Ex-Carroll Shelby 67 GT500 on BAT #0981

[Coralsnake]

I am not sure what is actionable? The cars were titled legally.

You might be able to make case for unethical, but illegal? Maybe some people don't care if CS never saw the car and only "legally" owned it for a hot minute.

Contrary to BaT popular opinion, I don't think, a 76 year old Carroll Shelby was driving this car around Las Vegas.

[shelbydoug]

I am not sure what is actionable? The cars were titled legally.

You might be able to make case for unethical, but illegal? Maybe some people don't care if CS never saw the car and only "legally" owned it for a hot minute.

Contrary to BaT popular opinion, I don't think, a 76 year old Carroll Shelby was driving this car around Las Vegas.

The term brought up is that a person was being "defamed" by suggestions of misrepresentation and as far as I know it, it was unknown to Shelby and it was one of his employees that were involved, by which the accusation of misrepresentation emanates.

It has nothing to do with how I feel but some that had purchased such vehicles made their own after the fact decisions of what actually constituted fraud. Not me. Talk to the lawyers.

[Coralsnake]

I guess I don't have any knowledge of previous legal actions. I'm also not sure what Shelby knew or didn't know with regards to titles?

Probably best not to speculate on that.

I can say there seem to be some things said, that don't appear to be correct.

The block thingy being one.

[shelbydoug]

Judging by the date code, it is more likely that it is a "C" scratch rather then an "A" but the id is mixed around that date and could be either.

FE's are full of contradictions.

I would call it a "Day 2" car and leave it at that. There are buyers for both "Concours Original" and for "drivers". Some buyers consider drivers more desirable but a buyer should be knowledgeable.

[shelbymotorsports]

Contrary to BaT popular opinion, I don't think, a 76 year old Carroll Shelby was driving this car around Las Vegas.

Yup ............... and how about a photo of that

[shelbymann1970]

Judging by the date code, it is more likely that it is a "C" scratch rather then an "A" but the id is mixed around that date and could be either.

FE's are full of contradictions.

I would call it a "Day 2" car and leave it at that. There are buyers for both "Concours Original" and for "drivers". Some buyers consider drivers more desirable but a buyer should be knowledgeable.

c scratch blocks came in in June of 67 so a March block would be an A scratch block

[shelbydoug]

Judging by the date code, it is more likely that it is a "C" scratch rather then an "A" but the id is mixed around that date and could be either.

FE's are full of contradictions.

I would call it a "Day 2" car and leave it at that. There are buyers for both "Concours Original" and for "drivers". Some buyers consider drivers more desirable but a buyer should be knowledgeable.

c scratch blocks came in in June of 67 so a March block would be an A scratch block

I agree that is what it should be by the date code. It is thought that there are some C scratch original '67 GT500 engines but that is circumstantial evidence and not documented.

The reality with FE's is that just when you thought you found the answer, some kind of strange exception shows up that disrupts the theory. I would not personally bet on what it is, is all I am saying. That would be some kind of a suckers bet.

To me the A and C are identical and some room needs to be granted. The date codes, as Coralsnake has suggested, are the most important and it is the most logical that it isn't the original block to whatever the value of that is. Did the seller say it was original?

Without seeing the scratch mark, it is even possible that it is a 390 block. That is significant to a buyer rather then a 428 block. At the level this car is being offered at, it doesn't matter a lot what 428 block is in it, just whether or not the seller represents it as original to the Ford build.

[Coralsnake]

Did the seller say it was original?

Its in the auction multiple times, but has gone unaddressed

[Coralsnake]

Pay attention, you are getting a master class in marketing here. Including the "razzle dazzle"

Somehow I think Mr Shelby might find the "alter ego" comment a bit ironic

🤔

[98SVT - was 06GT]

someone asked for a picture of Carrol with the car did you? .....AI is great!

Strange that no one kept a photo of the title with Shelby's name.  I wonder how many other classic Shelby Mustangs have a similar Becker story.

Yes - somewhat of a scam in my opinion. I'd wager CS never set eyes on the car and there is none of his DNA on the seats. It was a partnership/titling agreement to increase the value of the cars. One CS title I did see (10-15 years ago) it was some CS company (foundation?) that owned it not him personally. There is also no Belaire CA - Bel Air is a pricy zip code in the city of Los Angeles.

[Coralsnake]

So right now youre bidding on a quarter million dollar car thats not a particularly good restoration, non matching number, that may have been legally owned by Shelby.

Or...

You could be bidding on a relatively inexpensive, beautifully preserved example with free shipping, validated by a living legend and driven by Shelby.

🤗

[shelbymann1970]

Since I'm far from an expert on 67s I do follow them and prices and know quality so tell me why Bat would give a reserve on this car over the USD bid price of 264,420? We know the original engine isn't in the car so that affects some  high dollar bidders so what's up?

[Coralsnake]

Because its all about the sellers, repeat sellers are dictating the BaT market

[Kent]

One question didnt Shelby owned all our cars before they left LAX? So maybe all our cars were first ownership by Carroll Shelby   

I´m a collector and classic car dealer. I owned a lot of cars sometimes just for some weeks and sometimes when the owners resell them after years they say owned by Kent Classic Cars even if it was just some months just that they can prove it was in real good hands before they bought it and the car is coming from a good source with knowledge.

[Coralsnake]

I am not sure, didnt Ford technically own those cars?

The intent of titling those cars in Shelbys name was one thing...making a profit and there are literally dozens of them.

To me that is a little different than him actually "owning" the car. That implies he used it and kept it. Thats the part that was exploited.

The interesting part is .... it is a very "Shelby" story.

Now, if we could only find his Bugatti....that would be a different story