchase I would guess while the others may have been borrowed from pictures on the internet. Looks like possibly one set were borrowed from a non-Shelby. But they never IMO make up for short comings elsewhere

Quote from: Bill on November 03, 2025, 06:56:33 PMLike detailed production marks  ::)

Some borrowed from other non-Shelbys  ::)  but at least the drive line stripes are sort of correct for application. Other observers PLEASE don't copy the markings or how they were applied from this example

And as noticed, plenty of other details, finishes and choices appear to have been over looked. though their lack or incorrectness will likely be not known or ignored by the typical BATBidder
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Coralsnake on November 04, 2025, 04:37:13 AM
This one should be very interesting, because I suspect it is going to change some opinions of BaT very quickly

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give the restorer a solid "1". He does show some creativity if nothing else.

😂😂😁

The detailing marks have become a litmus test for knowledge and more than often than not, people are failing
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: mgreene on November 04, 2025, 09:24:07 AM
Go to all that trouble and the put Firestone tires on it???
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Bob Gaines on November 04, 2025, 12:41:40 PM
Quote from: mgreene on November 04, 2025, 09:24:07 AMGo to all that trouble and the put Firestone tires on it???
Sometimes the term wide oval is used to describe the factory tire which in this early 69 case would be the E 70 15 blackwall Goodyear tire. The reference in print  obviously causes confusion. I suspect that is what happened here. Typically after approximately 4/1/69 the  F 60 15 no size marked raised white letter tire was standard. Because wide oval is in print it is assumed that the Firestone tire is what is being talked about.
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Coralsnake on November 04, 2025, 02:36:38 PM
The issues are a little more serious than tires  😉
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Coralsnake on November 04, 2025, 02:54:24 PM
150k is insanity for this car
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: TA Coupe on November 04, 2025, 03:29:27 PM
2 years from now, it will seem like a more insane deal or possibly it will then seem like a good deal. Not everyone cares about paint marks and part numbers, and if the person can afford to buy this car and be happy with it, then be happy for them and quit tearing down the car.

      Roy
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Coralsnake on November 04, 2025, 03:37:21 PM
I just want to be clear. Are you defending the quality of workmanship on this car? Or does that not matter to you?

Why are paint marks important to this conversation?


Should I be happy for someone that I feel just made a terrible decision?


Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: TLea on November 04, 2025, 04:30:41 PM
Quote from: TA Coupe on November 04, 2025, 03:29:27 PMif the person can afford to buy this car and be happy with it, then be happy for them and quit tearing down the car.

      Roy
I guess I've been doing it all wrong making cars correct all these years. I could have just been screwing quarter panels on with sheet metal screws and making people happy  ;D
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Coralsnake on November 04, 2025, 04:53:09 PM
I get it people have different opinions.

However, not everyone gets a trophy.

You can not defend a restoration shop screwing quarter panel skins on a six figure car.

I'm sorry if you have to learn that the hard way, but thats my point. There are people that will help you.
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Mikelj5S230 on November 04, 2025, 05:30:26 PM
Yes, I see the same kind of angst, frustration, and consternation in my Corvette world these days. The older people, like me, who have been judged, been judges, and taught and experienced in the "correct" way to do things and fixated on "originality" and "correctness" see things that just curl our hair. I judged some cars at our Frisco, Texas NCRS regional meet a couple of weeks ago in our new "Open" Class of judging, where originality and decades of experience and research on a standard of "as delivered from the factory" means absolutely nothing. The old guard was totally confused and some angry about cars not even remotely based on that standard being allowed and winning awards.

Likewise with the current restomod craze, where beat up, trashed out, non-original (and some original) drivetrain cars are having the bodies being yanked off frames and used for a $250K-$350K car, like the iconic '63 SWC, so things like this sell for near $100K these days.

The younger folks not trained, schooled, and experienced in our "all correct, all original" ways are setting up a market these days that focuses more on cars and coffee, and local car shows than organized judging like SAAC and NCRS do. They are proud of their cars and are quite willing to ignore the "correct" way and just enjoy their cars in their own way and pay 6 figures to do it, as they can afford it and most couldn't care less about resale, investment values, etc. We need to get used to it, they are the ones driving the market today, not us.
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Special Ed on November 04, 2025, 06:50:38 PM
Who said the 69 shelby market was soft haha now we got a good comp!!!!!
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: J_Speegle on November 04, 2025, 09:37:10 PM
Quote from: Special Ed on November 04, 2025, 06:50:38 PMWho said the 69 shelby market was soft haha now we got a good comp!!!!!

Not sure if you've ever owned or built a car on the same level as the one in the auction being discussed ???
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Coralsnake on November 05, 2025, 05:21:41 AM
Ed, if you need a box of self drilling screws, I think I have one here somewhere.

😂

"The car that will live in infamy"

Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Special Ed on November 05, 2025, 08:40:38 AM
Well you know it did have a shelby signed glove box door AND the dreaded caution fan sticker HAHA. I just looked at the restoration photos and some photos show a early smooth lh front apron and other photos show a later ribbed lh apron  and notice the A/C vaccum can holes under rh hinge area. Some pictures may have got mixed up with another car.
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Coralsnake on November 05, 2025, 08:48:25 AM
Look closely at the pictures that show the fuel tank vent pipe

The owner says the pictures are all the same car. The final version has the apron features you spoke of...someone boogered it hard
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: tesgt350 on November 05, 2025, 09:04:42 AM
Quote from: Mikelj5S230 on November 04, 2025, 05:30:26 PMYes, I see the same kind of angst, frustration, and consternation in my Corvette world these days. The older people, like me, who have been judged, been judges, and taught and experienced in the "correct" way to do things and fixated on "originality" and "correctness" see things that just curl our hair. I judged some cars at our Frisco, Texas NCRS regional meet a couple of weeks ago in our new "Open" Class of judging, where originality and decades of experience and research on a standard of "as delivered from the factory" means absolutely nothing. The old guard was totally confused and some angry about cars not even remotely based on that standard being allowed and winning awards.

Likewise with the current restomod craze, where beat up, trashed out, non-original (and some original) drivetrain cars are having the bodies being yanked off frames and used for a $250K-$350K car, like the iconic '63 SWC, so things like this sell for near $100K these days.

The younger folks not trained, schooled, and experienced in our "all correct, all original" ways are setting up a market these days that focuses more on cars and coffee, and local car shows than organized judging like SAAC and NCRS do. They are proud of their cars and are quite willing to ignore the "correct" way and just enjoy their cars in their own way and pay 6 figures to do it, as they can afford it and most couldn't care less about resale, investment values, etc. We need to get used to it, they are the ones driving the market today, not us.


My Rebuttal to that.  Back in the Beginning when the Cobras and the Shelby Mustangs were first built, I have many Photos (some where) of those Cars back in the 60's and 70's as I am sure many of you have, where those Cars have been highly Modifies and Customized, including Engine Swaps.  It was the thing to do at the time.  Now, I know that THAT still happens to some of the First Gen Shelby Mustangs for Track Use and even for the Car Shows, Color Changes, Interior Changes, Engine Mods and Swaps, Suspension Up Grades and even Wheels & Tires.  I will even bet that it will still happen 20 Years from now, as long as the Cars are affordable, the Mods will continue. 
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Survivor on November 05, 2025, 09:57:23 AM
Ah yes, the old right vs. wrong, correct vs. incorrect and factory correct vs. well, I'm not sure what.  True enough that a buyer, if they can afford it, gets what they get-knowingly or not.  It's their money.  Now, for the purist, looking at cars that may not be "right", "correct" or "factory correct" is like that itch you just can't scratch.  It can drive you nuts-especially when you see the price(s) they command.  That aside, I still find the comments and insights, for the most part, on point and helpful.  You just have to cut thru the bs.  There are factory publications, judging standards and very knowledgeable pp in place that tell us, show us and guide us as to what is believed to be "the way" these cars were built.  Some pay attention and care and some don't.  Some will say a non-matching number engine does not affect value and some feel otherwise.  Same thing with color, interior etc.  There is one thing, however, that I feel we should all care about or at the very least consider: the standards in place including the pp who have devoted their time and knowledge to document and share them, deserve our thanks.  Buyers can then decide what to do with it.  Perhaps a bit vauge and obtuse, but you get the point... 
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Mikelj5S230 on November 05, 2025, 10:52:56 AM
Quote from: Survivor on November 05, 2025, 09:57:23 AMThere is one thing, however, that I feel we should all care about or at the very least consider: the standards in place including the pp who have devoted their time and knowledge to document and share them, deserve our thanks.  Buyers can then decide what to do with it.  Perhaps a bit vauge and obtuse, but you get the point...
I agree, and I thank them (me being one in the Corvette world) for their efforts. However, when it comes to buying a car these days, IMO, there are fewer and fewer people who want to pay for the highest level of perfection and "correctness". "Incorrect" fasteners, rivets, over spray, etc. do not contribute to the driving enjoyment of most of the new buyers of these cars, and most will never have them judged by the gurus who know all things about being "correct", so who cares?
Title: Re: 9F02R480441 on BAT
Post by: Coralsnake on November 05, 2025, 11:04:23 AM
To be clear this post has never been about correctness or paint marks.

It is about workmanship. Im quite certain several people that have responded here and on BaT have asked for assistance when buying a car.

This car was advertised as a professional restoration.

In my book, cars that are professionally restored do not have quarter skins screwed on the body. That is just the most egregious thing, there are others as pointed out previously. 

Just my take, apparently some are okay with that.

Its another level way beyond a fan shroud decal.