Recent discussion on Morrison's 67 G.T. 500

[shelbydoug]

Check the the 1967 Shelby Research Group (www.1967ShelbyResearch.com) about this.  They've been looking into theories to explain the "Z".  One of the working theories is that the "Z" was a way to differentiate the cars built by SA versus Ford.

So far, it seems to be a pretty well fleshed out explanation with quite a bit of documentation that supports the timing of the entire process.

Personally, I like it a lot better than the "don't rob parts off this car cause it's finished explanation". Truth is it is likely no explanation will be proven beyond a doubt.

To Kansas; I don't see the registrar's job as including the responsibility of disproving unsubstantiated claims.

Sounds like another conspiracy theory that so many are willing to believe to me.

Why is it necessary for anyone to know who was in charge when the car was built? Ford was always paying the bills.

[FL SAAC]

Check the the 1967 Shelby Research Group (www.1967ShelbyResearch.com) about this.  They've been looking into theories to explain the "Z".  One of the working theories is that the "Z" was a way to differentiate the cars built by SA versus Ford.

So far, it seems to be a pretty well fleshed out explanation with quite a bit of documentation that supports the timing of the entire process.

Personally, I like it a lot better than the "don't rob parts off this car cause it's finished explanation". Truth is it is likely no explanation will be proven beyond a doubt.

To Kansas; I don't see the registrar's job as including the responsibility of disproving unsubstantiated claims.

Sounds like another conspiracy theory that so many are willing to believe to me.

Why is it necessary for anyone to know who was in charge when the car was built? Ford was always paying the bills.

                              Z .... the special edition

[98SVT - was 06GT]

Check the the 1967 Shelby Research Group (www.1967ShelbyResearch.com) about this.  They've been looking into theories to explain the "Z".  One of the working theories is that the "Z" was a way to differentiate the cars built by SA versus Ford.

So far, it seems to be a pretty well fleshed out explanation with quite a bit of documentation that supports the timing of the entire process.

Personally, I like it a lot better than the "don't rob parts off this car cause it's finished explanation". Truth is it is likely no explanation will be proven beyond a doubt.

To Kansas; I don't see the registrar's job as including the responsibility of disproving unsubstantiated claims.

Sounds like another conspiracy theory that so many are willing to believe to me.

Why is it necessary for anyone to know who was in charge when the car was built? Ford was always paying the bills.

Warranty billing was a big thing. Ford accounting is broken into many accounts and budgets need to be kept track of. The Z would mean warranty costs would be charged to Ford and no Z meant that warranty would be expensed to the Shelby American account. They were their own company separate from Ford until around April 67 when Shelby's 1962 startup loan from Ford came due and he couldn't pay. That is when Shelby American became a race contractor to Ford. You'll notice on the '68 TA cars it says "Shelby Racing Co" on the fender.
Now if we could only find a service writer, dealer or FMC accountant  from back in the day who could tell us for sure where the charges went.

[shelbydoug]

Check the the 1967 Shelby Research Group (www.1967ShelbyResearch.com) about this.  They've been looking into theories to explain the "Z".  One of the working theories is that the "Z" was a way to differentiate the cars built by SA versus Ford.

So far, it seems to be a pretty well fleshed out explanation with quite a bit of documentation that supports the timing of the entire process.

Personally, I like it a lot better than the "don't rob parts off this car cause it's finished explanation". Truth is it is likely no explanation will be proven beyond a doubt.

To Kansas; I don't see the registrar's job as including the responsibility of disproving unsubstantiated claims.

Sounds like another conspiracy theory that so many are willing to believe to me.

Why is it necessary for anyone to know who was in charge when the car was built? Ford was always paying the bills.

                              Z .... the special edition

I saw a dude dressed just like this running around in the shadows on Wilshire one night after midnight.

[Coralsnake]

Just an observation

Mr Kansas posted, then didnt come back to the forum to refute any of the challenges to his version of events

or explain why 1888 does not match the Morrison car build or its original configuration

[FL SAAC]

Just an observation

Mr Kansas posted, then didnt come back to the forum to refute any of the challenges to his version oc events

or explain why 1888 does match the Morrison car build or its original configuration

"Dust in the wind"

Watch "Kansas   --    Dust    In   The  Wind  Official   Live   Video  HD" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/hSs4jK6aicI

[Sfm6sxxx]

Just an observation

Mr Kansas posted, then didnt come back to the forum to refute any of the challenges to his version of a events

or explain why 1888 does match the Morrison car build or its original configuration

My guess is that they are waiting for the results of the silica tests comparing the sand in the cowl vents to the sand where Jim was doing donuts in the desert area.  Rumor has it that it will be 99% match.

As my Grandmother would say "you can't make sense out of nonsense"

[JD]

I hope this topic/car never comes up again - unless the actual car is found and proven before anything is posted!

[Side-Oilers]

Just an observation

Mr Kansas posted, then didnt come back to the forum to refute any of the challenges to his version of events

or explain why 1888 does not match the Morrison car build or its original configuration

I watched a documentary on Netflix last night "Made You Look."  It's about the $80 million in forged paintings sold thru a noted NYC gallery.

The paintings had all kinds of supposed provenance, documents, appraisals, and professional inspections from some of the top art museums, and all were determined to be authentic (and amazingly previously unknown) works. 

All were sold to the gallery by an anonymous "Mister X" . Really, that's the guy's name used.  An intermediary broker (a woman no one in the art world had ever heard of) did the face-to-face deals with the gallery.

The gallery contracted with Sotheby's, who then auctioned most of these, at $millions each.

Many of the top art collectors excitedly bought them. Some others went on-display at art museums.

But, these paintings were eventually found out to ALL be forgeries, painted in 2000 and later.  The FBI got involved.

The Chinese guy who painted them all could be a master-painter himself, but he got involved with the scam, and that's that.

How does this apply to Shelbys and other collectible cars?  Hmmmmmm.

[propayne]

Side-Oilers post reminded me of a story that has very little to do with Jim Morrison's 1967 Shelby GT500 Mustang - but what the hell.

There was a successful illustrator that lived in the same artist community and was friends with Normal Rockwell.

Rockwell gave this guy one of his illustrations as a gift.

This illustrator passed away and his sons inherited the Rockwell painting and they loaned it out to a Norman Rockwell retrospective show.

A painting expert looked at it, and thought it didn't look right. On closer inspection this expert concluded that it was not painted by Norman Rockwell, but was a well done forgery.

The gallery and the sons were flabbergasted. This "Norman Rockwell" painting had an ironclad provenance. But the "expert" stood by his claim.

A short time later, when the family house was being readied for sale, the sons began the process of emptying out their home. When they were cleaning out the room in the house that the father used as his studio for years, they discovered a false wall in his studio, and to there amazement, hidden in that false wall was the Normal Rockwell painting that had been given to their father.

They speculated that, when their parent's (who were divorced) split looked imminent, their father, who was very talented and successful in his own right, did a painstaking copy of the Rockwell and then hid the original, fearing that he might lose the painting in the divorce.

Now the two paintings are often displayed side-by-side.

- Phillip

[98SVT - was 06GT]

Just an observation

Mr Kansas posted, then didnt come back to the forum to refute any of the challenges to his version of events

or explain why 1888 does not match the Morrison car build or its original configuration

I watched a documentary on Netflix last night "Made You Look."  It's about the $80 million in forged paintings sold thru a noted NYC gallery.

The paintings had all kinds of supposed provenance, documents, appraisals, and professional inspections from some of the top art museums, and all were determined to be authentic (and amazingly previously unknown) works. 

All were sold to the gallery by an anonymous "Mister X" . Really, that's the guy's name used.  An intermediary broker (a woman no one in the art world had ever heard of) did the face-to-face deals with the gallery.

The gallery contracted with Sotheby's, who then auctioned most of these, at $millions each.

Many of the top art collectors excitedly bought them. Some others went on-display at art museums.

But, these paintings were eventually found out to ALL be forgeries, painted in 2000 and later.  The FBI got involved.

The Chinese guy who painted them all could be a master-painter himself, but he got involved with the scam, and that's that.

How does this apply to Shelbys and other collectible cars?  Hmmmmmm.

Sounds like some Cobra deals - I know of at least one where the cops took the $250,000 Cobra he paid for and handed him back a $40,000 special construction car with a CA VIN. That was after he pleaded with them not to crush it. The only reason he got the car back was he was also a victim and the seller like the IMF denied all knowledge. When you hand someone a bag of cash you take your chances.

[propayne]

Well, let's hear it for the experts.

For the registrars that volunteer their time to maintain the integrity of our hobby and as a thank you take a lot of crap I'm sure.

Wish we still had the beer mug emoji...

- Phillip

[JD]

Well, let's hear it for the experts.

For the registrars that volunteer their time to maintain the integrity of our hobby and as a thank you take a lot of crap I'm sure.

Wish we still had the beer mug emoji...

- Phillip

+1

Side-Oilers post reminded me of a story that has very little to do with Jim Morrison's 1967 Shelby GT500 Mustang - but what the hell.

There was a successful illustrator that lived in the same artist community and was friends with Normal Rockwell.

Rockwell gave this guy one of his illustrations as a gift.

This illustrator passed away and his sons inherited the Rockwell painting and they loaned it out to a Norman Rockwell retrospective show.

A painting expert looked at it, and thought it didn't look right. On closer inspection this expert concluded that it was not painted by Norman Rockwell, but was a well done forgery.

The gallery and the sons were flabbergasted. This "Norman Rockwell" painting had an ironclad provenance. But the "expert" stood by his claim.

A short time later, when the family house was being readied for sale, the sons began the process of emptying out their home. When they were cleaning out the room in the house that the father used as his studio for years, they discovered a false wall in his studio, and to there amazement, hidden in that false wall was the Normal Rockwell painting that had been given to their father.

They speculated that, when their parent's (who were divorced) split looked imminent, their father, who was very talented and successful in his own right, did a painstaking copy of the Rockwell and then hid the original, fearing that he might lose the painting in the divorce.

Now the two paintings are often displayed side-by-side.

- Phillip

I watched that, it was a good show.

[2112]

Side-Oilers post reminded me of a story that has very little to do with Jim Morrison's 1967 Shelby GT500 Mustang - but what the hell.

There was a successful illustrator that lived in the same artist community and was friends with Normal Rockwell.

Rockwell gave this guy one of his illustrations as a gift.

This illustrator passed away and his sons inherited the Rockwell painting and they loaned it out to a Norman Rockwell retrospective show.

A painting expert looked at it, and thought it didn't look right. On closer inspection this expert concluded that it was not painted by Norman Rockwell, but was a well done forgery.

The gallery and the sons were flabbergasted. This "Norman Rockwell" painting had an ironclad provenance. But the "expert" stood by his claim.

A short time later, when the family house was being readied for sale, the sons began the process of emptying out their home. When they were cleaning out the room in the house that the father used as his studio for years, they discovered a false wall in his studio, and to there amazement, hidden in that false wall was the Normal Rockwell painting that had been given to their father.

They speculated that, when their parent's (who were divorced) split looked imminent, their father, who was very talented and successful in his own right, did a painstaking copy of the Rockwell and then hid the original, fearing that he might lose the painting in the divorce.

Now the two paintings are often displayed side-by-side.

- Phillip

All I can say is "good job" to the dad.