. Your thoughts on the new California Special book/registry

[robert campbell]

Hi folks.

I received a message from Paul regarding some of the questions and comments that have been posted here about his book. In it he does confirm that a Marti Report specifically states that Curtis Kaffer's CS was ordered by Lee Grey which I find interesting.

Here's his message, which is actually addressed to all the members at this site:



If there are some who have a different opinon or who would take issue or exception to what Paul had to say above please be aware that I'm not taking up a position as a spokesperson for Paul so don't expect me to address points that you may raise in response to Paul's message. He has been a long-time acquaintance of mine and I post this as a favor to him and to those on this site who are interested in what he has to say.

I'm aware that some here have their differences with Paul and I have no desire to involve myself in those differences. I think the common, positive goal we all share is establishing accurate information about our cars, as much as that is possible.

-DLedin

All,
I have seen some of the evidence shots from the new book. Kinda fishy if the car that is purported as a debut car was not accompanied by this special “elite” report that makes it the real deal. Why go to tell tail evidence such as rear shot of two cars that have the same alignment problem on the left side of the trunk? Why point at an exhaust tip that certainly is attached to new mufflers and pipe after 43 years?

Not to sound like Donald Trump, but I would like to see this special elite report. I have seen numerous elite reports and they do not drill down to the person who ordered the car. And Lee Gray was just another Ford guy back in February of 1968.

Now to the scripts. Below is a direct quote from the author in 2005. The information about templates and drilling came from this site between now and then. The author was hard over on this issue. I asked for one better side shot of a debut cars, but “wait for the book” was the answer. I have seen a side shot of the car that the author claims is the blue one on the stage. The script holes are in the traditional location of a line car and not a prototype. Now all of a sudden the script holes were drilled and haphazard.

And Arlie helped me with a final clue. There are some cars that have early taillight panels that make the gas cap appear “recessed” or inset inside the taillight panel. We have two known cars with his early panel. They are both very erly build dates with recessed rear reflectors. If you look closely at the “evidence” shot in the new book straight on the back of the debut car and the purported debut car, you will notice the dark ring around the gas cap of the debut car on the stage. It has the early taillight panel and the gas cap is recessed. The purported car does not. Certainly over the years the script may have been moved, the taillight panel replaced, but nope still has the original exhaust......

Guess I will look like “Donald t.” when the author brings forward that piece of paper that guarantees this a debut car..... See the authors quote from 2005 below on the script.

Rob



Re:2005 Registry Update Thread

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, Steve! I appreciate your comments. It has always been my hope to help folks restoring their GT/CS with good information.

Definately send me a few photos of your restoration. I want to include that in the book to encourage others to do the same, since these cars are nearing in age for complete restorations.

IF you could--also send video of the restoration, too. This is all very inspiring to others that are considering doing the same.

I invite everyone to send in some sort of photos and/or video of your restorations. I do have a ground-up resto (a famous one here) that I will document.

As for one of those "secrets", look at your rear quarters without the script. if you look along the side from the rear, you'll see the slightest "dimpling" of the sheet metal for the holes. The script holes were punched, not drilled at the factory.

-Paul N.

 

[CougarCJ]

Re:2005 Registry Update Thread

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, Steve! I appreciate your comments. ....


As for one of those "secrets", look at your rear quarters without the script. if you look along the side from the rear, you'll see the slightest "dimpling" of the sheet metal for the holes. The script holes were punched, not drilled at the factory.

-Paul N.

Was looking at my one original quarter panel on my early GT/CS. I don't see any dimpling, both of my quarters look to be drilled. Definately drilled?:cheesy:
My passenger side quarter has been replaced, those holes are flush and just a slight pucker and sharp edge on the back.

 

[robert campbell]

Scott,
I have one original (right side) quarter on my car. Verified by is original spot welds and sheetmetal date codes. It is drilled also. Plus the script holes are high like a debut car. That and all the original fiberglass from Ford is why I continue on this quest. But it has the later tailiight panel, which in my mind is wrong for a debut car. It has the early recessed reflectors.


The mystery continues, but I am confident that the debut cars are not Marti verified.

Rob

 

[robert campbell]

All,
Sorry, I was misinformed on the shot in the book. The new book does not show or mention the early taillight panel. Here are two shots. These panels are REAL evidence of the proto type or debut cars.

I have seen the car that the authors thinks is the debut car. It does not have this taillight panel. And both these cars are early resessed reflector cars.

Sorry for the confusion. Arlie turned me on to this and if you look at most GT/CS cars (mine too) the gas cap outer ring is even with the cutout in the panel. If you have a similar panel in your car to these pictures it has some very early fiberglass that may have only been on a debut car.

The story continues.

Rob

 

[Mosesatm]

That information actually came from Paul; I just happened to remember it.

http://www.californiaspecial.com/forums/showpost.php?p=62595&postcount=1

7. I'm looking for any rear (taillight) fiberglass panels that seem to be about 1/2 inch farther away from the metal '68 Mustang taillight piece than "normal". That is, when you look at the gas cap, the fiberglass panel doesn't seem to be flush with the base of the pop-off gas cap (by about 1/2"). This is a production variation with early production GT/CSs.

It's strange that he didn't mention this in his book, especially since we found a couple examples.

 

[GTCSMustang]

These panels are REAL evidence of the proto type or debut cars.

I'm not sure I'm following the discussion about the taillight panels (early vs late). There would be no reason to have a prototype taillight panel for the GT/CS. It already existed. The Shelbys had been using it since December 1967.

Am I missing something? I admit I have not followed threads regarding this topic.

Scott

 

[GTCSMustang]

Would this be considered an early panel?

Scott

 

[robert campbell]

Scott,
Certainly has the look of it. I would assume that there may be some installation differences from car to car. The outer ring of my gas cap is flush with the outside edge of the taillight panel.

Rob

 

[Mosesatm]

IMO that example looks a little different than the other two.

 

[robert campbell]

That information actually came from Paul; I just happened to remember it.

http://www.californiaspecial.com/forums/showpost.php?p=62595&postcount=1



It's strange that he didn't mention this in his book, especially since we found a couple examples.

Strange, Yes it is.

Rob

 

[robert campbell]

IMO that example looks a little different than the other two.

Arlie,
I agree. Maybe the panel is not all the way "on" this car. It is not as far out as the other two.

Rob

 

[Ruppstang]

I'm not sure I'm following the discussion about the taillight panels (early vs late). There would be no reason to have a prototype taillight panel for the GT/CS. It already existed. The Shelbys had been using it since December 1967.

Am I missing something? I admit I have not followed threads regarding this topic.

Scott

Scott,
That is the line of thinking that I have been on. I know for a fact that the early fiberglass work had a lot of defects. I think poor quility parts may be a better explation of why some aparent early cars had the deep panel and others did not. I wonder if some Shelbys can be found with similar panels. The high and low scripts is another story and I have allways belived that the holes for them were allways drilled. Why would Ford tool to punch holes for so few cars.

 

[GTCSMustang]

By mid-February 1968 Ford had built around 1,500 Shelbys. I suspect that they had any issues with the taillight panels worked out to their satisfaction. They may not have been perfect, but they were passable and were likely not being modified by the time the GT/CS debuted. I think the gap around the gas cap can be simply explained by variations in workmanship. I looked at my GT/CS cars and my Shelbys and the gap is determined by the fitment of the panel. Perhaps there was a learing curve with the early GT/CS cars that produced the gap on early cars, but I doubt there is a variation in the fiberglas panels.

Scott

 

[Mosesatm]

I don't agree.

If you look at how the panel fits on the blue car the largest gap is on the bottom of the opening where there is no adjustment for the panel. The bottom half of the panel screws onto the body with no opportunity for horizontal adjustment. Add to that the fact that these huge gaps are only found on early cars leads me to agree with Paul that some strange taillight panels were being produced yearly in the run.

Maybe such large gaps are not found on Shelbys because those panels were rejected and not used, then some bright executive came up with the idea to use the reject parts on the California Specials. Ford was into saving money at the time so taking rejected parts from their premier cars and using them on their lesser cars would earn someone a promotion and/or a bonus.

 

[robert campbell]

I hate to use a SAAC reply, but "plus 1" on your thoughts Arlie and Marty. And trust me, there is something very different on those two tailight panels and even the author knew it. Good job by the author to find this anomoly!! I stand corrected that he was the one that found it. Good on his research.

Rob

 

[GTCSMustang]

Who owns the blue car in the photo? Or the other car? A photo of the taillight panel with the trunk open would answer a lot of questions.

Based on the Shelbys I've seen, they weren't rejecting any fiberglas. The fit and finish is horrible.

Scott

 

[robert campbell]

Scott,
Arlie saw this car and it is up here near me. It has higher script and this taillight panel. I will be seeing it in person soon. I will take very detailed photos.

Rob

 

[Mosesatm]

Who owns the blue car in the photo? Or the other car? A photo of the taillight panel with the trunk open would answer a lot of questions.

Based on the Shelbys I've seen, they weren't rejecting any fiberglas. The fit and finish is horrible.

Scott

And that was the good stuff.

 

[Ruppstang]

Rob some very exact measuerments especialy around the filler hole would be great I wish we could get a shot with a digital imager. Marty

 

[Mosesatm]

It has the cardboard taillight covers installed so those will need to be removed.