• Welcome to the CaliforniaSpecial.com forums! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all our site features, please take a moment to join our community! It's fast, simple and absolutely free.

    If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.

    Please Note: If you are an existing member and your password no longer works, click here to reset it.

1968 Early GT/CS - Thoughts?

CougarCJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
2,186
I was reading something that Rob Campbell posted regarding the introduction date of Feb 15, 1968, and the timeline for my GT/CS.

Looking through all of the Marti reports on our site, most of the GT/CS cars have an 'actual' build date and release date either the same or one day apart.

My GT/CS was actually built on 02/06/68 and released on 02/19/1968. Several other cars have a similar gap.

Would it be safe to say that these early February built Mustangs with the extended time period from build date to release date were some of the Mustangs converted to GT/CS models for the expected 'rush' of orders?

gtcstable.jpg



Something else I found interesting regarding tworings GT/CS.

Her car has the an early release date of 02/16/1968, and it has a "Stock" order type. Most of the early cars are designated "Basic Off Standard".

tworings GT/CS has an order received date of 12/12/1967. Was this car pre-ordered as a California Special by Jim Snow Ford of Paramount, Ca that early? or was the order changed mid-stream?
http://www.californiaspecial.com/forums/showpost.php?p=25811&postcount=16

It was released Feb, 16, 1968, the day after the introduction, this predates all the rest of the cars that I found in the "Post your Marti Report" thread.
 

joedls

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
1,980
Location
Lake Forest, CA
Here's another question? How many of these early cars came with a tach dash or deluxe interior, even though it isn't on your Marti report?
 

franklinair

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
4,741
I find this all very interesting, as I'm really not up to snuff on production dates/early-late production/build dates, etc.
Mine says 06C (Mar, 6, 1968), S/N 8R01J 147278. I'd love to have a tutorial on this subject, as far as production periods & what was installed/not installed.

Neil

PS: And why is this thread so wiide?
 

Midnight Special

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
3,713
Location
Grass Valley, California
""My GT/CS was actually built on 02/06/68 and released on 02/19/1968. Several other cars have a similar gap.""

Scott, would the labor strike at Ford have anything to do with Lisa's car dates? Also, is it possible that some early cars were converted to GT/CS and sold as such after leaving the factory (for anticipated, but not realized sales)? Just curious...
 
OP
OP
CougarCJ

CougarCJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
2,186
""My GT/CS was actually built on 02/06/68 and released on 02/19/1968. Several other cars have a similar gap.""

Scott, would the labor strike at Ford have anything to do with Lisa's car dates? Also, is it possible that some early cars were converted to GT/CS and sold as such after leaving the factory (for anticipated, but not realized sales)? Just curious...

Tim, I searched out the UAW strike dates, ...

On September 6, 1967 UAW calls a company-wide strike and it continues until Nov 11, 1967.

I don't think it comes into play on her car. Lisa's car could have been one of the first GT/CS shipped to any new car dealer show room.

That is what I believe, finished or nearly finished cars were converted. Is there any mention of something like this in an old GT/CS registry?
 

robert campbell

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
4,321
Scott,
I am at work. I have Paul's first book, but it is at home. There were references that some cars were pulled off the line and staged for the GT/CS conversion. These are Paul's words in the book. But if they are true, it makes sense that these cars were ordered as a non-GT/CS car and converted into a GT/CS. The trick is whether Ford “updated” the records to reflect this conversion when finished. And then there is the script controversy. They were very late adds to the debut cars. And they are in a different position on the quarter panel. Much higher!

Rumor has it that the cars were loaded and had tachs at the debut as Joe asks. That has not been confirmed to my knowledge, but common sense tells us that the cars on that stage would be loaded. They were trying to place orders.

Paul has just finished telling all that my car and Janice Brulc’s (in our registry) car were just clones built at a dealer. I do have to agree from the standpoint of a registrar, that the Marti report will ensure that cars ordered from a dealer and built are the only cars that he “should “accept”. Casey said it well and I respect him for that.

But to me the Holy Grail is to find a debut car. Paul just lied on the SAAC site today or lied to me a year ago. He claims that one car in the registry was a debut car. I asked him this directly a year ago and he said none have surfaced. Now all of a sudden one has, “and” it is Marti verified.

Does anyone on this site think for a minute that Paul would not have revealed a debut car to this site? Please? Maybe Casey can explain this sudden turn of events. And I hope it is not the “one of my surprises in the new book crap”. He would not be able to contain this.

Just to put a period on it, I will start my own thread on the SAAC site about the debut cars from our perspective. If any of you have some information on any of this, I would love to hear it. I love what Scott is doing with this thread.

Rob
 

Mustanglvr

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2004
Messages
3,258
We should try to do a round-up of people who used to work at the San Jose plant and get their stories before it's too late.
 

robert campbell

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
4,321
Paul did do some of this. If I was in the Bay area, I would run an ad in the paper. Suppose one could do that from where I am???

Has to be some of the factory guys left.
 

Mustanglvr

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2004
Messages
3,258
Paul did do some of this. If I was in the Bay area, I would run an ad in the paper. Suppose one could do that from where I am???

Has to be some of the factory guys left.

I'm sure you could Robert. There has to be someone out there with information.
Even just a tidbit would make us all happy. :grin:

I met a guy a few years ago here in Minnesota that could tell me every part number for the 68 Mustangs because he had worked at the San Jose plant at that time. Of course, I did'nt get his name or number cuz I was clueless at that time and did'nt have the good sense to get it.:rolleyes:
 

case12

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
1,450
Location
Crystal Lake, IL
Robert, thanks for the kind words and your trust.

I don't know what Paul found as a possible 'debut' car, so I can't comment on that one. As we see, there are ways to possibly find one - and I would love it if we did!

What I do know is from the work I did with Kevin Marti for Paul's book that the first production CS was Jan 18, 1968. The promotion was Feb 15. So, many cars would have been built prior to Feb 15 without script, and then it was added later.

Interestingly, the blueprint for the California Special diecast script is 2-10-68. As noted, this was a controversial add on very late (Lee Grey told me himself that he insisted upon it, or no deal!!). So, some cars did not have them (just like in the brochure), until they were added. Of all the CS blueprints I have, this is by far the latest (fair to say the last one). The script certainly had to be added to the cars at the promotion!

I like this thread, and hope we can decipher some other ways to find a promotion car!

Thanks, Casey
 

J_Speegle

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
488
I'm sure you could Robert. There has to be someone out there with information.
Even just a tidbit would make us all happy. :grin:
:


Talked to a number of them and have an opportunity to talk to more. Not a one even recalls the Calif Specials yet. Most can recall every rumor and bad thing about coworkers but few details about the 100,000'/s of cars they touched. Just a job to most and you have to watch for the ones that just want to weave a story to get a reaction ;).

But will keep talking to them in the hopes that we get more information

........... Paul just lied on the SAAC site today or lied to me a year ago. He claims that one car in the registry was a debut car. I asked him this directly a year ago and he said none have surfaced. Now all of a sudden one has, “and” it is Marti verified.......
.

Robert that IMHO is a big jump considering the time lapsed. If something new has appeared in the last year it would just be new info and not sure if years of research = "all of a sudden", I should likely not even comment on the p**sing match that has developed. Not wanting to choose sides, just an observation ;)
 

J_Speegle

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
488
...............Looking through all of the Marti reports on our site, most of the GT/CS cars have an 'actual' build date and release date either the same or one day apart.

My GT/CS was actually built on 02/06/68 and released on 02/19/1968. Several other cars have a similar gap............


Not sure if you were only looking at cars from that specific period or that was all that you found on the site. Looking at the ones I have handy I found


Build............Released

30-Apr.........22-May
15-May........16-May
18-Jun.........21-Jun
30-Apr.........3-May
28-Mar.........2-Apr
3-Apr...........4-Apr

With a mixture of Standard, Retail and Company Lease types of orders

If your investigating only Feb built cars please disreguard the response- must have missed something :(


Her car has the an early release date of 02/16/1968, and it has a "Stock" order type. Most of the early cars are designated "Basic Off Standard".......

May have a simple reason. Kevin has at times changed the terms he uses to describe different things slightly over the years he has been providing these. Not sure but this may just be an example of this. Just a possibility IMHO
 

robert campbell

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
4,321
Robert that IMHO is a big jump considering the time lapsed. If something new has appeared in the last year it would just be new info and not sure if years of research = "all of a sudden", I should likely not even comment on the p**sing match that has developed. Not wanting to choose sides, just an observation ;)[/QUOTE]

J, maybe the below will perk your interest.

Maybe “lied” was to strong a term. How about “deliberately” withheld, if he had the information. The time frame is closer to 5 or 6 months between my last contact with the registrar. One of the main points of my discussion with him was the location of the script on the quarter panel. Not sure if you have his first book. If you do, under careful examination you can see in some of the pictures that the script is noticeably higher on the cars in the debut. My car had its script in this location. I moved it back down in 1989 as it looked odd. I was oblivious to what I had done. The holes are still in my quarter panel. You can see them in my gallery. I am at work without access to my pictures at home. Tim did a photo shop rendition of how my car would have looked with dimensions on the photo to how it is today. Maybe he can post today.

I asked the registrar for a larger picture of his originals for the debut. Just a paper copy of a couple pics. Copyrighted! I asked him about the script anomaly and he basically had no knowledge. But with all this, I am sure he will copyright a chapter on it. More things that we “the site” discovered. With the build date of my car, another one nearly as early, both with all the stuff, has led me on the quest to find out what their personal heritage is.

A Casey stated, very professionally in the response to mine in the SAAC site, I have come to one conclusion. For the sake of the registry and the ease of documentation the, obvious is correct. If your Marti does not say GT/CS, you should not be in the registry. Mine does not and that is that. I can live with that easily.

But there is may be a tie between the timeframe of my car and the debut cars. The only thing leading me to that is the script location and other comments in the registrar’s first book. And the early build date. I fully believe that the registrar does not have a “fully vetted” debut car. One tell-tale sign is the recessed reflectors on every car I can get an angle on for the debut in his first book. GT/CS cars with recessed reflectors are few. But, as it was plainly stated to me, you better have a pile of documentation. Someday we may see some of this “pile” from the registrar….. The registrar likes to tease with all the information he has, but IMO it will fall far short in this area. Basic information we have that would only clarity....

Is my car some assembled car between now and 1968? Very well could be. I have history on it back into the mid 1980’s and at that point it was what it is today. Whoever did it, had a complete GT/CS in front of them. Every GT/CS part is original Ford except for the left side scoop. It had the left quarter replaced at one point, and a very poor job. I replaced it properly in 1989. Correct rear wiring harness. Correct circuit breaker for the fog lights. Correct fog light switch, which I finally had to replace. Even all the date codes on the sheetmetal are faithful to its build date and the car is faithful to every option on its elite Marti report. Except one. The GT/CS option.

So whatever happened; happened way back in its history. And another car built 2 days later and delivered in Seattle is its twin. Both with all the GT/CS parts. Both Gold Nugget Specials on the Marti report, painted a different “gold” color than a GNS, and even the Marti report is wrong on its color for both cars. The Marti’s are posted in our site thread. The say they are sunlit gold. They were not. Had mine to metal. I would like to pull up the carpet for Casey to look at the color that still exists on the floors. Not sunlit gold like his car is.

Cloning Shelby’s for profit has been existence for a long time. Cloning a GT/CS so perfectly, with an identical twin. Way back before people thought they were valuable? Could be.

If the registrar has a line on a debut car, you would think he may help shed some light on this. To enrich the history of the GT/CS. Guess we will wait for the book.

I am busy building a couple Ford Festiva clones with flames on them for later profit. I will claim factory installed SHO motors. Gonna make a million on them! Cory, darn it you sold yours!

Rob
 
OP
OP
CougarCJ

CougarCJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
2,186
Not sure if you were only looking at cars from that specific period or that was all that you found on the site. Looking at the ones I have handy I found


Build............Released

30-Apr.........22-May
15-May........16-May
18-Jun.........21-Jun
30-Apr.........3-May
28-Mar.........2-Apr
3-Apr...........4-Apr

With a mixture of Standard, Retail and Company Lease types of orders

If your investigating only Feb built cars please disregard the response- must have missed something :(

Yeah, Jeff, early GT/CS's, it's in the title. :wink:

I have been waiting since the winter of 2005 for the opportunity to purchase a registry book with this information.
Research information is not available anymore on the internet. I can only rely on the collective minds here, and the Marti reports posted.
 

rvrtrash

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
3,649
I've stayed out of this, because everyone here is my friend, but have looked at the Shelby site and have to chip in. Marti reports are based off Ford documentation and there is always a slight chance that there is an error there or in the conversion to the Marti report. Heck, the VIN's in my engine and tranny are off by 2 in the last digit (both are 8Rxxx110 instead of 112). That had to be an error at the factory. With a late modification, like the debut cars, this increases the chance of error. Short of an actual dealer invoice though, it's the best we have and has come to be accepted as fact. I applaud Robert for realizing this, and also his continued search for a "better" answer. An obvious question comes to mind. Are any of the cars in the debut pictures the same color as Roberts'. It seems there would be at least one. On the Shelby site, an individual made the statement that dealer mods were done. I would say this is highly unlikely, due to the expense. It would be easier and cheaper to just get one transported from another dealer that had one sitting on his lot unsold, or even buy a GT350. These cars did not meet the sales goals that were envisioned. I would hold the "dealer mod" statement to the same standard. Show me a dealer invoice in black and white or else you're just clouding the issue. I've been "building" cars since I was 15, and at the age of 18 put a totaled Triumph Spitfire (hard rollover) back on the road. It would have been nothing to me to find a totaled CS and convert a standard coupe to one. Would I have found two coupes with close VIN's and done both the same, and made them the same color? Not as likely. In closing, Robert, I think the odds are against you, but that doesn't mean you should give up. I'm done with my speil now.

Steve (Doesn't speak often, but rambles when he does)
 

J_Speegle

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
488
.............. Someday we may see some of this “pile” from the registrar….. The registrar likes to tease with all the information he has, but IMO it will fall far short in this area. Basic information we have that would only clarity.....


First Robert hope you don't mind me reducing your comments down to something a bit shorter to respond to. If you feel I have altered the message in any way please correct me.

As for a "pile" sure that word means different things to different people. I have seen a "pile" of marti reports and other documentation during a couple of meetings with Paul over the years while reviewing stuff for the concours section of the book - of which I don't believe has been completed as of yet.

Don't know if this counts - just reporting


Is my car some assembled car between now and 1968? Very well could be. I have history on it back into the mid 1980’s and at that point it was what it is today. Whoever did it, had a complete GT/CS in front of them. Every GT/CS part is original Ford except for the left side scoop. ................
So whatever happened; happened way back in its history. And another car built 2 days later and delivered in Seattle is its twin. .............Cloning Shelby’s for profit has been existence for a long time. Cloning a GT/CS so perfectly, with an identical twin. Way back before people thought they were valuable? Could be. .


Well yes there were many "clones/fakes/copies" (what ever term you want to use) all the way back to the 70's. Not sure why so many, especially here in Calif where there were more than any place, but that is one of the issues I have been trying to track down (the group of Calif Spec convertibles in my area) for many years. But that is getting off track and has been mentioned on the site before - just an example of what was going on back then. Believe I must have looked at a dozen copies before 1985 and each were well used at that time but the vast majority had every specific piece in place like an original



Both with all the GT/CS parts. Both Gold Nugget Specials on the Marti report, painted a different “gold” color than a GNS, and even the Marti report is wrong on its color for both cars. ...........................

That IMHO is an interesting fact. Do both cars match their original door tags (code) and/or their buildsheets. Or (since they are so close to another) might this be a paint batch that was "off. Just a thought ;)



If the registrar has a line on a debut car, you would think he may help shed some light on this. To enrich the history of the GT/CS. Guess we will wait for the book..................


Yes I think that is a plan - likely the only plan at this time :lipsseal:

Jeff
 

robert campbell

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
4,321
Steve,
Uphill battle for sure. A verified debut car would answer alot of questions. I would love just a snippet of proof from the registrar that he has one. How he knows. What pile of indisbutable evidence does he have? Same uphill battle that I face....... Mabe a different standard of proof if you are the registrar....

I asked the registrar about a car on the stage. His answer was no. I believe that.

The script location maybe the final piece. What are the chances that my car has the script in the same location as a debut car? That would mean this dealer chop shop did it very close to the debut. Again, why not just order one. The registrar contradicts himself in this are as you clearly stated in your post about the cars not selling. It would make zero sense. Unless someone had to have an ulgy brownish gold GT/CS. Anniversary is not as attractive as sunlit in any way!!

Solving some of this could add value to the GT/CS history before his book goes to print.

But at the same time this site is the GT/CS legacy long after the book is ever in print. Available to ALL to use for FREE to enhance the GT/CS history.

Tim,
Thanks for resurecting that old post!! Lots of good info, and what is weird is the family of people that weighed in on it. I have met many of them now... At your house! I have never claimed my car is a GT/CS as evidenced in this old post. Although I do refer to it as a GT/CS in posts. Guess I better revert to something new..... GNS...... cloner..... chopo shopo.....

The cool thing is the great friends I have met in this site!!! They don't care what it is!

Rob
 

Midnight Special

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
3,713
Location
Grass Valley, California
Rob, I think it's a worthwhile and interesting subject - to explore history abnormalities that make our little "niche" all the more intriguing (having seen the same trends in historic aircraft and RR locomotive production runs), but let's leave the "registrar" out of it in this case. He has shown both here and on SAAC that the value he places on our cars are directly proportionate to the values placed by individuals on him. Nothing more! I for one am not the least bit interested in involving him in any way...

All will fall in line with time and more generous forthcomings, but never believe that the "value" of your individual car lies with assignment to another person, rather the heart & soul you put into your machine and the inevitable documentation, investigation or otherwise... you invest.
 
Top