When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
History / OriginalityGot a question about 1982-1992 Camaro or Firebird history? Have a question about original parts, options, RPO codes, when something was available, or how to document your car? Those questions, answers, and much more!
Scott, you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. The car he sold was flawless from the pictures he is showing, congrats on the sale Phil, it was an excellent sell and excellent buy. I am not here to bad mouth people, but I do see why our community would want to investigate further, and you really can't blame them Phil, so lighten up. That being said, there is no question that there are people out there looking to throw a monkey wrench into someone's success, whether out of jealousy or boredom, or who the hell knows why. What bothers me about the FB pictures is that they are too close, in fact they seem cropped that close on purpose to avoid any solid proof that it is of the same exact car. I mean for example, there was an '88 Iroc with the same paint that sold on Barrett Jackson awhile back for a little over five grand. Not implying anything on my part, only that it is not impossible that the FB pictures could be of another car that was being auctioned off through the same company Click Here. Also, if someone was looking to screw people over for money they would just take the money and run after a decent score. Here you have Phil still defending himself, and it's not even his car anymore, not to mention he is very adamant about it. That sadly tells me a lot about his personality because I am the very same way lol...
Stop arguing amongst yourselves fella's, this ain't no Foxbody forum...
Scott, you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. The car he sold was flawless from the pictures he is showing, congrats on the sale Phil, it was an excellent sell and excellent buy. I am not here to bad mouth people, but I do see why our community would want to investigate further, and you really can't blame them Phil, so lighten up. That being said, there is no question that there are people out there looking to throw a monkey wrench into someone's success, whether out of jealousy or boredom, or who the hell knows why. What bothers me about the FB pictures is that they are too close, in fact they seem cropped that close on purpose to avoid any solid proof that it is of the same exact car. I mean for example, there was an '88 Iroc with the same paint that sold on Barrett Jackson awhile back for a little over five grand. Not implying anything on my part, only that it is not impossible that the FB pictures could be of another car that was being auctioned off through the same company Click Here. Also, if someone was looking to screw people over for money they would just take the money and run after a decent score. Here you have Phil still defending himself, and it's not even his car anymore, not to mention he is very adamant about it. That sadly tells me a lot about his personality because I am the very same way lol...
Stop arguing amongst yourselves fella's, this ain't no Foxbody forum...
Scott, you have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not Scott but the seller's responses right from the beginning of the picture discussion is where that depleted and hurt one's name and credibility. Plenty of opportunity was allowed to address it in a professional and concrete manner.
Specifically post 258 where a member here introduced digitally altered images of a car which was then assumed by the forum to be images of Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale 2019 LOT 442.1
It was residue. It wasn't pictures of the 344 mile car. It was trickery flash. They're altered pictures. Trying to think what's possibly next up.
gee someone here with 20/20 vision can see the number of discrepancies at post 490... you would have to be literally blind to determine that that is not a bad photoshop.
Lint? Why do you say it's a scratch, or a "bad photoshop"? When you zoom in to the detail as he did when taking the photo, you will see all kinds of dust spec and even magnified orange peel. I already explained to you that the white lines appear to me to be of a cotton terry cloth that was used to wipe down the car. Or, are you saying that the paint dab on the trim, which this entire discussion became about, is the bad photoshop?
Phil, I think you're done here. There's absolutely nothing you can do to recover the reputation that you so willingly threw away. You said the images posted weren't of your car, but now that I found reflections that prove it was your car, now the pics are altered, and very poorly. I hope Grant is reading all of this and laughing, because I am!!!
Do you want me to show you a side by side of the images to show you each alteration one by one?
what are you scared of?
I think everyone would like to see these images. It is up to you to show them to everyone. So have at it. I am not quick to judge anyone but, it makes no sense why you keep doing what you are doing. I get it you are offended and that sucks. In all honesty, I am getting creeped out by this behavior.
gee someone here with 20/20 vision can see the number of discrepancies at post 490... you would have to be literally blind to determine that that is not a bad photoshop.
If that had been the case, I'd not feel bad considering the (then) owner/seller apparently didn't notice it either to have actually provided that answer when this all began. Instead we got about 3-4 different answers until sticking to this one.
Originally Posted by CPC Norwood
Because I was wrongly accused that’s why.
Originally Posted by steves
That's understood.
It's not to me. Why would one feel the need to withhold information that would apparently clear up the topic in question but instead continue to post in this thread multiple times with multiple answers? He should post the apparent proof or quit the game.
Please show me where you were wrongly accused of anything. What are you scared of?
Please do post those pics, Phil. Steves was on your side for many posts and you're now starting to creep him out. Does that say anything about your behavior here? So, please post pics of whoever took the closeup shots of your car. Then, you can have a discussion with them as to why they poorly photoshopped your car and posted it on the Internet for us to see. I wonder if the other 1839 cars were also "sabotaged", or just yours. If it was just yours, have you questioned why?
If that had been the case, I'd not feel bad considering the (then) owner/seller apparently didn't notice it either to have actually provided that answer when this all began. Instead we got about 3-4 different answers until sticking to this one.
It's not to me. Why would one feel the need to withhold information that would apparently clear up the topic in question but instead continue to post in this thread multiple times with multiple answers? He should post the apparent proof or quit the game.
Please show me where you were wrongly accused of anything. What are you scared of?
Please do post those pics, Phil. Steves was on your side for many posts and you're now starting to creep him out. Does that say anything about your behavior here? So, please post pics of whoever took the closeup shots of your car. Then, you can have a discussion with them as to why they poorly photoshopped your car and posted it on the Internet for us to see. I wonder if the other 1839 cars were also "sabotaged", or just yours. If it was just yours, have you questioned why?
I believe that you are innocent until proven guilty but, in life that isn't the case, it's the other way around. There are two sides to a story. That's why I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Are the pictures that were posted the smoking gun? This guy keeps going so there must be a reason why.
To do it right you have to tape the car off. Lots of places on the car get taped off.
The end caps on the spoilers had plenty of red residue at the tape off points.
I peeled the tape and did not re clean the top of the lenses.
Lots of build up there.
Any more questions?
Originally Posted by CPC Norwood
You ever see how deceiving a digital image can be with a flash??
you must exercise caution
Originally Posted by CPC Norwood
end caps were not painted in plant. They were vendor supplied.
Originally Posted by CPC Norwood
I spent the remainder of the evening at the auction with a dead I phone. So the snide post here by one of you with a cricket meme falls flat on its face.
Ok gentlemen for the final time.
The car was not repainted and this was verified by the original owner.
The car had consistent paint thickness measurements in all areas to verify.
Car was never even waxed. I taped off the car and clay bared it and this can be messy. Got red risidue off the plastic parts that were not cleared as part of the sssembly process.
the digital photos taken were deceptive and designed as a “hit” on the car and me.
No JT.. the other cars have gotten a pass- a big pass. Z28cop and myself are here at the auction and you are not-and the unchecked pack like attack that was allowed to happen here in this thread is simply over the top.
What drives all this? Simple jealousy.
i would suggest you clean up the thread it is a mess.
Originally Posted by CPC Norwood
You guys got fooled by some counpound residue and a digital flash and you are still at it
great show gentlemen. Silly but great!
Originally Posted by CPC Norwood
Fellas don’t blame me for you guys taking the bait hook line and sinker.
I told you digital photos taken were deceptive and designed as a “hit” on the car and my reputation.
Do you guys really think I am a moron who would try to peddle a scam? Buyer is ultra pissed.
The behavior here could be excused if I knew you guys were drunk.
Fortunately Scott is sharper and figured what was going on. I mean really how gullible are you guys? If you zoom into the photo of the tail light you can clearly see the fish eyes from the black paint and plastic incompatibility.
A Blind man could see that was not the tail lens from my car.
But now my friends are known - aren’t they?
life is tough. It is tougher if you are getting suckered.
Originally Posted by CPC Norwood
not at all. I told you:
caution i had photos ...
told you repeatedly this was silly
told you the photos were a hit
asked the moderator to clean up the thread..
some of you ignored me so I decided to see how stupid it could get so I decided to play along and let you hang yourselves.
i warned you...told you to stop... the 89 I just sold set a world record for a base IROC auction fetch and several of you simply cannot stand it.
i did however clay bar the car did tape it off and did get red residue and several of you argued about that too.
really??
Originally Posted by CPC Norwood
Done? Really. Why?
Originally Posted by CPC Norwood
Do you want me to show you a side by side of the images to show you each alteration one by one?
So, after doing Barrett Jackson search, the most recent flame red camaro that sold that I could find was this car. And, it sold at Scottsdale. And, it says it has been restored. So, the absolute worst case scenario is that someone had taken pics of THIS car 2 years ago, and claimed they were Phil's car.
I dont feel the pics are photoshopped. The pics were taken under the Barrett Jackson tent, as all of the reflections clearly show. They show evidence of tape lines, overspray, and even a paint edge around the diameter of the fuel door.
Now, another thing that doesn't make sense to me is that everyone that would have looked Phil's car over in person SHOULD have seen stuff like this.....and there is a forum member here that was there and said his car looked flawless. Stuff like this should stand out on a 300 mile car. AND, I honestly cant see someone at a body shop half a$$ing the paint on such a nice car......it just doesn't make sense to me.
I still say the new owner needs to put up some pics, or send them to Phil, or whatever to verify this.
[/QUOTE]...........I still say the new owner needs to put up some pics, or send them to Phil, or whatever to verify this.
Just my $.02[/QUOTE]
IMO, it's too late for that.......the damage is done here......
Also, if he does that, how does he prove the pics posted are of the actual 344 mile car?
This should have been put to rest while the car was still at the auction grounds.......or was this the REAL reason it was removed so quickly ??
Updated pics wont prove much at this point. Now a video showing the odometer and areas of paint in question would be great along with some commentary but we all know that will never happen.
Boy did I get more than I bargained for when I read this post. I was just popping in to see what the car sold for and look at all the drama....drama that could have been ended so very long ago. Drew summed it up best in his posts from #516 and #524 and I hope they accurately relay the vibe here from the majority of the members, I know I agree with Drew's rational approach to things. I can't help wondering if we are getting the push back from the seller because a little voice in the back of his head is telling him that he should be ashamed of his actions in connection with the purchase and flip of the car. Look, nothing wrong with making money on a flip, he had first shot at it after all, but did he get first shot because the original owner was told he was a fellow fanatic that would keep the car and cherish it as he had, or did the original owner know he was selling the car to a flipper? Did the original owner say, "Gosh, I'd love to sell this car to you because I know you can sell it and make double what you are going to pay me." Maybe. Or would the original owner be shocked and upset that he was misled and gave first shot to a flipper that never had the intention of keeping and cherishing the car? I don't know, however I could see where our flipper could now be experiencing a pang-of-conscience if the original owner was not fully informed and that is what is causing him to strike out at the members here. Again, I have no first hand knowledge and maybe he told the original owner, "Look, I'm going to buy this car from you, do nothing to it, and turn around and sell it for double what I paid you, you okay with that?" And I'm sure if he did, the original owner would have said, "Yes, that would be great, I don't like money." Flip all you want, but that doesn't mean integrity goes completely out the window, and if you are lucky enough to get the opportunity to have first shot, just be sure all cards are on the table...just my two cents. I don't flip cars, however I do flip houses and I have never negotiated under false pretenses; I tell every seller I'm going to flip the house and make money from the flip....I sleep like a baby at night.
To my knowledge, with what I know from this thread, the pretenses of which the car was originally purchased have never been an issue. For the love of Pete, let's not introduce ANOTHER issue to discuss.
And anyone taking pictures was imaged in high resolution
Originally Posted by CPC Norwood
And you do know that tent 7-B was under constant video surveillance right? That is where the car was parked.
if that’s the case, you’d be able to get footage of that grant guy who took the photos and either prove or disprove the photos. No guy taking photos, then they’re not of the car. But if he is there and taking closeups of the car....
Hey somebody tell Chazman to hang out here and get the facebook guy too. Scott Stand by for posts and get ready to switch sides.
Just asking for a few minutes to get everything up before some of you go ape sh*t which as intellectually dishonest as some of the trouble makers are here - this is sure to happen.
Ok Photoshop is a powerful tool but these images are not only manipulated but it is like he could not even make his mind up as to which he was going to use so he just used both. In fact they are not even images of the 344 mile car.
Photos came from the new owner this evening. If you want more they are there. But at this point I think it is better to drop this crap and disinfect the thread and move on.
Photos came from the new owner this evening. If you want more they are there. But at this point I think it is better to drop this crap and disinfect the thread and move on.
if that’s the case, you’d be able to get footage of that grant guy who took the photos and either prove or disprove the photos. No guy taking photos, then they’re not of the car. But if he is there and taking closeups of the car....
That is 100% correct Barrett-Jackson has over 10 days of high resolution footage of my car on location in the tent.
Just asking for a few minutes to get everything up before some of you go ape sh*t which as intellectually dishonest as some of the trouble makers are here - this is sure to happen.
I don't see any pictures. I see someone that cannot communicate with members without insulting them and being unable to conduct themselves in a rational manner to the point their reputation is tarnished by their own doings. And still calling for disinfecting the thread, which I don't see happening, from the same person who largely made it become the way it is.
Originally Posted by CPC Norwood
And you do know that tent 7-B was under constant video surveillance right? That is where the car was parked.
Originally Posted by CPC Norwood
And anyone taking pictures was imaged in high resolution
So why was the car removed from the premises on Thursday, as you stated and a picture was posted of an empty spot where the car apparently would have been, if there was constant video surveillance in high resolution? Good enough to use to scare members here but not good enough for the car's security. I guess.
I don't see any pictures. I see someone that cannot communicate with members without insulting them and being unable to conduct themselves in a rational manner to the point their reputation is tarnished by their own doings. And still calling for disinfecting the thread, which I don't see happening, from the same person who largely made it become the way it is.
So why was the car removed from the premises on Thursday, as you stated and a picture was posted of an empty spot where the car apparently would have been, if there was constant video surveillance in high resolution? Good enough to use to scare members here but not good enough for the car's security. I guess.
Showed the owner this thread He spooked because the car was not behind ropes. Barrett stated they had 10 full days of video but only video of the car while it was in position. The rest of the time was an empty spot.
01-23-2019, 10:18 AM
