1966 marina blue L79 23.000 orig miles on ebay

[Mike Petrillo]

Just a few things noticed,wood grain wheel was not an option in 1966 on the nova it wasn't til 1967 they were offered and under 400 cars had them,also the 750x14 tire was not offered and no vin# on the pad.I believe the car has many L79 options but i would take a close look at the docs and this guy needs to remove the false pictures representing the car as a vintage race car with low miles and using the pictures to promote that as a fact.I will try to contact him and see how he came up with the pictures.

[olredalert]

------Bad broach marks, bad Z in the numbers.......Bill S

[ QUOTE ]
ebay ad states previous owner prior to the current had the car for approx 37 years that would make the car off the market unless it was for sale and did not hit reserve,also if you have owner history back to 1970 i would think if the car was once owned by grumpy everyone would know about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with both your points. Is it common knowledge grumpy had one of these cars? I'm not to up on the novas. The car did not sell it was in the cars for sale not in the auction. My brother could of bought the car for around 15k at the time. Just two very similar cars i guess

[al8apex]

well scripted description:

"IT APPEARS TO BE ALL ORIGINAL PARTS"

"THIS CAR WAS QUITE POSSIBLY PURCHASED THROUGH NICKEY CHEVROLET (NO WAY TO PROVE)"

"AND IS AN EX RACE CAR WITH 23,000 ORIGINAL MILES"

"THIS CAR IS PRETTY WELL DOCUMENTED"

"I'LL POINT OUT SOME HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CAR THAT PROVES TO BE AUTHENTIC"

huh? the highlights are authentic?

"ALSO ADDING TO THE POSSIBILTY OF THE MILEAGE TO BE CORRECT "

"THE INTERIOR APPEARS TO BE ALL ORIGINAL"

"ALL THE GLASS IS NEW"

ummm, WHY would an original 23k mile car NEED new glass?

"THE CAR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN #1 CONDITION"

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
well scripted description:

"IT APPEARS TO BE ALL ORIGINAL PARTS"

"THIS CAR WAS QUITE POSSIBLY PURCHASED THROUGH NICKEY CHEVROLET (NO WAY TO PROVE)"

"AND IS AN EX RACE CAR WITH 23,000 ORIGINAL MILES"

"THIS CAR IS PRETTY WELL DOCUMENTED"

"I'LL POINT OUT SOME HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CAR THAT PROVES TO BE AUTHENTIC"

huh? the highlights are authentic?

"ALSO ADDING TO THE POSSIBILTY OF THE MILEAGE TO BE CORRECT "

"THE INTERIOR APPEARS TO BE ALL ORIGINAL"

"ALL THE GLASS IS NEW"

ummm, WHY would an original 23k mile car NEED new glass?

"THE CAR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN #1 CONDITION"

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I DO think it is well written. Most people take some creative license when describing their car for sale. No different than BUYERS using things to negotiate the price down when it is something that REALLY means nothing to them in a bad way, but SOME might, so they use it.

I like to under-sell my cars so the buyer is happy when they actually SEE the car. OTOH, I also describe my Hemi car as numbers matching INCLUDING the engine because it is date code correct for the scheduled production date of the car. There were no V.I.N.s stamped on the engine or trans in 1966 so there is no way to PROVE the engine was born in the car. Likewise, there is no way to DIS-PROVE it either. Is it wrong to describe it as numbers matching?

Below are a couple of descriptions I have saved from different Ebay descriptions of cars for sale for future use. I like the first one because of what I have bolded.
More of us need to keep this in mind when trying to determine what a seller is actually SELLING.


CAR IS SOLD AS-IS/WHERE IS WITH NO WARRANTY OR GUARANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE TRUE, BUT SINCE I HAVEN’T OWNED THIS PARTICULAR VEHICLE SINCE IT WAS NEW, I DO NOT GUARANTEE ANY OF THE INFORMATION TO BE 100% ACCURATE. EVERYONE HAS DIFFERENT OPINIONS OF THINGS, ESPECIALLY AUTOMOBILES. ONE MAN’S JUNK IS ANOTHER MAN’S TREASURE. MY DESCRIPTION IS DONE IN AS ACCURATE A MANNER AS POSSIBLE IN MY OPINION. IF THERE IS ANY PARTICULAR AREA OF THIS VEHICLE THAT IS OF CONCERN TO YOU, IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT YOU HAVE SATISFIED YOURSELF ENOUGH TO MAKE THIS PURCHASE.

This vehicle is being sold as is, with no warranty, expressed written or implied. The seller shall not be responsible for the correct description, authenticity, genuineness, or defects herein, and makes no warranty in connection therewith. No allowance or set aside will be made on account of any incorrectness, imperfection, defect or damage. Any descriptions or representations are for identification purposes only and are not to be construed as a warranty of any type. It is the responsibility of the buyer to have thoroughly inspected the vehicle and to have satisfied himself or herself as to the condition and value and to bid based upon that judgment solely. The seller shall and will make every reasonable effort to disclose any known defects associated with this vehicle at the buyer's request prior to the close of sale. Seller assumes no responsibility for any repairs regardless of any oral statements about the vehicle.

[Mike Petrillo]

I sent the owner of the L79 a message to remove my pictures from his ebay listing.He has removed them and he responded that he purchased the car with the display board.He asked for my phone # which i supplied but he never called so i called him and left a message but i do not expect to hear from him.The car is now bid over 45k with 4 days left so i just wonder if people are just that stupid or are his friends running up the bids.One other thing that bugs me is this car according to his magazine articles and the display board with my pictures has been shown on the east coast i find it hard to believe that more people have not spoken up about this fraud.

[ QUOTE ]
ebay ad states previous owner prior to the current had the car for approx 37 years that would make the car off the market unless it was for sale and did not hit reserve,also if you have owner history back to 1970 i would think if the car was once owned by grumpy everyone would know about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike,
It is a different car, spoke with my older brother who remembers it quite well. It was a post car 4 spd. no console rubber mat car.

Please allow me to wade in. I'm a bit confused on the Jenkins part of the equation. I've been around drag racing for a very long time (some would say too long probably <g&gt. Both of Jenkins L79 Novas were hardtops, not post cars. The first one, a red and white car was destroyed in a towing accident. The second was all white. Larry Davis' neat book, "Super Stock -- Drag Racing The Family Sedan" has some neat pics of both cars. And by the way, I suspect the red and white car was actually a white car that was two-toned.

Thanks for letting me into this conversation.

Wayne Scraba

[PeteLeathersac]

There's a few pics of Grumps '66 cars in this thread from Steve's Nova site..

http://www.stevesnovasite.com/forums...ad.php?t=87624

Cool you're here Wayne...hope to see you pop by more often!.


~ Pete

[iluv69s]

apparently the Nova that JD502 mentioned from Atlantic City was a driver of Grumpy's more recently..it had title history in his name (although this was a while ago)...I believe it was never a race car..as it was all original...obviously not the same car...