Moss green "67" GT500 at Barrett Jackson Scottsdale

[Hockeylife]

I guess it's on par with the restored one at RM that sold for $200 hammer. I prefer the original ones

A difference of the RM car, #3114, as explained to me, was that #3114 had its original engine. But, who knows?

[2112]

I guess it's on par with the restored one at RM that sold for $200 hammer. I prefer the original ones

A difference of the RM car, #3114, as explained to me, was that #3114 had its original engine. But, who knows?

Since 428 engines were not stamped in 1967, I would imagine having an original engine would have to have a lot of corroborating documentation.

[Bob Gaines]

I guess it's on par with the restored one at RM that sold for $200 hammer. I prefer the original ones

A difference of the RM car, #3114, as explained to me, was that #3114 had its original engine. But, who knows?

Since 428 engines were not stamped in 1967, I would imagine having an original engine would have to have a lot of corroborating documentation.

With all of the BS documentation I have seen at auctions to me the most important things are to have appropriate date codes and casting numbers . The value of corroborating documentation can be seen as meaningless or a BS justification if the dates codes and casting numbers are not consistent . Of course that is in regards to a stock 67 GT 500 engine. A red flag should be raised any time a so called "factory " or "dealer installed " 427 engine is added to the mix .

[2112]

Agreed, but even with correct date codes, in this instance ('67 GT500s) claiming an original engine is really just that. A claim.

I am sure there are cars with original engines and I am also sure there are cars which don't have original engines, but the dates are correct.

So, In my opinion. The value adder is having the date codes correct. End of story. (IMO)