August 15th, the first 3 production G.T. 500s, 0100, 0131, 0139 will be reunited

[daltondavid]

Interesting cars. however this is just a promo for the Shelby Research group. an organization that tried to

Interesting cars. however this is just a promo for the Shelby Research group. an organization that tried to pass off a car owned by Dennis Collins with no Vin stampings as a 67 Paxton GT350. and if they would "Document" that as something, it tells you all you need to know about their integrity.

I don't think it's very fair to judge the work of an entire organization by the lone example you cited.  I'm sure you wouldn't want the body of your life's work judged by one action you did or didn't do.  Are you even a member of the Shelby Research Group (1967)?  Something tells me probably not.

I love being a part of SAAC, it's one of things that truly makes me happy in this world.  But I also appreciate the knowledge and camaraderie exemplified over at the Shelby Research Group.  Your comments reek of an air of jealousy at best, which I guess can't be blamed considering the unique history and caliber of each car cited.

As for their integrity, I am assuming you are referring to Brian Styles who founded and runs the  organization.  I can honestly say he has proven to me and others his vast knowledge, dedication and overall love of the hobby and that's good enough for me.

I enjoy visiting this forum, the senior members are a treasure trove of information, invaluable for a classic Shelby owner.  But it seems there always has to be one (or more) persons eager to sully another man's reputation in order to make themselves feel more important.  It is truly one of the major flaws in this hobby and it never seems to go away.  Sad.

pass off a car owned by Dennis Collins with no Vin stampings as a 67 Paxton GT350. and if they would "Document" that as something, it tells you all you need to know about their integrity.

I don't think it's very fair to judge the work of an entire organization by the lone example you cited.  I'm sure you wouldn't want the body of your life's work judged by one action you did or didn't do.  Are you even a member of the Shelby Research Group (1967)?  Something tells me probably not.

I love being a part of SAAC, it's one of things that truly makes me happy in this world.  But I also appreciate the knowledge and camaraderie exemplified over at the Shelby Research Group.  Your comments reek of an air of jealousy at best, which I guess can't be blamed considering the unique history and caliber of each car cited.

As for their integrity, I am assuming you are referring to Brian Styles who founded and runs the  organization.  I can honestly say he has proven to me and others his vast knowledge, dedication and overall love of the hobby and that's good enough for me.

I enjoy visiting this forum, the senior members are a treasure trove of information, invaluable for a classic Shelby owner.  But it seems there always has to be one (or more) persons eager to sully another man's reputation in order to make themselves feel more important.  It is truly one of the major flaws in this hobby and it never seems to go away.  Sad.

well for starters, there is No Jealousy on my part. each one of the red trio are interesting vehicles. I have been up close and personal with the Fastback when it was first revealed at the Pocono SAAC convention. its a great honor to be shown at the Quail. and it is a Win for the Marque. as for your comments, I am not here to sully anyone's reputation. They have done a fine job of that on their own. as a matter of fact, when I started this Forum along with the help of Ron Richards and Dave Mathews back in 2006 it was to protect the reputation of SAAC itself. in case you are unaware Carroll Shelby was suing the club back then and we needed our own online forum to discuss the cars and the battle at hand. as for the lone example I stated, in this Hobby it is a Cardinal sin to do that.and a federal crime. so just because you are impressed with these folks and the work that they do, you are willing to turn a blind eye to an obvious air car being created via you tube videos with Dennis claiming the research group is blessing the car? you own a 67 GT350. who do you count on protecting it's heritage and lineage? the 67 Shelby Registrar for SAAC, or a group that is participating in an obvious fraud? I am glad you enjoy the forum. that's one of the main reasons it was created. to keep people informed, educated and a place to have some Shelby talk. which is what we are doing. 

[Coralsnake]

I noticed Mr Collins is currently looking for a "project" 1967 GT350. Just an observation

[FL SAAC]

Attached you will find an article and short video clip from station KSBW8 of The Quail Event.

The local TV station KSBW 8's news interviewing Mr. Styles:

Brian Styles, a car collector, said, "There is no other car that is harder to pry from someone's hands than a Shelby, and I speak from experience. Jokingly, not jokingly, it's probably easier to buy a guy's puppy dog than his Shelby."

It was at this point that, Eric Johnson, standing next to me, looked to the reporter, nodded, and said, "He's right -- you would have a better chance getting my dog than my car."

https://www.ksbw.com/article/the-quail-motorsports-gathering-luxury-cars/65795141

[FL SAAC]

The Quail honoring three brands Shelby, Ferrari and Iso Grifo

Every luxury brand is present, but the show also honors three classes with rich traditions, including the Shelby Mustang GT350, which has a storied racing history and is a favorite among collectors.

Brian Styles, a car collector, said, "There is no other car that is harder to pry from someone's hands than a Shelby, and I speak from experience. Jokingly, not jokingly, it's probably easier to buy a guy's puppy dog than his Shelby."

The event marks the 30th anniversary of the Ferrari F50, with only 349 made and 17 on display.

Another highlight is the Iso Grifo, a brand that may be unfamiliar to some.

Michael Kerns, an ISO Grifo owner, described it as "an American Corvette engine that is super easy to take care of. The way they describe it is Italian design with American muscle... that era's hybrid."

The Quail is not only about automotive history but also about the present and the business of selling cars, considered one of the most expensive car lots on the planet.

Pund said, "A ton of business gets done here. I think there are a lot of deals between car companies and engineering companies, but there are a fair number of sales happening on these grounds today."

Many companies reportedly sell out their annual allocation to guests of the event.

High-end hospitality is as integral to the event as the cars, with champagne flowing, diverse food options, and beautiful people in attendance.

One attendee expressed their enthusiasm, saying, "I love the cars. I love the lifestyle. I love everything."

Even pets are pampered, with one pup visiting a spa to get camera-ready, as noted by an attendee who said, "He actually did. He went two days ago. I was like 'You have to look so handsome.'"

Gordon McCall, who has been the driving force behind the event for two decades, shared his pride in being local and involved in car week.

"I love being local and being involved in car week. Definitely proud of that fact. A lot of people come from all over the world, and to be from here and have a hand in it, it's humbling, and I love it, I really do," McCall said.

[daltondavid]

God Bless the Research group!

[S7MS427]

the car was never built as a "1967 GT500". it was built as a 1968 Shelby GT500 Promo car for the upcoming GT500 convertible photo shoots and commercials.

Daltondavid,

Interesting. Where did you find that out about the convertible? I always thought that that car was an evolution of '67 features to '68 features and changed for whatever the situation required of it. I would love to see whatever documentation you have as I've always been a fan of the '67 cars as I've owned one since 1977 and am always looking for more to add to my collection of documents (however small that may be).

[shelbymann1970]

The sad truth about Brian Styles Convertible is the car was never built as a "1967 GT500". it was built as a 1968 Shelby GT500 Promo car for the upcoming GT500 convertible photo shoots and commercials. there are no known pictures of the car at Shelby American in its current
configuration. which in a sense is kind of a fabricated story. add that to the Drag car with no Vins and now you know why respect for that group has diminished amongst true Shelby afficionados.

Obviously you have never talked to employees of Hi Performance motors about the 67 Vert.  So little red was finished as a 67 Coupe but the Convertible was never finished as a 67? Makes no sense to me on that one especially since the car was being driven before it was ever converted to  68 styling. So what did it have on it then?Did they drive the vert with no hood or front end on it?  Brian has done an excellent job researching it and knowing him if the research said 1968 styling only he sure as hell wouldn't have spent the $$$$$$ on another resto after he had the car finished as the 68 styling car. Just my 2 cents. 

[daltondavid]

The sad truth about Brian Styles Convertible is the car was never built as a "1967 GT500". it was built as a 1968 Shelby GT500 Promo car for the upcoming GT500 convertible photo shoots and commercials. there are no known pictures of the car at Shelby American in its current
configuration. which in a sense is kind of a fabricated story. add that to the Drag car with no Vins and now you know why respect for that group has diminished amongst true Shelby afficionados.

Obviously you have never talked to employees of Hi Performance motors about the 67 Vert.  So little red was finished as a 67 Coupe but the Convertible was never finished as a 67? Makes no sense to me on that one especially since the car was being driven before it was ever converted to  68 styling. So what did it have on it then?Did they drive the vert with no hood or front end on it?  Brian has done an excellent job researching it and knowing him if the research said 1968 styling only he sure as hell wouldn't have spent the $$$$$$ on another resto after he had the car finished as the 68 styling car. Just my 2 cents. 

and obviously you have? who exactly did you speak to?didnyou ask them the questions you ask of me? for they would have the answers. as for why anybody restores a car once or ten times is a question for them. But if I did speak to someone working at Shelbys LAX facility, I want to talk to the photographer and ask him why he never took pictures of the convertible with 67 Shelby glass on it. was he out of film? was it so Fast he could not catch a picture of it as it roared by? or did it arrive like all the other Mustangs and go right to make up and wardrobe and vin wise remain a 67, but Appearance wise be a 68?

[Coralsnake]

I enjoy this discussion, but I am not sure I like how we got here.   

What happened to the old, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof statement?

 

[shelbymann1970]

The sad truth about Brian Styles Convertible is the car was never built as a "1967 GT500". it was built as a 1968 Shelby GT500 Promo car for the upcoming GT500 convertible photo shoots and commercials. there are no known pictures of the car at Shelby American in its current
configuration. which in a sense is kind of a fabricated story. add that to the Drag car with no Vins and now you know why respect for that group has diminished amongst true Shelby afficionados.

Obviously you have never talked to employees of Hi Performance motors about the 67 Vert.  So little red was finished as a 67 Coupe but the Convertible was never finished as a 67? Makes no sense to me on that one especially since the car was being driven before it was ever converted to  68 styling. So what did it have on it then?Did they drive the vert with no hood or front end on it?  Brian has done an excellent job researching it and knowing him if the research said 1968 styling only he sure as hell wouldn't have spent the $$$$$$ on another resto after he had the car finished as the 68 styling car. Just my 2 cents. 

and obviously you have? who exactly did you speak to?didnyou ask them the questions you ask of me? for they would have the answers. as for why anybody restores a car once or ten times is a question for them. But if I did speak to someone working at Shelbys LAX facility, I want to talk to the photographer and ask him why he never took pictures of the convertible with 67 Shelby glass on it. was he out of film? was it so Fast he could not catch a picture of it as it roared by? or did it arrive like all the other Mustangs and go right to make up and wardrobe and vin wise remain a 67, but Appearance wise be a 68?

Have you ever discussed the history with B Styles? I'm curious, was the photographer a full time job at SA? I assume you are saying the HiPer motors employee(s) were lying to B Styles when he interviewed then many years ago? Of are you implying Brian is lying? He had the car done pretty well as the post card car. So he just decided to fabricate and story and spend tens of thousands to re-restore the car as a 67 style. OK...Don't you find it weird that little red was done but the Vert just sat all year with no fiberglass on it? That it was never used during that year?

[Coralsnake]

I remember back a few years ago when we had invited several AO Smith employees to a SAAC convention. They were admiring the great work they had done on a 1968 convertible decklid. Then it was pointed out it was actually a reproduction.

I worked at a factory forty years ago, I would be hard pressed to tell you any specifics on anything I built. I do recall a coworker had a 1969 Shelby.

How do you ask someone about the convertible without making it a leading question?

Is 40 plus eyewitness recollection good enough? Just asking.

Now was that 1969 a GT350 or a GT500, I cant recall...

[FL SAAC]

Fella's lets get back on topic, lets celebrate that our old cars are being represented and acknowledged at this event.

This is the first production 1967 GT500
 #0100.

It belongs to Mr Eric Johnson his was one of three 1967 Shelbys that had the distinction to be chosen to displayed at The Quail with it's two brothers #0139 and #0131.

I ask how many Shelby's have had that opportunity?

From The Quail it returns to be displayed at the Shelby American Collection in Colorado.

Only affirmation that #0100 is "simply the best", much better than all the rest.

Attached pictures taken at The Quail and at the Shelby American Collection

Eric and family congratulations !

[shelbydoug]

This convertible is always going to be "controversial" simply because it has no documentation, either in printed data or photos of it being assembled.

We aren't even sure where it was assembled as a Shelby or by who?


The first time that I saw it in person was at the first Indy SAAC Convention in the "car show".

At that time it was clearly represented in '68 Shelby trim and the reaction I got from "the crowd" was that it was some kind of a leper? It was for sale, and being avoided.

The fact is on the '68 "proto types" is that we aren't sure where they were built and by who. That is just a period of time where there was no longer a "staff photographer" like at the LA Airport facility.

So really, the only reasonable position to assume is that of "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof". So far, at least on this convertible, that has not happened. Not as yet.


Frankly, at that Indy Convention,  I kept my distance because of the fear of it's possible fragility and didn't crawl over it to examine how the fiberglass was made, i.e., all hand layed like the very early '68 Shelbys are, or what? It all could have been fake then. How could anyone know?



The car is the property of the current owners, and it is their choice of how to "maintain it". If they want it in '67 trim, that is their prerogative.Likewise, it is ours to doubt the details.

On any of these "unique" cars like "Little Red", the "Green Hornet" and the '68 Shelby first build, mules, prototypes, even with the best intentions during a "restoration" some details are going to be a guess.


We are presuming that these cars were used in the publicity shots for the magazines and press but there is no specific documentation, signed off with an "authenticator" like done in MLB now, so even those presumptions are not completely provable. They are just highly likely and most are accepting that as fact.

So really they can all remain in a category of "some original details unknown" probably forever (and likely will)? I don't see where turning personally on any of the current owners or the restorers is a positive thing in any way as well has attacking one organization over the other. However, that cuts both ways, for both "teams".


I for one have been critical of the actions of the "Shelby Secret Police" as being mutually destructive and I still feel that way.

The nature of treasure hunters will always be the same. They keep their discoveries secret and if it turns out that they purchased "fools gold", it was their greed that created the situation and no one could save them from that except themselves. That's their problem.

[shelbymann1970]

History. Little red was finished as a Shelby coupe. Displayed at Riverside but never titled under it's Shelby number but found in records as a 67 Coupe and eventually found by Jason Billups in Tx. Owner was told by SAAC the car was DESTROYED. We now know it wasn't. Wasn't it Fred Goddell who said that? Now take the Vert. No pics of it done that have been found in 67 Trim. But interviews Shelby said it was his personal driver then subsequent interviews led to believe secretaries used it. Point was it was used so what was on it fiberglass wise when it was "reportedly stolen" in April 67?  On top of that unlike little red it was titled under it's Shelby vin plate. Yeah, with no pics there will be doubters as we know but with the doubters I see questions that are also not answered. If I'm wrong on any of this please correct me.

[shelbydoug]

Shelby has been known to say a lot of things that were not accurate or documentable.

This is where it isn't the doubters responsibility to prove anything wrong, the claimant needs to prove it right.

This isn't a court of law.

In many ways the discussion or debate could be described as agreeing on which synonyms to use? A synonym is a word that is similar to the original, but not exactly the same.

So it comes down to the exact detail. If this car was so well known as being built as a '67 Shelby, and considering the location of it's use at the LA facility, I personally find it strange that there are no pictures of it that have surfaced after all of this time as a '67, but I'm not trying to prove anything.

I think the simple adage that applies here is, "put up or shut up".


In a court of law, this would be a civil case. That would have six jurors. There you would just need to prove a propensity which could be described functionally as "better then 50%" one way or the other.

So we here are already well past that and are looking for proof that eliminates the possibility of the "flying monkeys" being real.