Emblems On The First Production GT500

[Richstang]

Bob,
Great observations. I was wondering if they were different or not. Now I can see what you are pointing out as the bottom photo appears to be embossed


Eric,
Would you clarify the dates of each of those 2 photos you posted. There is a good reason for this question.

[67411F--0100-ENG.]

Lowell,
These are the nicest photos I've seen of the emblems on your car.
-Do you happen to have any of the steering wheel center. In the Sid every picture it looks like they only show "Shelby (Snake) Cobra" with no model designation.

Eric,
I agree. The emblems on V-738-2 were likely handmade for the brochure photo-shoot. I don't recall seeing close up photos in those Sid Avery pictures. Maybe the same vendor did these that did them for the '68 styling brochure/ad cars. 
-Do you have any close ups of your steering wheel center emblem for #0100 in any of the magazine shoots?

Hello Rich,

Please see the attached photos of 0100's steering wheel emblem.  To my eyes it does not appear to have been altered.

Thanks,
Eric

The Cobra art work is different between the two . The top one is the early style artwork as seen on the flat emblems and bottom horn button emblem is the later style.  Most evident is shading on the snake belly scales compared to the later style . The artwork on the no designation emblem in the picture is the same artwork as the upper GT500 emblem . If that is from Lowell's car it is special and unique because it is different then the later service no designation horn button emblems.  At least what I can tell given the examples at hand. Others may see more.

Hello Bob and Rich,

The Sports Car Graphic photo was taken on 12/9/66 (Friday).  The Motor Trend photo was taken on 12/12/66 (Monday).  Both magazines are Petersen publications.  I would guess they kept the car over the weekend.  I don't think they are different emblems.  I believe the angle and lighting are making the emblem look just slightly different in the two photos.


Thanks,
Eric

[Bob Gaines]

Lowell,
These are the nicest photos I've seen of the emblems on your car.
-Do you happen to have any of the steering wheel center. In the Sid every picture it looks like they only show "Shelby (Snake) Cobra" with no model designation.

Eric,
I agree. The emblems on V-738-2 were likely handmade for the brochure photo-shoot. I don't recall seeing close up photos in those Sid Avery pictures. Maybe the same vendor did these that did them for the '68 styling brochure/ad cars. 
-Do you have any close ups of your steering wheel center emblem for #0100 in any of the magazine shoots?

Hello Rich,

Please see the attached photos of 0100's steering wheel emblem.  To my eyes it does not appear to have been altered.

Thanks,
Eric

The Cobra art work is different between the two . The top one is the early style artwork as seen on the flat emblems and bottom horn button emblem is the later style.  Most evident is shading on the snake belly scales compared to the later style . The artwork on the no designation emblem in the picture is the same artwork as the upper GT500 emblem . If that is from Lowell's car it is special and unique because it is different then the later service no designation horn button emblems.  At least what I can tell given the examples at hand. Others may see more.

Hello Bob and Rich,

The Sports Car Graphic photo was taken on 12/9/66 (Friday).  The Motor Trend photo was taken on 12/12/66 (Monday).  Both magazines are Petersen publications.  I would guess they kept the car over the weekend.  I don't think they are different emblems.  I believe the angle and lighting are making the emblem look just slightly different in the two photos.


Thanks,
Eric

Eric, respectfully I disagree not because of the time stamp but because of the difference I can see in the pictures . Something I didn't mention before is that the background on the early dash or fender emblems is a different lighter shade of gold between the flat emblems compared to the embossed emblems backgrounds. I see that same lighter shade of gold that is typical in the background of the other emblems on the top horn emblem. The better picture resolution picture of the no designation horn button emblem artwork confirms what I am seeing in the vintage picture in all aspects from my point of view. It also fits because the gas and fender emblems have the same shading ,background and flat surface also. It would follow that all of these emblems would be the same if done around the same time. I can't explain the difference in the lower picture that appears to be the later style just going by what I see.

[67411F--0100-ENG.]

Lowell,
These are the nicest photos I've seen of the emblems on your car.
-Do you happen to have any of the steering wheel center. In the Sid every picture it looks like they only show "Shelby (Snake) Cobra" with no model designation.

Eric,
I agree. The emblems on V-738-2 were likely handmade for the brochure photo-shoot. I don't recall seeing close up photos in those Sid Avery pictures. Maybe the same vendor did these that did them for the '68 styling brochure/ad cars. 
-Do you have any close ups of your steering wheel center emblem for #0100 in any of the magazine shoots?

Hello Rich,

Please see the attached photos of 0100's steering wheel emblem.  To my eyes it does not appear to have been altered.

Thanks,
Eric

The Cobra art work is different between the two . The top one is the early style artwork as seen on the flat emblems and bottom horn button emblem is the later style.  Most evident is shading on the snake belly scales compared to the later style . The artwork on the no designation emblem in the picture is the same artwork as the upper GT500 emblem . If that is from Lowell's car it is special and unique because it is different then the later service no designation horn button emblems.  At least what I can tell given the examples at hand. Others may see more.

Hello Bob and Rich,

The Sports Car Graphic photo was taken on 12/9/66 (Friday).  The Motor Trend photo was taken on 12/12/66 (Monday).  Both magazines are Petersen publications.  I would guess they kept the car over the weekend.  I don't think they are different emblems.  I believe the angle and lighting are making the emblem look just slightly different in the two photos.


Thanks,
Eric

Eric, respectfully I disagree not because of the time stamp but because of the difference I can see in the pictures . Something I didn't mention before is that the background on the early dash or fender emblems is a different lighter shade of gold between the flat emblems compared to the embossed emblems backgrounds. I see that same lighter shade of gold that is typical in the background of the other emblems on the top horn emblem. The better picture resolution picture of the no designation horn button emblem artwork confirms what I am seeing in the vintage picture in all aspects from my point of view. It also fits because the gas and fender emblems have the same shading ,background and flat surface also. It would follow that all of these emblems would be the same if done around the same time. I can't explain the difference in the lower picture that appears to be the later style just going by what I see.

Hello Bob,

Well, I can't explain why the steering wheel emblem would be changed in that time frame.  There is no question the photos are both of 0100 and were taken on the stated dates.  I suppose anything is possible though.

Thanks,
Eric

[Richstang]

Eric,
Thank you for confirming the dates. I had those same dates in my file, very likely from you. (Although, Getty images may have noted 12/9/66 for the SCG photos)

I noticed another interior photo from Car and Driver. It was also noted as 12/9/66 in my files. The photo is of a woman (or man in drag?!?) putting on the seat belt. In that photo, the steering wheel emblem looks similar in tone to the SCG photo, although the resolution is not very good for a comparison of the other two photos. Since the SCG photo is noted as the same date it does help support Bob thoughts.

If Bob is correct in his observations, the dates conflict the order from the later style getting changed to the early style. It doesn't make sense, but we are talking about a car used and abused by the media during road tests. You never know what may or may not have happened. I also think SA might have put the car through some tough testing prior to releasing it to the media.

[67411F--0100-ENG.]

Eric,
Thank you for confirming the dates. I had those same dates in my file, very likely from you. (Although, Getty images may have noted 12/9/66 for the SCG photos)

I noticed another interior photo from Car and Driver. It was also noted as 12/9/66 in my files. The photo is of a woman (or man in drag?!?) putting on the seat belt. In that photo, the steering wheel emblem looks similar in tone to the SCG photo, although the resolution is not very good for a comparison of the other two photos. Since the SCG photo is noted as the same date it does help support Bob thoughts.

If Bob is correct in his observations, the dates conflict the order from the later style getting changed to the early style. It doesn't make sense, but we are talking about a car used and abused by the media during road tests. You never know what may or may not have happened. I also think SA might have put the car through some tough testing prior to releasing it to the media.

Hello Rich,

I am not sure where you got the 12/9/66 date for the Car and Driver photos.  That is not correct.  The photos are not dated, but I know they were taken earlier than 12/9 because of the mileage on the car.  The Car and Driver article states the car has less than 100 miles on the odometer when received for testing.  The mileage on the car when it was photographed on 12/9 by Sports Car Graphic is 1,488.  Car and Driver had 0100 prior to 12/9/66.

Thanks,
Eric

[Richstang]

Eric,
Thank you for confirming the dates. I had those same dates in my file, very likely from you. (Although, Getty images may have noted 12/9/66 for the SCG photos)

I noticed another interior photo from Car and Driver. It was also noted as 12/9/66 in my files. The photo is of a woman (or man in drag?!?) putting on the seat belt. In that photo, the steering wheel emblem looks similar in tone to the SCG photo, although the resolution is not very good for a comparison of the other two photos. Since the SCG photo is noted as the same date it does help support Bob thoughts.

If Bob is correct in his observations, the dates conflict the order from the later style getting changed to the early style. It doesn't make sense, but we are talking about a car used and abused by the media during road tests. You never know what may or may not have happened. I also think SA might have put the car through some tough testing prior to releasing it to the media.

Hello Rich,

I am not sure where you got the 12/9/66 date for the Car and Driver photos.  That is not correct.  The photos are not dated, but I know they were taken earlier than 12/9 because of the mileage on the car.  The Car and Driver article states the car has less than 100 miles on the odometer when received for testing.  The mileage on the car when it was photographed on 12/9 by Sports Car Graphic is 1,488.  Car and Driver had 0100 prior to 12/9/66.

Thanks,
Eric

Hi Eric,

My apologies, I believe you are correct. I had dated my photo files for Car & Driver (CD 12/9/66) since that was the earliest known date of the car in the media hands. CD became the first photos in the file alphabetically as well.

[67411F--0100-ENG.]

Eric,
Thank you for confirming the dates. I had those same dates in my file, very likely from you. (Although, Getty images may have noted 12/9/66 for the SCG photos)

I noticed another interior photo from Car and Driver. It was also noted as 12/9/66 in my files. The photo is of a woman (or man in drag?!?) putting on the seat belt. In that photo, the steering wheel emblem looks similar in tone to the SCG photo, although the resolution is not very good for a comparison of the other two photos. Since the SCG photo is noted as the same date it does help support Bob thoughts.

If Bob is correct in his observations, the dates conflict the order from the later style getting changed to the early style. It doesn't make sense, but we are talking about a car used and abused by the media during road tests. You never know what may or may not have happened. I also think SA might have put the car through some tough testing prior to releasing it to the media.

Hello Rich,

I am not sure where you got the 12/9/66 date for the Car and Driver photos.  That is not correct.  The photos are not dated, but I know they were taken earlier than 12/9 because of the mileage on the car.  The Car and Driver article states the car has less than 100 miles on the odometer when received for testing.  The mileage on the car when it was photographed on 12/9 by Sports Car Graphic is 1,488.  Car and Driver had 0100 prior to 12/9/66.

Thanks,
Eric

Hi Eric,

My apologies, I believe you are correct. I had dated my photo files for Car & Driver (CD 12/9/66) since that was the earliest known date of the car in the media hands. CD became the first photos in the file alphabetically as well.

Hello Rich,

No problem at all.  A little more info for the discussion, when Motor Trend had the car the odometer reads 1,856 miles.

Thanks,
Eric

[Richstang]

Hi Eric,
Just for clarity would you help define the order in which the magazine road tests were done for #0100 for everyone's (my) understanding.

Car & Driver          (uncertain of date of testing) 100 miles - article notes less than 100 miles
Sports Car Graphic (12/09/66 date of testing) 1,488 miles - date confirmed by Getty Images (was there an odometer photo too?)
Motor Trend           (12/12/66 date of testing) 1,856 miles - shown in odometer photo

Where does Road and Track fit in here?
Also, was Sports Car Graphic owned by Peterson Publishing back in Dec 1966? I thought it was an independent magazine.

[67411F--0100-ENG.]

Hi Eric,
Just for clarity would you help define the order in which the magazine road tests were done for #0100 for everyone's (my) understanding.

Car & Driver          (uncertain of date of testing) 100 miles - article notes less than 100 miles
Sports Car Graphic (12/09/66 date of testing) 1,488 miles - date confirmed by Getty Images (was there an odometer photo too?)
Motor Trend           (12/12/66 date of testing) 1,856 miles - shown in odometer photo

Where does Road and Track fit in here?
Also, was Sports Car Graphic owned by Peterson Publishing back in Dec 1966? I thought it was an independent magazine.

Hello Rich,

Here you go:

I believe that Car and Driver was the first magazine to test 0100, and that it was prior to December 7th.  None of the photos that I have are dated, but the article states the car had less than 100 miles on the odometer.  The article states an oil cooler is standard equipment, but that it had been removed for some obscure evaluation on our test car.  The article also states the car had an oil temp gauge mounted under the dash and that during testing the oil temp never got over 230*.  The interior photo that I have shows the oil temp gauge mounted just to the right of the standard Shelby under dash gauge pod. Unfortunately, this photo does not have the necessary resolution to read the odometer.  I think SA told a little white lie about the oil cooler being standard equipment, but they had removed it for some reason.  I think SA suspected they needed an oil cooler and they had installed the oil temp gauge to confirm that a cooler was in fact needed. 

I believe that Sports Car Graphic was the next magazine to test 0100.  Based on the photos that I have, Sports Car Graphic had 0100 for photography and testing on Friday, December 9th.  The photos taken by Sports Car Graphic are really high resolution.  One of the interior photos shows the gauge cluster very clearly and when you enlarge the photo, the mileage can be read at 1,488 miles.  That is too many miles for a car that has a SA completion date of 12/7/66. The car has the oil cooler on it in the Sports Car Graphic photos, but the oil temp gauge has been removed from under the dash.  Sports Car Graphic was a Petersen publication.

I believe that Motor Trend (another Petersen publication) was the next magazine to photograph 0100.  Based on the photos that I have, Motor Trend had 0100 for photography on Monday, December 12th.  The photos taken by Motor Trend are really high resolution.  One of the interior photos shows the gauge cluster very clearly and when you enlarge the photo, the mileage can be read at 1,856 miles.  The car has the oil cooler on it in the Motor Trend photos, but the oil temp gauge has been removed from under the dash.

The Road & Track article is frustrating to me.  The text does not give any clues about when they had the car for testing and the photography was poor.  There are no interior photos at all, so there is no verifying the presence of an oil temp gauge or seeing the odometer.  The exterior photos that show the grille area and the rest of the front end are too dark to see if the oil cooler was there, or not.  The article does state that they put over 800 miles on 0100 during their testing.

The dragstrip photos from Car and Driver and Road & Track were all taken at Carlsbad Raceway.  Randy Gillis identified the dragstrip in the photos for me.  So, I am wondering if Car and Driver and Road & Track possibly had 0100 at the same time – prior to December 7th?  That may help explain why 0100 already had nearly 1,500 miles on it by December 9th when Sports Car Graphic had the car for testing.  If this is the case, the testing done by Car and Driver and Road & Track (with the oil temp gauge in the car) may have been enough to convince SA that an oil cooler was needed.  By the time Sports Car Graphic and Motor Trend have 0100 for testing, SA is "confident" the oil cooler is doing its job and the oil temp gauge is no longer needed. 


I have attached a cropped version of the SCG color photo of 0100's steering wheel.  To my eyes, the emblem appears to be embossed.  I have also attached a cropped version of the C&D photo of 0100's interior.  If you look just past the amp gauge you can see the chrome bracket used to mount the oil temp gauge.


Thanks,
Eric

[Richstang]

Hey Eric,

Thank you for the lengthy reply. I wasn't expecting it, but I appreciate the details.
It's also good to have this information posted here again on the forum 2.0.

Thanks for the added color photo from SCG. I still believe the CD and SCG steering wheel emblems are one in the same and embossed.

I agree the CD and RT photos appear to be at the same quarter mile track. Since CD got the car with less than 100 miles and RT put an additional 800 miles on the car, it leads me to believe they both had the car for a few days each before SCG on 12/9. That would seem to indicate it was completed by SA before 12/7/66. Perhaps by a week or slightly earlier, but that is pure speculation on my part.

What does the PO for your car list as the SA completion date? #0139 was blank in the completion box and I'm still looking for the PO on #0131. Since they are all the First Production GT500s built perhaps we can make some educated guesses. (Maybe you and Brian have already been down this path.) The convertible had the last SJ build date and perhaps was the last of the three completed. I'd expect #0100 to be the First of the three completed by SA for the highly anticipated GT500 media road tests.

[67411F--0100-ENG.]

Hello Rich,

The only date recorded on 0100's Production Order is in the Order Received field and it says "11/10/66".  The Dealer field says "Co. Car PR Service".  The Shipping Invoice has "Engineering" recorded in the Shipped To field.

The car was built at San Jose on Monday, November 7th, and was released On Tuesday, November 8th.  We know that SCG had 0100 on 12/09 and that MT had it on 12/12.  If SCG's lead times can be considered "typical"; it took 2-3 months for the article featuring 0100 to be included in the March '67 issue.  One can then apply the same lead time to C&D and R&T which would mean they tested 0100 in late November/very early December for the articles featuring 0100 to be included in their February '67 issues.  The car had to have been built in November.  A November build date fits the scenario of C&D and R&T testing the car without an oil cooler followed by SA engineering people developing, installing, and testing the first version of an oil cooler setup on the car. Then the car is given to SCG and MT in early December with the oil cooler installed.  I am assuming that SA observed the Thanksgiving Holiday on Thursday, 11/24 and Friday, 11/25; so this four day weekend needs to be taken into account also. 


So, here is my best educated guess:
Cars 0100 and 0131 receive "expedited shipping" from SJ and arrive at SA the week of 11/21.
SA builds 0100 on Monday, 11/28.
SA tests 0100 on Tuesday, 11/29 and they determine there might be an oil temp issue.
SA installs oil temp gauge on 0100 on Wednesday, 11/30.
SA loans 0100 to C&D and R&T for testing on Thursday, 12/01 through Monday, 12/05 (car is returned on 12/5).
SA develops, installs, and tests the oil cooler setup on 0100 from Tuesday, 12/06 through Thursday, 12/08 (oil temp gauge is removed at this time also).
SA loans 0100 to SCG and MT for testing on Friday, 12/09 through Monday, 12/12 and possibly another day or two. 

Thanks,
Eric
   

[Richstang]

Hi Eric,

Once again, thank you for a very thorough and well laid out reply. I have a slightly different take on the narrative, but we end up with similar views on the timeline and are only a couple of days apart. I don't put a lot a weight in speculating dates based on magazine lead times. We do know CD and RT had articles in January February, SCG followed in February March, and MT in March April. It would follow that CD and RT got the first round of road testing and the mileage notes you shared support that. When CD and RT did those tests is a big question.

I'd speculate #0100 was completed after 11/28/66. We don't see any cars completed by SA on 11/23/66 thru 11/28/66. That could be related to the thanksgiving closure you mention. Also, the quickest we ever see a car completed from SJ to SA is in 8 days. That was at the very start of production when no other cars were on the queue. By Nov-Dec that stretches out to about 3-4 weeks. Yes, #0100 would have been placed ahead of the line to get started, and that would speed up the timing, but when that was is a tough question to answer.

It would be wonderful to see the PO for Little Red and if it is dated with a SA completion date. I suspect it is also blank, but maybe there is an order received date just like #0100. I DO think it will line up very closely with #0100, but with the completion date a day or two later as it was less of a priority to finish.

I'll be offline for a few days spending time with family and friends.
Happy Holidays to you and everyone on the forum.

[67411F--0100-ENG.]

Hi Eric,

Once again, thank you for a very thorough and well laid out reply. I have a slightly different take on the narrative, but we end up with similar views on the timeline and are only a couple of days apart. I don't put a lot a weight in speculating dates based on magazine lead times. We do know CD and RT had articles in January, SCG followed in February, and MT in March. It would follow that CD and RT got the first round of road testing and the mileage notes you shared support that. When CD and RT did those tests is a big question.

I'd speculate #0100 was completed after 11/28/66. We don't see any cars completed by SA on 11/23/66 thru 11/28/66. That could be related to the Thanksgiving closure you mention. Also, the quickest we ever see a car completed from SJ to SA is in 8 days. That was at the very start of production when no other cars were on the queue. By Nov-Dec that stretches out to about 3-4 weeks. Yes, #0100 would have been placed ahead of the line to get started, and that would speed up the timing, but when that was is a tough question to answer.

It would be wonderful to see the PO for Little Red and if it is dated with a SA completion date. I suspect it is also blank, but maybe there is an order received date just like #0100. I DO think it will line up very closely with #0100, but with the completion date a day or two later as it was less of a priority to finish.

I'll be offline for a few days spending time with family and friends.
Happy Holidays to you and everyone on the forum.

Hello Rich,

A couple of corrections to your comment above.  0100 was featured in the February '67 issues of C&D and R&T.  It was featured in the March '67 issue of SCG.  The MT article with a photo of 0100's interior appeared in their April '67 issue.

I am sticking with 0100 being the only GT500 to be built at SA in November of '66.  Here is another thought that I believe supports a November build date.  The C&D and R&T dragstrip photos show a completely empty Carlsbad Raceway.  My money is on the track was only available for the magazines to use on a week day.  The track would be probably be busy beginning on Friday evening and over the weekend.  So, if this is the case, the dragstrip testing of 0100 probably took place prior to the evening of Friday, December 2nd.

Regarding the completion of 0131.  One thing that needs to be taken into account is the deck lid.  Given the fiberglass issues at the beginning of production, when did SA have a fiberglass deck lid available for 0131 and 0139?

Thanks,
Eric 

[Richstang]

Thanks for the correction Eric, the order was right, but off by one month for each magazine. (reply #27 post is now corrected)

You make another interesting point about the Carlsbad Dragway and the timing of the daily rental. I'm inclined to agree with you on the date outside of the Friday-Sunday weekend. That would seem to suggest Thursday 12/1 offered to both magazines as the following weekend appear to be too late to add the oil cooler and sort out that issue. Perhaps it was slotted to wrap up a day or so of testing with CD in the morning and start with RT in the afternoon. That gives RT an extended weekend to put on the noted 800 miles. It also matches up with the under 100 miles noted by CD when they received the car.

Now I understand why you think it was completed Monday 11/28 and tested by SA on Tues 12/29. (Maybe it was all hands on deck to complete it Monday and that is why we don't have any other cars completed on 11/28 in the registry. Or, it was completed early Tuesday and tested later in the day.) That would give CD all of Wednesday and early Thursday to test.

I can't recall ever reading when the coupe/convertible fiberglass trunk/quarter end caps were ordered, delivered, or installed. They would certainly need some time to sort that out, but they probably had enough coupes around that make that happen prior to delivery from SJ.