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!
I sold a perfect paint car at Barrett-Jackson and we have nearly every post since mid page 5 accusing me and Barrett-Jackson of misrepresenting the sale.
I have been following since you started the thread. ...in fact I was on your side of this when it started. I see no accusations. I see people asking questions, because WE DON'T KNOW. It's your word vs. the guy who took the pictures. Unless you expect us to take your word for it, when $37k has changed hands, then you have to expect this. In fact in the beginning, most of us did take your word for it, we were just asking for an explanation. YOU were the one who escalated it. -and I understand being defensive. Totally get it. -but it just stoked the fires. ...and if YOU had bought the car from someone else, and posted pictures of the paint, we would scrutinize it just as much.
I totally get that the discussion pisses you off. But what would YOU have done had someone else sold the car, and then these pictures showed up on Facebook? Would you have ignored the pictures because you knew the seller?
I have been acting in a way that you are supposed to act where is potential for a dispute with legal consequences. Tell the truth, offer the other party every opportunity to turn back and stop.
Ok lets hit the latest fake news heads on shall we? Time stamps on a phone for photos. Can they be faked? The answer is yes and quite easily.
Now where were we. Despite everybody announcing my reputation was being "destroyed" by the content of this thread (literally in every other post), our brave moderator does ZERO to stop the conduct and then joins IN.
All the board rules that protect the board only apply when everybody follows those rules. When the rules are exited then other remedy is afforded.
Ok now:
Anyone here think that Barrett-Jackson did not extensively photograph the car upon arrival at Westworld?
Photos hosted here starting at post 158 are fake. This whole mess is shameful you know it and I know, it and with the exception of the troublemakers who continue to make it 100% clear who they are- everyone else knows it too.
Scott,
Your post is so good above I am going to send it on to Matt right now. You really should have a talk with him.
The more likely outcome is that they locate a guy in Tuscon el quicko.
I have been following since you started the thread. ...in fact I was on your side of this when it started. I see no accusations. I see people asking questions, because WE DON'T KNOW. It's your word vs. the guy who took the pictures. Unless you expect us to take your word for it, when $37k has changed hands, then you have to expect this. In fact in the beginning, most of us did take your word for it, we were just asking for an explanation. YOU were the one who escalated it. -and I understand being defensive. Totally get it. -but it just stoked the fires. ...and if YOU had bought the car from someone else, and posted pictures of the paint, we would scrutinize it just as much.
I totally get that the discussion pisses you off. But what would YOU have done had someone else sold the car, and then these pictures showed up on Facebook? Would you have ignored the pictures because you knew the seller?
I would have immediately pulled the photos down and sent a PM to me. I am attending the auction when this blows up. and you people permitted and then encouraged a feeding frenzy.
All fake photos, and an orchestrated pre-planned hit was carried out using this board on the car and me in the process.
Phil, if you provide pictures that are of the car at West World, exactly as you describe it, that are clear enough to determine that no paint work was done, I will say that it's about time. We've been asking for it since somewhere around post 258, so almost 700 posts later, you're finally offering them up? I'm not sure why you wanted to destroy your reputation over this if you had the photos the entire time.
How will we know they are at West World. I mean, the date and time stamp can be photoshopped, remember? Will we need to use the reflections in the car, because they are close up shots, to determine 2x4 drop ceiling or tent supports? Or maybe the security sign reflection in the A pillar, which can all be photoshopped? How will we know the photos weren't doctored, because, well, you know, photoshop?
If you produce evidence that the car is perfect and no paint work, and the pictures can be proven to be before the auction, I will congratulate you on wasting all of our time for days. How's that? Is there something more you're expecting?
I do not have to provide anything from Westworld. The allegations were made when the car was in the possession of Barrett-Jackson. This is a matter they will handle.
Here is an idea - How about having the original owner (the guy you bought it from Phil) step up and tell us all about the car
and it's history and the cars story since he rolled it off the dealers lot - I'm guessing you developed a friendship with him in the process
of acquiring the car ?? maybe he is willing to help you clear things up ???? Maybe he knows the car had had some repair work and just didn't tell you
or forgot about it ?? Lots of possibilities with a car of this age that was owned by the same person for so many years
The more likely outcome is that they locate a guy in Tuscon el quicko.
And then what Phil? He gets busted for taking a picture of your car and posting it online? LOL. I really don’t know where you think this is going. You act as if you are some sort of victim here. You’ve done absolutely nothing of substance to exonerate yourself or the car in the court of public opinion here, and public opinion of unaffected parties is all that’s in play here! What is your complaint? Are you seeking damages? From who and for what? Filing a civil suit? Please do tell, I could use another laugh today in addition to the comic content this farce has already yielded today. Ed McMahon himself could rise from the grave, bring you a publishers clearing house check and post pix exonerating your car, and you would still be the guy here that has acted like a horse’s ***.
I really wish Drew, Biz and myself could over run this thread with troll posts and hilarious memes, cuz if there was ever a time to welcome the trolls, now is it!
Well this pic doesn't help it any. I dont know how I missed this pic before. There should NOT be an open seam here. This is a super tiny spot on the actual car. It's probably barely 1/2" wide. It's where the rear quarter sail panel meets the roof skin. Right at the top, rear corner of the drivers side window. I've owned 30-40 third gens. I used to flip them ALL THE TIME. This is a known cracking spot on hard tops.....but I have NEVER seen this. That is a perfect cut. You could literally walk right up to the car and not even see this. It's right under the drip rail with the paint overspray on it....
It should look like this. Heres the same spot on my car....
Nice catch dagwood.. That doesn’t look great..
My 87 that was wrecked and restored never had a blemish on the carfax..
I wish I still had the VIN so I could see if anyone fixed it up when it was rear ended and totaled in 2002..
Carfax is more accurate for newer cars.. accidents from the 80s and 90s don’t usually show up..
I would have immediately pulled the photos down and sent a PM to me.
The pictures were hosted by Facebook. The pictures were hot-linked here for discussion. You might have pulled the pictures to protect your self, but this is a discussion forum and our members discussed pictures available on the Internet. You were not prevented from providing any reasonable explanation. Instead, you made the decision to insult members, threaten the community and turn the legitimate discussion into what it is today. No one prevented you from properly addressing the situation to end any suspected concerns. You had the ability to conclude the concerns and turn them into your favor.
I'll say this one last time. If you think you have a legal concern, this is not the avenue. You are making threats to members and our community. You're trying to scare the community and you've been given way more tolerance than should have.
Originally Posted by CPC Norwood
I do not have to provide anything from Westworld. The allegations were made when the car was in the possession of Barrett-Jackson. This is a matter they will handle.
If this is their matter to handle, what exactly are you doing here by continuing to post and make threats and suggestions? I don't know, but I'd suspect BJ probably wouldn't want you around here doing what you're doing. But it's too late for that.
Here is an idea - How about having the original owner (the guy you bought it from Phil) step up and tell us all about the car
and it's history and the cars story since he rolled it off the dealers lot - I'm guessing you developed a friendship with him in the process
of acquiring the car ?? maybe he is willing to help you clear things up ???? Maybe he knows the car had had some repair work and just didn't tell you
or forgot about it ?? Lots of possibilities with a car of this age that was owned by the same person for so many years
He's not allowing that - Phil is maintaining the car is perfect, unaltered from assembly & untouched in ANY way - other than possibly a clay bar.
and you people permitted and then encouraged a feeding frenzy.
Whaddya mean "you people?"
Seriously though, if there were actually suspicion of a pre-planned hit, with deliberately fake photos, the source of the photos would be the only person of interest. Nothing wrong with discussing the photos and forming opinions, right or wrong.
The pictures were hosted by Facebook. The pictures were hot-linked here for discussion. You might have pulled the pictures to protect your self, but this is a discussion forum and our members discussed pictures available on the Internet. You were not prevented from providing any reasonable explanation. Instead, you made the decision to insult members, threaten the community and turn the legitimate discussion into what it is today. No one prevented you from properly addressing the situation to end any suspected concerns. You had the ability to conclude the concerns and turn them into your favor.
I'll say this one last time. If you think you have a legal concern, this is not the avenue. You are making threats to members and our community. You're trying to scare the community and you've been given way more tolerance than should have.
If this is their matter to handle, what exactly are you doing here by continuing to post and make threats and suggestions? I don't know, but I'd suspect BJ probably wouldn't want you around here doing what you're doing. But it's too late for that.
No threats. No suggestions. I know how this ends already. I have tried to get you guys to lock this thing down.
Without any caveats such as "To the best of my knowledge."?
Good question. Because this statement in his first post always had me asking:
Originally Posted by CPC Norwood
I have first shots on this car. Original owner no rain No snow.
350 Auto Red
What is it worth?
So it's known the car didn't sit outside at the plant or dealership in any rain or snow? The car was not transported during rain or snow? The car was not moved on the dealership lot in any rain or snow? The original owner's care never had it in rain or snow? If so, that's some extensive background check that I'd like to see how it was done!
Good question. Because this statement in his first post always had me asking:
So it's known the car didn't sit outside at the plant or dealership in any rain or snow? The car was not transported during rain or snow? The car was not moved on the dealership lot in any rain or snow? The original owner's care never had it in rain or snow? If so, that's some extensive background check that I'd like to see how it was done!
That is correct. No rain no snow car was never even waxed.
Okay, as I understand it, the op could've posted pictures immediately, for free, that would have cleared up all issues with the car, but he decided to wait and in the meantime offer numerous off the wall excuses and now he suddenly has $50K to give to someone that shows that the car IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION is perfect....does that about sum it up? And he keeps bringing up video evidence, veiled threats of legal action, even has a lawyer that is going to draw up the papers on this $50K challenge (I'd love to meet that lawyer that has nothing better to do with his or her time then wait for the possibility to draw up some papers over an internet posting, but maybe they are out there.) all the while ignoring the FACT that more than enough time has passed to put the car into the condition that he alleges it was in at the time HE COULD HAVE TAKEN ACCURATE PHOTOS AND PROVED that it was in perfect condition from the beginning, but no first it was clay bar, then reflections, then bad photography, then flash, then photo shop, then wrong car. And now he is going to walk around and puff up that emasculated (that is the closest I will come to "name calling") chest of his and dare us to accept his "challenge".....unless you have a time machine princess (darn, couldn't help myself I guess) no "challenge" you have to offer NOW is worth a damn. Look, we might have lowly third gens and you might be the master of all concourse de crap crap, (you do seem to be the master at buying cars from elderly people that had no clue you were going to flip their prized possession for more than double what you gave them) but ain't nobody that stupid to accept your gracious "challenge" after you and new owner had more than enough time to remedy all that was seen in what was very likely accurate photos, clay bar, photo shop, flash etc. be damned. Look, I have no idea whether or not the car was in the condition you stated that it was or that it wasn't.....but I do know from reading this post and YOUR conduct on this thread, you ain't "good people"....just my opinion, I'm sure you think I'm a jerk, I can live with that, but I'm going to call my lawyer and have him ready to file a cease and desist letter (just one of your inane threats from many posts ago) so, as you like to say, "think before you post." And please for the love of all things holy, just let it die, seriously just let it die. Hey, that can be my challenge to you, I challenge you to just stop posting, there you go, that's it. Stop posting and maybe we can start a GoFundMe page for you to do that, just stop posting. I'll have my lawyer draw up the papers so that you can collect your GoFundMe page proceeds by NOT posting. Seriously, this post sicken me and I can't imagine I'm the only one.
BJ does not give a flying flip about this situation Phil......this is not even a BLIP on their radar - it's meaningless to them
I tend to agree. BJ couldn't be less concerned about this, they got their money and that's that. In fact, everyone got their money on this and the new owner apparently doesn't care either.
That is correct. No rain no snow car was never even waxed.
Your making claims you can't possibly back up......I answer questions about the cars I sell as honestly as possible
but ALWAYS stating after my answer that I did not purchase the car new, dont know it's entire background and am answering the questions
"to the best of my knowledge"
I guess we will have to go with his answer to JT in the affirmative.
Phil with your extensive background in restorations, publication and speaking in the hobby, would you be viewed as a "expert" in this field and could your testimony be considered "expert" in a court of law?
I tend to agree. BJ couldn't be less concerned about this, they got their money and that's that. In fact, everyone got their money on this and the new owner apparently doesn't care either.
So, are we missing something?
Wait a minute.....
I wonder if the seller and buyer know each other??
as an expert very likely. I work with the HVA on projects.
So just to be clear, in your "expert" opinion, that car has no paint or other coating finishes on it that were not applied at the factory prior to assembly?
I bet this car will sell for a premium now just because of this endless debate.. some thirdgen fanboy with too much money will be dying to see if the rumors are true.. if the photos are fake.. if the infamous 344 mile car is what it is..
for $45,000 they can answer the unanswerable puzzle and sleep like a baby!
I actually wonder if we will see this car on EBay or for sale at a classic dealer in the future.. that will be interesting..
Cheaper than 50K and you get to own the car too hahaha
Originally Posted by 88IROCvertZ
I bet this car will sell for a premium now just because of this endless debate.. some thirdgen fanboy with too much money will be dying to see if the rumors are true.. if the photos are fake.. if the infamous 344 mile car is what it is..
for $45,000 they can answer the unanswerable puzzle and sleep like a baby!
I actually wonder if we will see this car on EBay or for sale at a classic dealer in the future.. that will be interesting..
I feel like there's a reason why the new owner isnt putting up pics, then. If it were my car and I had nothing that I didnt want seen, I would put the question of my cars reputation in the clear IMMEDIATELY. I would take close up pics of every area in question.
But if I didnt want it to be seen, I would remove it from the auction property immediately, and fall off the grid.
I have been reading this topic and WOWZA.
So let me try and understand here. If I were to call a car junk and maybe post some pics whether they were true or false claims of damage, repaint etc online, I can be taken to court and charged with what......... Oh wait I know...NOTHING
To say that someone can be taken to court and charged with anything for posting pics of a car IMO is craziness.
Next time some Mustang owner calls my IROC a POS I am taking them to court..
So just to be clear, in your "expert" opinion, that car has no paint or other coating finishes on it that were not applied at the factory prior to assembly?
I will also add, the winner of the auction is, and am I correct in this, monitoring this thread and will therefor have full access to your published responses here?
01-26-2019, 04:20 PM
