Was this the ZL1 that is re-bodied? Was just on another site and it is on fire with talk of this car only having an original trim tag. The car sold for $290k. Reggie Jackson I think was bidding this up when it was struggling He was standing with the current owner, something smells with this:confused:

yes that is the car. It did look a little fishy of Reggie, I believe he owned that once before.

On the other site a former owner is saying he owned and raced thr origional #27 and that he parted it out:sad: Reggie did own this car and the current owner was with hi on stage and it looked like Reggie helped bid the car up. I hope the new owner knows the facts. Sorta funny Ron Pratte was quiet on this huh.

He was reading:yes:. lol " 69 green z" I think he may of had enough of the cars with issues.

He was reading:yes:. lol " 69 green z" I think he may of had enough of the cars with issues.


Pratte just gave $100k to the Daryll Gwynn Foundation. How cool is that:thumbsup:

I am thinking that after Reggie spoke about the car and then bid on it, seems close to a "shill bidding" situation. Artificially raising the price. Hope I am totally wrong about my observation. Even if it was all above board, it just did not look good.

But if Reggie approved it must be real right?

Well, I would not be surprised to see somone bid on a car they once owned. I have bought back and re sold cars I sold over the years many times. I had a car I called the Yo yo pace Car i sold and bought back, sold bought back, sold, bought back 3 times in a 4 year period. if you bought this car something horrible would happen in your life and the toy would have to go. Car was fine, actually a great car, just horrible luck for each owner in their business life. I warned the last owner that still has it, his buisness was booming last time I talked to him, LOL!

I know some big players that pass big time cars around. Sure Reggie could have been helping the bidding, but probably was thinking, sure, if it goes this low I will by it back for that much, where ever he stopped his bidding.

Issues and all it still has considerable value, just not a million dollars!

I have to wonder what the risk is of buying a known rebodied car. If the car was inspected by the authorities and the VIN tag and hidden VINs don't match, couldn't the car be confiscated? I don't think $290K is worth risking that situation.

Jeff,Good answer!! Hey how about this,"Born with Vin Rebody" or BWVR's...

Sorry Frank, (respectfully) I don't buy that one. With Reggie having the collection he has, the market contacts and the capitol, I would be very surprised to learn that he did not know this was a rebody.

Chuck (the owner who parted it out) has been very vocal about this issue, and no one involved wanted to listen.

I am waiting for the thread that goes something like this:

"Bought a ZL1 at BJ, how can I tell if it is a rebody?"

Rich

It looked to me like Reggie put in a bid for $295k, then retracted it, thus the winning $290k bid when to the other bidder.

It looked to me like Reggie put in a bid for $295k, then retracted it, thus the winning $290k bid when to the other bidder.


Yes he did bid then retract it. I have never seen bj let a retraction happen. Also I would have to believe Reggie knew it was a rebody. HE USED TO OWN IT!!! Plus car was so hyped by BJ it also had a reggie front license plate on it.

shill bidding and a retraction to boot? wow, now that really is fishy. did he retract because he didnt want to end up with the car after no one else bid?

This ZL1 can turn into a big scandal story like the rally green Z/28 did last year.

I wonder if the hidden vins were changed during resto or if the original body is sitting in a yard some where with the same hidden vins.

Then the search will be on for who did the vin swap

Don't think selling known rebody cars on national TV is a great idea

that was a crazy auction to watch

Rumor had it someone was advertising in 1985 or 1986 the vin number's in National Dragster.Guy was going after the Known ZL1 number cars at the time.Jim Brun who still has the components (Sheetmetal) from this car told me this.Guys last name was Sievers from Indiana. If Chuck Sharin needs Jim's number I have it.

This ZL1 can turn into a big scandal story like the rally green Z/28 did last year.

I wonder if the hidden vins were changed during resto or if the original body is sitting in a yard some where with the same hidden vins.

Then the search will be on for who did the vin swap

Don't think selling known rebody cars on national TV is a great idea

that was a crazy auction to watch




What about the Yenko nova that was billed as a re-body !!!!! Did anyone catch the lame explanation. It went something like this :clonk: ................... If you had George Washingtons original ax .... the one he cut the apple tree down with .... and the handle broke .... and you got a replacement handle .... Isnt it still George Washington's "ORIGINAL" ax ??????


Pathetic is all I can say....................



bob

No! It's not!

What about the Yenko nova that was billed as a re-body !!!!! Did anyone catch the lame explanation. It went something like this :clonk: ................... If you had George Washingtons original ax .... the one he cut the apple tree down with .... and the handle broke .... and you got a replacement handle .... Isnt it still George Washington's "ORIGINAL" ax ??????


Pathetic is all I can say....................



bob

Non numbers matching re-handle, IMO. :D

Seriously though, if you use that same "George Washington's axe" arguement, you should be able to use this analogy...

I am sure that most people have seen an episode or two of "Antiques Roadshow" or at least heard about someone that had a highly desireable piece of funiture or antique and when they brought it to an appraiser, they had either cleaned it up too much or sanded and refinished it. The appraiser always says that "in its original condition, it would have brought 'X' money, but since you cleaned/refinished it, it has been DEVALUED to 'X' money."

The same should apply to the cars (legal issues aside) if they are trying to make the comparison. A rebody should never be worth close to the price of the original article.

This ZL1 can turn into a big scandal story like the rally green Z/28 did last year.

I wonder if the hidden vins were changed during resto or if the original body is sitting in a yard some where with the same hidden vins.

Then the search will be on for who did the vin swap

Don't think selling known rebody cars on national TV is a great idea

that was a crazy auction to watch

I hear Georgia is a great place for that ... :(

Here we go again ..a zl1 that was rebodied because of rust, so they replaced the body and put all the tags on the new body!! Is it a real car or is it fake?? Dynacorn replacement body or a all new goodmark sheet metal body..where does one draw the line?? Swap bodies and retag them??if the car is not born with its not legit!!!!!!!!!

I agree with Sparky. There does need to be a clear line. Perhaps the fact that Reggie Jackson owned it and it has been in some big collections gives the car credability? Also the fact that all of the number matching parts, give it still more credit, but it is not an all original car and should be desribed as such. A clone or a tribute is very clear and this car should fit into a simular catagory. It seems to me like the car was being presented as an original car?

Does someone know if there is a post on the Green Z28 from last year? I missed it, so I am out of the loop. Thanks

Listen, I never said Reggie did not know it was a re body. I am sure he did. Everyone in those circles knows about the rebodies. they are fairly common on high end car that were raced, or rusted. Rebodies still have value, just not the value of a non redody or car with a clean past. That one brought a 1/3 of the value of a clean peigree car. I am saying Reggie may have actually been bidding and may have had legit interest at some figure,BUT, if he retracted the high bid, that does smell fishy. But I have trouble believing Barret would risk that.

Shill bidding is a big part of auction life, just go over to a none reserve auction and watch. But getting caught and retracting a bid.......................Never seen that before.

This all brings to mind a couple of old dragsters I've known of. They had at one time been bent and were 'front-halved' than at another time had to be 'back-halved'. They were billed as the original car but only had a few original components (one was a bare chassis...new car to me).
Of course, I tend to believe the only part of a 'car' that makes it THAT CAR is the vin plate, sooooo......
After having my Z, i'm now very content to let others deal with 'numbers' and 'real' cars, and will someday buy a common,everyday '69' Malibu or base Camaro and build it the way I think it should be..........Hey,that's what we used to do , huh?!?

Listen, I never said Reggie did not know it was a re body. I am sure he did. Everyone in those circles knows about the rebodies. they are fairly common on high end car that were raced, or rusted. Rebodies still have value, just not the value of a non redody or car with a clean past. That one brought a 1/3 of the value of a clean peigree car. I am saying Reggie may have actually been bidding and may have had legit interest at some figure,BUT, if he retracted the high bid, that does smell fishy. But I have trouble believing Barret would risk that.
The *heavy* guy that Reggie is talking to when he bids/retracts just prior to the completion @ $290k was the owner/seller...the same guy CJ winked at after he said "don't sell it" when it was about to be hammered @ $200k...and the same gentleman Reggie can been seen conversing with on the podium behind CJ. A few of Reggie's cars have passed through this gentleman's hands in Iowa in the past...

I was the person who parted out the #27 ZL-1 circa 1976-77.

Current #27 as seen on B/J 2009 was created, mfg with ONLY original VIN TAG. I am alledging with no proof on my part that B/J #27 ZL-1 has ZERO born with parts.

How can this be called a rebodied car?????? I call this a recreation, I call this a forgery, I call this deceit..............

Many/most of the # 27 Original sheetmetal, trim, interior remain in WASH state on a 69Camaro drag car I BUILT around 1978 with parts I removed from the ORIGINAL #27 ZL-1.
Current owner of WASH state 69 Camaro is Jim Bruns...........

I was the person who parted out the #27 ZL-1 circa 1976-77.

Current #27 as seen on B/J 2009 was created, mfg with ONLY original VIN TAG. I am alledging with no proof on my part that B/J #27 ZL-1 has ZERO born with parts.

How can this be called a rebodied car?????? I call this a recreation, I call this a forgery, I call this deceit..............

Many/most of the # 27 Original sheetmetal, trim, interior remain in WASH state on a 69Camaro drag car I BUILT around 1978 with parts I removed from the ORIGINAL #27 ZL-1.
Current owner of WASH state 69 Camaro is Jim Bruns...........

Wow, what a coincidence, reply #27 karma or what;)

Hey Chuck thanks for clarifying. I guess at the time you parted it out you had no idea what that car could have been worth today? It sounds like you are saying that the only part on the BJ ZL1 off the original #27 car is the VIN tag? It sounds like this other drag car you are refering to is the more legit of the 2? Perhaps that car has more claim to the original car, even though there will never be another oginal car, unless you can track down the body shell with the other hidden VIN's in place. Not sure if it is possible, but it would be a great story to reunite the body and as many of the other parts as possible. With that said if someone could do it, my guess is that would make it a legit car? Obviously some real history here? Were you the original owner of #27?

I don't care if it's called a rebody, transferring the VIN tag to another body is a federal offense I believe. So the authorities could confiscate the car, couldn't they? The Yenko Deuce had the hidden VIN's cut out of the original body and welded into the current body so the authorities might have a tougher time with that one. Why somebody would even purchase a known rebody car is beyond me knowing the risks. And to have these illegal cars pass across the stage at an auction like this on tv is unreal.

I was the person who parted out the #27 ZL-1 circa 1976-77.

Current #27 as seen on B/J 2009 was created, mfg with ONLY original VIN TAG. I am alledging with no proof on my part that B/J #27 ZL-1 has ZERO born with parts.

How can this be called a rebodied car?????? I call this a recreation, I call this a forgery, I call this deceit..............

Many/most of the # 27 Original sheetmetal, trim, interior remain in WASH state on a 69Camaro drag car I BUILT around 1978 with parts I removed from the ORIGINAL #27 ZL-1.
Current owner of WASH state 69 Camaro is Jim Bruns...........

Thanks for coming on here to explain the history of ZL1 #27 a bit better Chuck. I agree with you on all your points. Do you or anyone else around here know how the VIN found it way onto the present carshell (original Camaro carshell or Dynacorn)? Was it authorized by any state DMV? What are the legal implications if that did not happen...especially if the new owner thinks he paid for a real ZL1? (I understand that the BJ write up on the car did say it was a rebody so maybe he knew what he was buying :confused:)

Well, Mike Joy just said exactly what I thought, Reggie said if it was only going to go for that much, I will buy it back. Now the retracting the high bid thing..............I don't have it TIVO to watch.

Believe me, I am by no means defending Reggie. I have had my exposure to Reggie and let's just say he can be difficult at best to deal with. I also know how conspiracy theory's can start, and I try to see things with open eyes and a level head.

Well, Mike Joy just said exactly what I thought, Reggie said if it was only going to go for that much, I will buy it back. Now the retracting the high bid thing..............I don't have it TIVO to watch.

Believe me, I am by no means defending Reggie. I have had my exposure to Reggie and let's just say he can be difficult at best to deal with. I also know how conspiracy theory's can start, and I try to see things with open eyes and a level head.

Frank, I could go with that if he did not bid just once then retract his bid. that is the way it looked when I was watching. The owner leaned over to him and said something and then he withdrew his bid. Hey look, BJ auctions sets the rules and he is a VIP guest so I guess he and Craig J. can do what ever they like. It just looked terrible on TV. We are Camaro guys so when a Camaro like a ZL1 gets creamed on national TV with the Speed ding dongs calling it real and a piece of history it knocks all camaros this was a very shameless act at minimum

So is the important part-the engine-a tranplant too?

You can see it on you tube right here. I thought Davis was going to have a heart attack that Pratte wasn't bidding??

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=UBB1&Number=378314&page=0&fpart=13

I'm getting a message that the video has be disabled :confused:?

Go to the Yenko site and look down the page. I couldn't get it to work any other way. (Chevy454)
http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=UBB1&Number=378314&page=0&fpart=13

ONCE again I'm aledging (with zero proof) that current #27 ZL-1 contains ZERO born with parts.........with exception of VIN TAG.

My source says current owner of my old multi colored race car (built wirh sheetmetal, trim, interior, subframe, front suspension from parted out ORIGINAL?REAL #27).........current owner Jim B sold born with VIN TAG and ZL-1 title to someone in Indiana who created current #27 (formerly owned by Reggie, Gary Holub)............

NO rebody here.............RECREATION here!!!!!!!!!!!!

Am I not making myself perfectly clear ??????????

So, the guy ended up buying a bunch of parts and a good Camaro body that together are worth around $50,000 as a tribute, or clone recreation. No way it's worth the money he spent.

Chuck,
We all agree that the car was a rebody!

Lawsuit!!!!!!!

Chuck,
We all agree that the car was a rebody!

you mean "Recreation" ..... (only the VIN) which Chuck is aledging is on this car. A rebody would require more than just a VIN TAG to be transferred like motor, rear end, transmission etc.

Chuck,Good to see you posting this here,good talking to ya today! Dan

1. It seems RJ had very little to do with bidding the car up.
2. The bidders seem to understand it was a clone or they wouyld have snatched it up for that price.
3. I realuize CJ has business to run, but do he and his employees act like pimps? They need to keep the BJ image as the biggest and best.
4. What a sad display. I would never buy at that auction, even if I had the money.
5. I would be livid if I was the high bidder when CJ wouldn't let Assiter drop the hammer.
6. It is time we hobbyists realize fake cars are not really fakes. More powerful and influential people decide what the definition of is, is.

Lawsuit!!!!!!!

Maybe not. If fake cars have been redefined as real then the buyer does not care. I would be willing to bet they would only care if other collectors make fun of his purchase.

Hey Ronnie thanks for the link to you tube. I missed that live and it was great to be able to view it for myself. The truth of the matter is BJ does have agendas. Be it which charities they decide to work with, what deals they make and when to influence the price a car sells for. I watched it off and on all week long. When they need to sell a car they really pour it on, and do whatever it takes to drive that car through the roof, so the average guy is just at the mercy of the bidders and the auctioneer, no heavy support from the brass for his cause. That is what makes it an unbalanced equation. what applies to one does not apply to all. I am sorry but I did not catch any mention at any time that it was a re body? Obviously people who are going to spend this much money on a car, we can only assume that they have done their "due dilligence" as CJ would say. But none the less given the state of that car it should have been clearly communicated from the start just like when they state a car is a reproduction, clone, tribute or whatever. As for the Reggie Jackson fiasco, what can I say, it really takes away from the integrity of BJ, and I think the writing is clearly on the wall. This years auction really missed the catalogue we have seen in the past and my guess is that, people are going to search out other more reputable (honest) auctions that treat everyone the same, with no hidden agendas. BJ has truly become reallity TV, the question is how long will the series last?

................ If you had George Washingtons original ax .... the one he cut the apple tree down with .... and the handle broke .... and you got a replacement handle .... Isnt it still George Washington's "ORIGINAL" ax ??????
bob

Lets examine Mike Joys logic. Lets say you have George's original ax. Ax head and handle intact. You buy an ax at Home Depot. You remove George's ax head and put it with a Home Depot handle. You place the Home Depot ax head on George's handle. Now you have 2 original George Washington ax's.:yes:

......so the average guy is just at the mercy of the bidders and the auctioneer, no heavy support from the brass for his cause.

.........How many "average" guys do you know that could have bought that 1st production 1955 Thunderbird???????.............bottom line is that Barrett-Jackson has cars for the "average" guy.....the problem is the "average" guy's don't think of themselves as "average":noway:. There were some nice cars that crossed the block that weren't out of the "average" guy's realm of possibility.Just my opinion as always:yes:.

David F.

It is quite evident that Ron Pratte was'nt interested.
YouTube - 1969 ZL-1 Camaro - Barrett-Jackson 2009

Lets examine Mike Joys logic. Lets say you have George's original ax. Ax head and handle intact. You buy an ax at Home Depot. You remove George's ax head and put it with a Home Depot handle. You place the Home Depot ax head on George's handle. Now you have 2 original George Washington ax's.:yes:

I just watched the video and I want to throw up. As far as Mike Joys comment about the ax. Heres how it compares to this fake ZL1:
George Washingtons ax handle is rotted to dust, the head rusted to nothing, Only thing left is the sticker that says "George Washingtons Ax". Some guy goes to Lowes and buys a handle. Then he goes to TruValue hardware and buys an ax head. Then he puts the sticker on it and says this is the ax George used to cut down the cherry tree.

With the new switch to DTV we might see zl1 car #27.1 next year. LOL.

They did not seem to give up much info with this car either. I assume the thing was restamped to death.

Doesn't it show a Yenko sticker on the valve cover in the vid?

I think I saw a yenko sticker on the valve cover.

If I remember the story on this car from past discussions, the original car was a drag car, the owner at that time was approched by a guy that wanted to purchase the vin tag, and trim tag since it was on a car that was not intended for the streets anymore. A deal was struck, thus the tags went one way and the car that does have the original hidden vin stamped in the body still exists.

I thought the buyer of the tags somehow had come up with a title, because the original car's owner has the title to the original car just not the vin tags.

I feel the car with the original hidden vin is the real ZL1, the other is a fraud due to no hidden or incorrect vin stamping regardless what tag is riveted on it.

The story about chopping down the cherry tree is fictitious, kind of like the car. George Washington never cut down the so-called cherry tree, and this car never left the factory with that drivetrain.

two auctions and two bogus camaros, and both are green (same color as money).

Does someone know if there is a post on the Green Z28 from last year? I missed it, so I am out of the loop. Thanks

Is there a post about it? Umm...yeah, you could say that :D

http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=143863&page=2

http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=4432.0

http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=144086

Will this one be "swept under the rug like the last green Z/28 Crossram car?"

2 big messy BJ's in a row?

It's a little disturbing.....especially for the Collector/Investors

But if your into this hobby as a Builder for the enjoyment.....it's just fun to watch......

I feel the car with the original hidden vin is the real ZL1, the other is a fraud due to no hidden or incorrect vin stamping regardless what tag is riveted on it.
Agreed!

As for this continual Axe and this ZL1 car in question being used to compare one another,
Maybe the axe can be used on this questionable car....

Agreed!

As for this continual Axe and this ZL1 car in question being used to compare one another,
Maybe the axe can be used on this questionable car....

2 nd on that on ,what a mess ,and still draw that money ...2 Happy Motoring ZL1's:confused: oh well have a few:beers:

If I remember the story on this car from past discussions, the original car was a drag car, the owner at that time was approched by a guy that wanted to purchase the vin tag, and trim tag since it was on a car that was not intended for the streets anymore. A deal was struck, thus the tags went one way and the car that does have the original hidden vin stamped in the body still exists.

I thought the buyer of the tags somehow had come up with a title, because the original car's owner has the title to the original car just not the vin tags.

I feel the car with the original hidden vin is the real ZL1, the other is a fraud due to no hidden or incorrect vin stamping regardless what tag is riveted on it.

Kermi, You and most other readers DO NOT have the story correct.....YOU and others keep passing along the WRONG FACTS!!!!!!!!!

Over 30 years ago I parted out the ORIGINAL/REAL # 27 ZL-1 due to Thayne Porliers chassis shop in Tacoma, WA removing the factory floor pan. I removed the VIN tag and installed it on a junk yard 69 Body, and used the ZL-1 title to have WASH state ownership on the new 69 Canmaro, racecar I built. (Go ahead put me in jail, sue me, what ever on what I did 30 years ago...........that is NOT what this ZL-1 issue is about.)

Around 1982 I sold the multi colored C/SM 69 racecar to Allan Martin Chevrolet in Bremerton,WA. It then passed to subsequent owners including current owner Jim Bruns.
Somehow Bruns communicated with a man in the midwest, who wanted to buy his "ZL-1" VIN tagged car and title. Bruns didnt want to sell the car, but alledgedly sold the VIN tag and title. Not sure who actually recreated/cloned the current #27 ZL-1, but apparently the born with VIN TAG found its way onto the dash location.

Back to the original (butchered floor) 69 ZL-1 body with original TRIM TAG. I sold/gave (cant remember 30 years ago) Body to man by the name of John Carmondy (spelling) in North Seattle area. IMHO this body with hidden vin and trim tag was never used to recreate the current #27. The current # 27 has been inspected behind heater plenum and doesnt have the #27 ZL-1 VIN............There is no proof or evidence of what happened to original body!!!!!!!!!!!!

BOTTOM LINE is current #27 that is being called a rebodied car, DOES NOT have one born with part OTHER than VIN TAG...............
Every part on the recreated #27 was either imported from another 69 Camaro or possibly N.O.S. parts........

I can not prove above statements...........these are my conclusions based on what I did and/or believe to be the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PICTURES show Multi-Colored C/SM racecar with ZL-1 VIN TAG and title
and RED painted ZL-1 Camaro as I bought it from Dick Tutino (Alan Green Chev service mgr)

Chuck Sharin





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/CamarosRus/Misc%20Camaro%20pics/CSuperModProfile.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/CamarosRus/Misc%20Camaro%20pics/Fallnationals.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/CamarosRus/Misc%20Camaro%20pics/Image043.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/CamarosRus/Misc%20Camaro%20pics/ZL1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/CamarosRus/Misc%20Camaro%20pics/ZL1b.jpg

Thanks for the info and pic's Chuck:thumbsup:

2 big messy BJ's in a row?

Now Don't get off subject!!!

I just loved when they cut to him during the bidding:

http://www.teamwhatley.com/camaro/Ron_Pratte.jpg


Barrett-Jackson registration fee: $500.

Having Steve Davis give you a free back-rub during the bidding: Creepy.

Getting in some light reading while others determine the value of an original ZL1 VIN and trim tag: PRICELESS.

I wish I could have listen in on this conversation.

Steve: This would look nice beside the green Z.

Pratt: You mean I could have matching color rebody's. No thanks.

Some food for thought here...

What would a ZL1 sell for today? Not long ago the best of them seem to be above $700k... Is the $290k sale indicative of the economy or the history of the car? If the answer is the economy then we should expect to see crossram/jl8 Z28's selling for less than $50k.

Chuck gives us the history of the #27 car up to the point where he's created 2 cars out of it and one of them gets just the vin tag and title sold from it. From there all is lost but #27 show up as a former reggie car that inspection shows at least one hidden vin. Does anyone really know what went on with the 2 cars chuck created out of 1? Were they rounded up and put back together as the one in question? Is there still another #27 vin stamped firewall or shell out there?

Reggies shill bid? Well, lots of folks buy back cars they use to own... Why retract the bid after another was placed? I'm not really auction savvy but it seems with the auction being on Live TV and now all over the internet the guy that bid after Reggie is in the driver seat if this was indeed a rebody or there was shill bidding going on...

We all love playing arm chair quarterback but there is a lot missing from this story. I personally feel the players knew the cars history and bid accordingly. I can only speculate BJ benefits from the public hearing a real ZL1 sold for less than 1/2 the going rate. Wouldn't that attract a lot of potential buyers to the auction? As long as the car passed their inspection (cowl stamped vin) it's what the seller says it is, isn't it?

I don't know about you guys, but why do they have to go to commercial breaks when a Camaro comes up? 169 Camaros in the auction, and all we get to see sre these big ticket cars. I would like to see the cars we drive???

I am surprised that the Football game wasn't postponed because of the rancid odour coming form West World. I tried to add a comment on Speed but everytime I try to go on my system hangs up. It must be inundated with complaints. Many of the announcers seem to frequent this site so they might get the message.
One thing though you do get from watching the auction is a whole new set of entries in the Thesaurus for "FAKE", Rebody; recreation; clone; Continuation; Commemorative.
These will be added to how these cars should be referred to.
From the Collins English Thesaurus: FAKE: counterfiet, fabrication, forgery, reproduction sham, simulation, to name a few. I think every 3rd or 4th car that was sold on Friday and Saturday were of this variety. It seems there is a growth industry in turning out these cars, for this type of auction. The economy finally toppled after being built like a house of cards, and I think this type of auction will do the same.
Shame on Speed, and Shame on BJ.

I was really looking foward to seeing a TC member car, I even dvr it so not to miss and what happen they showed the fantasy bid car then cut to commerical. When they came back speed showed that stupid ford drifting thing going on then back to auction with no word of the only real car worth veiwing. I guess speed didn't know how to handle it when a real car comes across the stage.:mad:

CamarosRus - What are you going to do when an attorney from BJ calls and asks you to retract those statements?

There seems to be a lot of conflicting information in this thread. Based on Chuck Sharin's post:

The ZL-1 sold did not have a single original part other then the VIN tag, which Chuck had on 2 different bodies and removed to be sold with title.

It does not have the original Trim Tag or hidden VIN behind the heater plenum.

The original #27 ZL-1 body may be out there with trim tag and both hidden VIN's.

To me that makes this VIN tag so far removed from the original car that I don't even consider it a "rebody", just a recreation with a real ZL-1 VIN.

CamarosRus - What are you going to do when an attorney from BJ calls and asks you to retract those statements? Can't speak for the guy but if it was me I'd tell them to pound sand.. From what I've seen & read it seems like CamarosRus is the ONLY one directly involved with this car who is telling the truth...

CamarosRus - What are you going to do when an attorney from BJ calls and asks you to retract those statements?

Chuck has openly stated what he knows 1st hand and has said a bit more but said he couldn't prove what he believes. Over on the Yenko site he states he can't even prove he ever owned the #27 car. I don't think he's BS'n about his early envolvment with the car and he's entitled to his opinion about the vin tag being the only original piece of the car. Did I miss him stating anything more than that as a fact?

I wish I could have listen in on this conversation.

Steve: This would look nice beside the green Z.

Pratt: You mean I could have matching color rebody's. No thanks.

LOL:D....That's too much !!!:D

Chuck Sharin, I commend you for comming forward and proving this car to be a fraud!!
I have never and will never own a ZL1 and I am just glad to own a plain jane 68 camaro that i can drive and modify in any way that suits my taste!
To me it is silly to spend hundreds of thousands on any car that claims to be all original in any way shape or form, in my opinion the only way any car could be all original (paint,tires,belts,etc.) is if it were vaccum sealed the day it rolled off the line and had maybe 1or2 miles on it! reality is once a car has been driven it has had plugs changed,wires,tires,etc.. it is no longer original and can never be again!!!!
It is a plain and simple fact and if most car people thought of it in this way alot of this crazy histeria would no longer exist!!
think of it this way if you change 1 bolt on a car it is not (ALL) original!
so what is the differance between 1 bolt and the entire car (neither is all original)
so to what degree would a car be original 1 bolt ? an engine? a fender? who decides?
seems like a waste of time and worry and MONEY?
you want a #27 ZL1 buy a 69 sixbanger and slap a ZL1 motor in it 50 grand, or buy one
at BJ from someone else who did for 290,000.
SORRY just my 2 cents!!
Chuck thanx for opening alot of eyes about things that can happen in this hobby!!
Tony

CamarosRus - What are you going to do when an attorney from BJ calls and asks you to retract those statements?

Knowing Chuck as I do there will probably be a whole slew of choice words directed at the attorney and I can only hope that I am there to witness it.

Thanks, Chuck.

Rick H.

Eventually, the guy who bought it will be directed here, read all of the comments, and then likely start calling his attorney. Probably a deal will be struck so that he gets his money back, and promises no legal action. If hes got $300,000 to throw around on a phony car, he likely has plenty of money to spend on a lawsuit, or at least the threat of one. Think of the possible repercussions to Barret Jackson from this story getting too well known. I'd think they would want to end it quickly.

So the original body may still be out there with the proper hidden VINs, and the car on BJ just got sold with the original VIN tag. Maybe the trim tag will show up on a different car and there can be 3 #27 ZL-1 cars out there. Then of course the original block could surface and end up in a Dynacorn body with repro tags.... Barret Jackson could line them all up and sell them as a set. Pretty soon one of the muscle car magazines will do an article titled "out of the 69 ZL-1 Camaros built only 200 have been found" Now I'm going out to the garage to clone my old Z/28. I think I still have the heater motor and a couple window cranks from the car.

So the original body may still be out there with the proper hidden VINs, and the car on BJ just got sold with the original VIN tag. Maybe the trim tag will show up on a different car and there can be 3 #27 ZL-1 cars out there. Then of course the original block could surface and end up in a Dynacorn body with repro tags.... Barret Jackson could line them all up and sell them as a set. Pretty soon one of the muscle car magazines will do an article titled "out of the 69 ZL-1 Camaros built only 200 have been found" Now I'm going out to the garage to clone my old Z/28. I think I still have the heater motor and a couple window cranks from the car.

l:)

I always here comments about Barrett Jackson and the prices of cars today based on what people saw on TV. Personally, I don't really care what it sold for at BJ. Many of the cars sold at this auction are overpriced "clones" "rebodies" and "vin swaps" or under priced and under exposed "number matching cars" that sell within a high energy impuse auction format. Some sell high because of rich people that don't do their research and some sell very low because of obvious VIN swaps and lack of paperwork OR poor airtime and untelevised scheduling on good cars. Your car is worth, IMO, only what someone else will pay for it AND at a price that you are willing to sell. If you offer me $30K for my car and I say "no" does that make my car worth $30K? If, I'll sell you my car for $60K but you say "no" does that make my car worth $60K? No on both accounts! Same goes for BJ. If a " 1969 Cheverolet Camaro ZL-1 COPO Coupe" that is nothing more then the VIN number plate from a parted out race car attached to the body of a base camaro and it sells for over $300K at a televised auction does that make all COPO ZL1 VIN number plates worth over $300K? No... well, actually, in this world of televised auto actions like BJ it just might...
Do some research before you invest in anything.

Eventually, the guy who bought it will be directed here, read all of the comments, and then likely start calling his attorney...

You mean like last year...and the green Z/28?
I fully expect Steve Davis to chime in soon...like Drew from Russo & Steele did after last years fiasco.

BJ shall be held innocent,just like always.You talk about high-powered attorneys,thay got 'em.:yes:Craig Jackson says buyer beware and due dillengence,they don't have to prove anything...it's the buyers job to do their homework before hand.;)

Chuck, Which of the Mod Squad guys in the pics is you? Inquiring minds want to know. :)

I wish I could have listen in on this conversation.

Steve: This would look nice beside the green Z.

Pratt: You mean I could have matching color rebody's. No thanks.

Is Rick Hendrick eaves dropping?

Reggies shill bid? Well, lots of folks buy back cars they use to own... Why retract the bid after another was placed? I'm not really auction savvy but it seems with the auction being on Live TV and now all over the internet the guy that bid after Reggie is in the driver seat if this was indeed a rebody or there was shill bidding going on...

That's just it, Dennis. There was no other bidder after Reggie retracted his bid. If there had been, no harm, no fowl. Reggie sure makes it look like he was shill bidding (under the guise of being interested in the car) since when the bidding stalled, and presumably he was about to be the high bidder, he suddenly retracted.

If I did that, the retraction would be denied, and I'd own the car. But Reggie....well, there's more than one good ol' boy group in this-here world.

I doubt all the arm chair quarterbacking is going to change one thing about the dark side of auctions, B-J or otherwise. Remember the guy from R-S (or was it Mecum) last year who basically said shill bidding by the auction house is legal and acceptable. (he called it bidding up to the reserve, or some similar silly language)

All I can say is, "If you can't swim with the sharks, stay out of the water!" I personally will "stay out of the water."

CamarosRus - What are you going to do when an attorney from BJ calls and asks you to retract those statements?

you can say what you want about Chuck, but one thing's for sure. If Chuck posts it on a forum, you can take it to the bank! I've never seen anything but straight talk from the guy.

I work in the used car business mainly as the service manager of a dealership but have attended many car auctions. Regular everyday cars, nothing of the caliber of BJ of course. Shill bidding is not tolerated in any way at those auctions and is a good way to get yourself thrown out and barred from any other local auctions as well as soon as word gets out. I guess in the world of big money and famous people those rules don't apply. I consider BJ a car show and watch it to see the cars. Nothing more, nothing less. The prices have nothing in common with reality in my world. If I had 290k to blow on cars I'd probably have 30 project cars sitting here and no time to work on them, not spend it all on one car but that's just me... I agree that Chuck seems to be a straight shooter and I hope he dosn't catch any flak for telling the real story about this car. His big mistake was 30 years ago when he got rid of the real ZL-1 car and the VIN tag because of the car needing a floor. Nowadays with full floorpans being readily available and prices for real ZL-1s being more than I paid for my house I bet he's wishing he had kept it.

you can say what you want about Chuck, but one thing's for sure. If Chuck posts it on a forum, you can take it to the bank! I've never seen anything but straight talk from the guy.

100% CERTIFIED GOSPEL...:thumbsup:

I was really looking foward to seeing a TC member car, I even dvr it so not to miss and what happen they showed the fantasy bid car then cut to commerical. When they came back speed showed that stupid ford drifting thing going on then back to auction with no word of the only real car worth veiwing. I guess speed didn't know how to handle it when a real car comes across the stage.:mad:


Does Barrett Jackson/Sponsored by FORD give you a hint as to why other brands are not shown as much as Fords

Some food for thought here...



Chuck gives us the history of the #27 car up to the point where he's created 2 cars out of it and one of them gets just the vin tag and title sold from it. From there all is lost but #27 show up as a former reggie car that inspection shows at least one hidden vin. Does anyone really know what went on with the 2 cars chuck created out of 1? Were they rounded up and put back together as the one in question? Is there still another #27 vin stamped firewall or shell out there?


Dennis and others, I will restate, repeat some of my assertions. I am either not making myself CLEAR or you are not comprehending. Surely it must be me................

1) I bought #27 ZL-1 from Dick Tutino (ser mgr at Alan Green Chev in Seattle(Burien), WA
around 1976. I would have been approx 29 years old.
Car had been raced from Day 1 as Super Stock. When unsucessful in S/S Dick changed car to B/MP class. I knew nothing of ZL-1 engine internals. When I bought car it had Tunnel Ram with 2 Holly 4500's. Also had broken Chrysler 4 spd and DANA 60 Differential. (conclusion: born with carb, intake, T-400, 12 Bolt MISSING IN ACTION!!!)

2) Car had NO roll bar, no subframe connectors, no altered wheel tubs. As I wanted to participate with the fledgling NorthWest Pro-Stock cars, NHRA mandated a roll cage. As well car sorely needed larger tires and new wheels tubs.
#27 went to Tacoma, WA chassis shop owned by Thayne Porlier. Porlier was instructed that car was to remain NHRA legal for Mod/Prod and factory steel floors had to remain.
For reasons I never learned, Porlier removed most/much of the factory floor, fabricated a new rear frame, roll cage, etc etc.
I was very upset with his work, would not pay the bill, and he impounded the car from his shop until I paid. Cant remember time frame, but this episode wound up in court with the likes of Al Swindahl (deceased chassis builder) and others as my expert witnesses. Jerry Valentine (well known NHRA tech director) may have been involved and surely must remember.............
Court awarded me car back, I did not have to pay the bill, and cant remember if I got much if anything in $$$ damages.

3) It was at this point I parted out #27. I sold ZL-1 engine to a man in Seattle. I sold Chyrsler 4 speed and diff. I removed EVERYTHING from Body shell, except TRIM TAG and hidden stamped VIn Stampings ( I never knew they existed back then) I removed VIN TAG and kept ZL-1 title to build my next (Multi Colored) C/SM 69 Camaro with.
I sold (gave away??) body to man by the name of John Carmody (spelling) who lived in North Seattle. Through all the years and conversations I have never learned IF anything came of the gutted out floorless body with rollcage, etc. I cant say or prove what may or may not have happened to TRIM TAG and VIN stamped sheet metal.

4) During 1978 I built my new C/SM drag car from body I bought at Aurora auto wrecking on Bill of Sale. I installed #27 VIN into new body, so as #27 title could be used to make car WASH state legal..............as I thought this would be important down the road with regard to selling. This VIN switch had nothing to do with ZL-1 ...........I just wanted a title for my new race car and "thought" this was easiest way to acheive that............
(CONCLUSION) There was only one car created from my parting out #27 in the time frame of 1978)

5) I sold C/SM drag car around 1982. After several owners it wound up with current owner Jim B in Western Wash state. This C/SM drag car, now painted Red, containing many/much of the Original #27 ZL-1 has never left WASH state after I built it ............currently owned by Jim B................
I have received phone calls and P.M.'s alledging that Jim B removed VIN tag (that I had xfered onto multi colored C/SM car) and sold (date???) along with Title, to brothers named Sievers in Indiana. Alledgedly they created the NEW #27 ZL-1 that subsequently was sold to Reggie J.

DENNIS : It could be said at this time, that the Reggie J/Holub #27 was 2nd 69 Camaro CREATED from Original Parts........Gary H/Reggie Jackson #27 has ONLY the born with VIN TAG and Jim B's car in WASH State (C/SM drag car I built with junk yard body) has many of the Original Sheetmetal, Frame, Interior, Trim Parts...........

5) Before Gary H bought car a Illinois dealer was involved with car. Upon hearing my claims they had heater plenum box removed and verified firewall stamped number was either altered or otherwise didnt jive with correct number. It is for this reason, I feel that the original gutted out body with correct hidden vins and TRIM tag was never used to build the recreated #27!!!!!!!

6) Jim B still owns my former C/SM drag car, however now painted all red with Cowl Hood, Chrome Bumpers................(looks much different, but MY roll cage, MY 9" Ford diff and custom suspension remains (I would think ????)

As you have READ, it is my belief and assertion that the current #27 ZL-1 is/was totally created from misc Camaro parts. It is my belief that only the born with VIN tag would be ORIGINAL .

BTW....In all these threads and pages can somebody confirm that the current # 27 VIN tag reads
124379N609965 as I have from my list of all the 69 ZL-1's. Did SOMEBODY SEE this Vin at B/J or elsewhwere??????????

These above comments and statements are my unproven opinions and allegations.

The only thing I still own are ORIGINAL back seat, sway bar, and heater plenum/unit and MY OLD MEMORIES!!!!!!!!!! and a few pictures..........

Chuck Sharin

That's just it, Dennis. There was no other bidder after Reggie retracted his bid. If there had been, no harm, no fowl. Reggie sure makes it look like he was shill bidding (under the guise of being interested in the car) since when the bidding stalled, and presumably he was about to be the high bidder, he suddenly retracted.

If I did that, the retraction would be denied, and I'd own the car. But Reggie....well, there's more than one good ol' boy group in this-here world.

I doubt all the arm chair quarterbacking is going to change one thing about the dark side of auctions, B-J or otherwise. Remember the guy from R-S (or was it Mecum) last year who basically said shill bidding by the auction house is legal and acceptable. (he called it bidding up to the reserve, or some similar silly language)

All I can say is, "If you can't swim with the sharks, stay out of the water!" I personally will "stay out of the water."

I must have missed something, all I saw on the video was Reggie bidding $285k then the other guy bidding $290k and just before the hammer Reggie looked like he might have been retracting a bid. If he bid earlier I missed it and maybe he was starting to bid beyond the $290k and that is what he retracted. If I had just bid $290k and the guy that bid it from $280k to $285k had retracted his bid I would have made some noise... What did I miss, what did the viewing audience miss?

Here is the BJ published story on this car. Not sure how it all fits in with Chucks story... There's a missing piece here and I bet it tells why this car is being treated as the #27 car.

Allan Green Chevrolet of Seattle, WA, took delivery of the Camaro in late 1969. The first owner of the car was Dick Tutino, the service manager at Allan Green Chevrolet. Dick ran in NHRA Super Stock Class and was sponsored by Allan Green Chevrolet and Boeing Airplane Company until Allan Green closed in 1970. The best ET was 11.08 at 127 mph. After the 1971 season, Dick took the car to a race shop to have the rear wheel wells slightly enlarged. The shop removed the entire trunk floor in error. Dick sued the race shop for damage and won. He could not race the ZL-1 in this condition so he found another body in a junk yard and pieced the race car back together again. During 1979-81, the ZL-1 won Best Appearing Car at the NHRA events. In 1982, Dick sold the ZL-1 to Jim Bruns in Bremerton, WA. Allan put in a full roll cage and a 9" Ford axle and the ZL-1 ran 10.40's. The car was then painted Candy Apple red with Lemon Yellow and purple highlights. It has since been painted back to the original color of Fathom Green.

http://www.barrett-jackson.com/application/onlinesubmission/search.aspx?st=1&aid=283&d=01/18/2009

Chuck I have not doubted you in any way, I also understand what you are saying. The part about the car being built with no original parts is the only thing you say that IMO is questionable and only because you eluded to someone telling you this and that you said you couldn't prove it... You've confirmed there are 2 cars, one with the vin tage on it (your old car) and the real ZL1. What if whoever put this car together ended up with both cars and brought it back as one?

Dennis, READ my above post #87.....................

Jim B removed the real/correct VIN TAG from the 69 C/SM car I built. I had removed VIN tag from gutted out #27 Body and installed onto C/Sm drag car. Tag has been on three bodies.............

a) Original #27 as built ZL-1

b) Chuck Sharin removed from gutted #27 Original shell and installed tag onto multi-colored drag car he built from junk yard body

c) tag was removed again from Jim B's (69 drag car/Chuck Sharin former car) and sold to Sievers Bros in installed it onto created/cloned current # 27

CURRENT car has NO original #27 parts other than this VIN TAG !!!!!!!!!!!!!

If they did reunite the original body or drive train to the vin tag I think they would have documented that process as they would have to have known the controversy that would follow the sell of the car. And they don't appear to have done that or they would have stated that instead of the vague description in the BJ sales description.

Chuck, Proof of ownership could be obtained by requesting certified copies of the Court paperwork where they awarded the car back to you. It would also show it was YOU not Dick that took it to the shop where the floor pan was cut out. That would be a BIG part of the missing info in the auction story line

Chuck,
What was done with the original ZL1 body?

Were the hidden vin numbers removed from it?

You mean like last year...and the green Z/28?
I fully expect Steve Davis to chime in soon...like Drew from Russo & Steele did after last years fiasco.

BJ shall be held innocent,just like always.You talk about high-powered attorneys,thay got 'em.:yes:Craig Jackson says buyer beware and due dillengence,they don't have to prove anything...it's the buyers job to do their homework before hand.;)


It's not about sueing Barret Jackson, but rather the impact this story will have on future sales. This one car could cost them millions in lost revenue from people not bidding as high as they might, had this current situation not happened. If I were Barret Jackson I would not have even allowed this car to be auctioned. It has too much of a questionable past, and will put doubt into all alleged "numbers matching cars."

Dennis, READ my above post #87.....................

Jim B removed the real/correct VIN TAG from the 69 C/SM car I built. I had removed VIN tag from gutted out #27 Body and installed onto C/Sm drag car. Tag has been on three bodies.............

a) Original #27 as built ZL-1

b) Chuck Sharin removed from gutted #27 Original shell and installed tag onto multi-colored drag car he built from junk yard body

c) tag was removed again from Jim B's (69 drag car/Chuck Sharin former car) and sold to Sievers Bros in installed it onto created/cloned current # 27

CURRENT car has NO original #27 parts other than this VIN TAG !!!!!!!!!!!!!


Nobody's arguing with you Chuck and you just keep restating the same over and over...

1> Can you prove the current #27 car doesn't have a single part from the original car on it other than the vin?

2> Have you gone through life saying the car you put the vin tag on and raced is ZL1 #27 when it only had the VIN off the real car too?

3> Was there bad blood between you and those telling the BJ story since you are not mentioned and it seems like they say Dick went to court after the body shop incident and you say you did? Were you and Dick partners?

I'm not doubting you here but there is a lot not being told, I know there are 2 sides to every coin and the same events witnessed by two people don't always tell the same story. Just looking to understand more of what went on with this car and the people associated with it...

The original owner is alive and well as of 3 years ago when I talked to him.His one son lives in Seattle Washington.

Chuck; I hate to see you go through this. You may as well save your breath. They will never get it!

Chuck, Which of the Mod Squad guys in the pics is you? Inquiring minds want to know. :)

Chuck is the gentleman in the back row on right with the period hair, beard and blue shirt.

Rick H.

p.s Chuck I understood everything you said. Seeya at Carlisle.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/CamarosRus/Misc%20Camaro%20pics/Image043.jpg

Chuck; I hate to see you go through this. You may as well save your breath. They will never get it!

Go through what? I think everyone has understood what he is saying but there is a big hole here that some would like to fill in a few blanks... Nobody is disputing what Chuck is saying!

We've all seen Chucks name on the side of the car, Was he the owner, driver, mechanic? Chuck said he went to court over the rollbar and floors issue. In other publishings it's Dick that went to court? I just would like to here Chuck's account of why he's not in the cars chain of custody story...

All things aside, those are real cool photo's and what racing was all about. Thanks for sharing those with us Chuck.

You guys up in the north west should look up Dave "Nasty" Benjamin. He had a ZL1 block from a '69 Camaro, here in Albuquerque when I was workin' for him in the late 70's. He took it with him when he moved to the NW. Just a thought.
Also, I'd like to say some words about the Green Z. Should I start a new thread or can I say it here ?

The info posted at B/J or by B/J is NOT accurate. Their accounting of the history is mixed up, confusing and not representing the truth.
Not sure why I am not mentioned by B/J, but evidently they dont want me telling the honest to god truth about the #27 History.

I'm the one that built the above pictured multi colored C/SM race car. Ray Griffith (deceased) painted and drove the car. (Later Dick St Peter built a different eng for me and drove my C/SM) car

I'm the person who took Thayne Porlier to court over butchering #27 ZL-1'a floor etc.
Dick Tutino had nothing to do with ANY law suit, as he sold the car to me.......

YOU see me racing the RED ZL-1 at NHRA Div 6 race around 1975........also in staging lanes of Seattle Intl Raceways/Pacific raceways same era.......I am not a good drag race driver, better crew chief, fabricator, builder and wisely had others drive MY car.......

I'd like to say some words about the Green Z. Should I start a new thread or can I say it here ?

NEW or you could follow up on CLILLs post on it

Also, I'd like to say some words about the Green Z. Should I start a new thread or can I say it here ?

Here: http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=149621

You guys up in the north west should look up Dave "Nasty" Benjamin. He had a ZL1 block from a '69 Camaro, here in Albuquerque when I was workin' for him in the late 70's. He took it with him when he moved to the NW. Just a thought.
Also, I'd like to say some words about the Green Z. Should I start a new thread or can I say it here ?

Start a new thread.The world would like to know.

DjD
In Chucks #87 post what part of the word (I) did you not understand? Was it the ( Ibought #27, or I parted out # 27 etc.

How would he know why he is omitted from the BJ description of the car? If you were selling a fraudulent car would you want to include his name and lead someone to the real truth about the car.

Start a new thread.The world would like to know.


http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=149621

Well all I know for sure is when I hit the Lotto I wont be going to an auction to buy a car.

PaDave X-2

Wow! Foul, or Fowl.

Does Chuck have to PROVE anything to you Dennis?

Are YOU somehow affiliated with this car?

I think Chuck has been very clear and upfront, BEFORE the auction ever happened.

Rich



Nobody's arguing with you Chuck and you just keep restating the same over and over...

1> Can you prove the current #27 car doesn't have a single part from the original car on it other than the vin?

2> Have you gone through life saying the car you put the vin tag on and raced is ZL1 #27 when it only had the VIN off the real car too?

3> Was there bad blood between you and those telling the BJ story since you are not mentioned and it seems like they say Dick went to court after the body shop incident and you say you did? Were you and Dick partners?

I'm not doubting you here but there is a lot not being told, I know there are 2 sides to every coin and the same events witnessed by two people don't always tell the same story. Just looking to understand more of what went on with this car and the people associated with it...

DjD
In Chucks #87 post what part of the word (I) did you not understand? Was it the ( Ibought #27, or I parted out # 27 etc.

How would he know why he is omitted from the BJ description of the car? If you were selling a fraudulent car would you want to include his name and lead someone to the real truth about the car.

PaDave X-2

When 2 people present a story and paint different pictures I tend to try to stay object and ask for clarification in order to put the pieces together and maybe learn a bit more...

Wow! Foul, or Fowl.

Does Chuck have to PROVE anything to you Dennis?

Are YOU somehow affiliated with this car?

I think Chuck has been very clear and upfront, BEFORE the auction ever happened.

Rich

Just chompin at the bit to hand me my head there Rich? I already defended what Chuck was saying earlier on and was trying to get some clarification, ya know sometimes when you talk to someone they don't get it or you don't say it right but you keep talking and that's what Chuck has been doing. I was looking to tie in some of the relationships to the players and I think his last post did that.

Seems there are others that feel the need to derail the conversation. Please note I repeated over and over I wasn't challenging anything Chuck was saying and it seems like he was a big enough guy to not be offended.

DjD
In Chucks #87 post what part of the word (I) did you not understand? Was it the ( Ibought #27, or I parted out # 27 etc.

How would he know why he is omitted from the BJ description of the car? If you were selling a fraudulent car would you want to include his name and lead someone to the real truth about the car.


psdave and racer, with a grand total of 6 posts between you both, chill down before you try to blast someone who not only has been here since day one but is one of the mainstays of keeping the place running.

Dennis has every right to ask questions about the history of the car. The cars history has been posted here and Chuck has provided his infomation about what happened. Chuck has been up front over the past years about the car and i remember him telling me about the cars history back when I attended the Seattle All Chevy Show. Why his part of the cars history was not included in the Auction announcement only the seller could say. If Chuck had the car (and Chuck I dont doubt you) when it was cut up then that part should have been in the verbage.

Rich,

Chuck doesnt have to prove anything to anyone but when someone comes here (and Chuck has been a member for a sometime) and post information, first hand info at that someone will ask. Just happened to be DjD this time. Heck I even noticed in one post that Chuck mentioned he couldnt even prove he owned the car so I posted about getting a copy of the Court paperwork so he can show it was his once and what he said about the body shop and HIS court experiance was just that HIS and not the other guys.

Let me clarify why I asked these questions...

Nobody's arguing with you Chuck and you just keep restating the same over and over...

1> Can you prove the current #27 car doesn't have a single part from the original car on it other than the vin?

2> Have you gone through life saying the car you put the vin tag on and raced is ZL1 #27 when it only had the VIN off the real car too?

3> Was there bad blood between you and those telling the BJ story since you are not mentioned and it seems like they say Dick went to court after the body shop incident and you say you did? Were you and Dick partners?

I'm not doubting you here but there is a lot not being told, I know there are 2 sides to every coin and the same events witnessed by two people don't always tell the same story. Just looking to understand more of what went on with this car and the people associated with it...

#1 Chuck's already said he can't prove this so by bringing it up again maybe some will see even thought it might be true it's hearsay - Too many here take hearsay as fact and it can cause problems...

#2 Chuck's owned up to doing the very 1st tag swap on this car and been honest about it. It's the same thing though everyone is persecuting BJ the seller and others for over a car that sold for maybe 1/2 to 1/3 of value based on other ZL1 sales. Doesn't that make you think the players in the auction may know more about the car than was depicted on TV?

#3 I'm wondering just what cover-up of fear of Chucks story there could be? Does omiting the correct owners name and altering the story make it possible to put a car on the auction block on TV and not expect the real story to surface? Not expect someone like Chuck to come forward and say "I owned the car and sued the body shop not Dick T. That story is all twisted!" Am I the only one that hears things and wants to know more because there are missing bits?

I asked Chuck questions because he's here and none of the other players are? I guess I could just take things and draw conclusions but I'd rather figure out or try to figure out what is going down...

Yes,

I believe rich is "sidebustin"

The conversation is between them two....

I am also interested in the finer details of the transaction.....

Well, whatever.

"I" think Chuck was clear, and he certinly can defend himself.
How many times can you ask the same guy the same thing?
Enough said on my part.

Rich

Thanks Rich,

your still repected.......you are one of the very knowledgeable ones on this site!!!!!

And I learned most of it here, even some from Dennis :)

Rich

:)

Now I will go back to the sidelines and hopefully the story will have closure!

Actually both storie.....both green cars!!!




I should bring my car to BJ next year!

I can hear them now......

They only made one z convert...but this is not it.

But it’s got all the docs to prove it is.....so wait...umm.....it can’t be....ummmm.....

Were having a short circuit......

WTF is going on…….?

They must know what has been going on in this hobby!

BJ emphasizes on docs way to much....

Response from Chuck to Dennis's questions...........


1>Can you prove the current #27 car doesn't have a single part from the original car on it other than the vin?

I cant prove anything. I do have multiple people in Seattle that could give hearsay testimony that I onced owned # 27. You could contact Dick Tutino in Mooresville, N.C and hopefully he would confirm having sold me the car around 1975/76.
I can not prove any of my assertions about the current car not having ANY ORIGINAL #27 parts on the current Holub/Jackson #27. You could contact Jim Bruns (sp??) in Wash state as he still owns the 69 Camaro race car that I built WITH THE #27 front clip, doors, trunk lid, sub frame, interior etc etc.........On the other hand he cant testify or prove where those parts came from either. I'm the one who knows what happened, I'm the one who knows the truth, I'm the one who knows the history, the truth.........

2> Have you gone through life saying the car you put the vin tag on and raced is ZL1 #27 when it only had the VIN off the real car too?

When I built and raced the Multi-Colored C/SM race car , I DID not talk about it having the #27ZL-1 VIN tag rivited to its dash. In 1978-1982 who would care WHAT VIN tag was on any Camaro drag race car...........IF it wasnt an obvious aluminum powered big block ????????

3> Was there bad blood between you and those telling the BJ story since you are not mentioned and it seems like they say Dick went to court after the body shop incident and you say you did? Were you and Dick partners?

I dont know Gary Holub, Reggie JAckson or anybody at B/J. I have no idea why a half baked untrue story with confusing lies was presented.

I bought #27 ZL-1 from Dick Tutino. I raced car independently MYSELF. We were never partners and really had little if any conversation after I bought car.
Dick T had nothing to do with any lawsuit Im aware of. Nothing to do with ANY of this saga, other than being the 1st owner as service mgr of Allan Green Chevrolet.

Moderate me all you want but I don't believe that people are bothered by questions. I believe it is how some people have a history of asking questions in a confrontational manor. Also the way certain moderators respond to people that call them on it. Maybe it would be better if everybodies posts go through a moderator before they show up in the forum. How many posts do you have to have before you are allowed an opinion. I've learned alot here as well as own and have owned several first gen camaros and spent many nights in these forums, I honostly lost interest several months ago for the very reasons stated above!

I know how it feels to lose on a deal as well as anybody. Kurt made me aware last year that my black 69 l78 car in fact had a fake tag when I put it up for sale! I decided at that point to keep the car and drive it. I went from having a $70k plus car to just another $20k camaro in a matter of minutes. I respected the fact that he did this by PM rather than through a thread but I felt like someone ripped my heart out none the less. I also know that zl1 car number 22 has been speculated to be a rebody as well and that it is in fact not a rebody. It was another car that was raced and tubbed. The car is still in Omaha nebraska and is slowly being restored and is needing some sheetmetal replaced but is being done with GM parts and is being done right. So this being said I see Dennis's point as to seperating rumors from fact. I also know that the car at the present time does not have the original engine but that the engine is out there and likely will be reunited with the car someday. I have been collecting cars for sometime now and have sold cars along the way to fund my hobby-addiction. I have been looking for a numbers match rs/z28 for some time now as well as a numbers match z11 big block but in recent months I have been rethinking the numbers match part as it seems that even if I was to find the real thing all of the fake cars have called everything into question.

Chuck. thank you for correcting me, that is what these forums are all about. Great history and learning.

HawaiianCamaro
How many posts do I have to have before I am allowed to have an opinion. Do I need to be a post whore and post useless BS to get my numbers up so I can post a comment.

It is frustrating when the same info is posted over and over and people still ask questions that were answered 3 or 4 times. It seems like that they aren't getting the answer that they want so they keep asking with what seems like an acquisitory tone.

I do not personally know Chuck but I value his knowledge on camaro's. His posts have have been very insightful on all the sites he frequents. Also he has been telling this story for a long time before this car came up far sale. For all the time and effort that he has put into this hobby and Camaro's in general I fell that he has proven his character and deserves not to be questioned like he was the one committing the sin.

By the way if it matters and I know it does not I am usually over at the Nasty site and have 124 posts over there

Interesting thread. Glad to see Chuck is and has been setting the record straight for quite some time about this car.

I watched the BJ video of the auction on YouTube.

It looks apparant to me that the winning bidder had no idea that this car is a fake. He has the look of someone that just bought a real ZL-1 for 1/2 to 1/3 the going rate.


IMO what BJ did just during the auction was unethical. Craig Jackson said at least once (though I am pretty certain it was 2-3 times) what a deal this was on a ZL-1......I'm not sure exactly what was going on with RJ, but it didn't look good.

Some conflicting reports from those that were there about disclosure of it being a rebody.

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=UBB1&Number=378314&page=0&fpart=14

It is disclosed as a rebody in the BJ web site discription here


http://www.barrett-jackson.com/application/onlinesubmission/search.aspx?st=2

Not really,
"They" imply that it was only the trunk floor/wheel tubs, quoted here from link above (bold added by me):

"Dick took the car to a race shop to have the rear wheel wells slightly enlarged. The shop removed the entire trunk floor in error. Dick sued the race shop for damage and won. He could not race the ZL-1 in this condition so he found another body in a junk yard and pieced the race car back together again."

then lower, at the end

" This car has been rebodied."

This leads one to believe that #27 was repaired with a GM donar car. NOT that the car was built around a VIN and title.

Rich

With the current trend if you have a Green 69 Camaro you better sell it quick.If this keeps up you wont be able to give one of them away.l:)

Reminds me of when President Clinton got caught with his pants down and he told the American Public that No I did not have Sexual Relations with Monica,LOL.....But he did,well not in his eyes but I'm sure his wife disagreed. Its all a play on words and situations,Chuck Sharin is a Stand up guy and told "The Real Story" of what he knows on the Rebody 27 ZL1! Thanks Chuck!

Rich Pern, Words have a lot of meaning...................

THE car implies that THE parts and pieces from the original car were installed onto a donor body...........

It is my assertion (AGAIN) that A NEW DIFFERENT "#27" CAR war CREATED/CLONED, with 100% different parts donated from ??? sources. ONLY the original VIN tag was used on the RECREATION, that everybody saw at B/J.............

This VIN tag was bought from Dave Bruns (from my old 69 race car) by the Sievers Bros from Indiana around 1985.........

Sorry, you guys are missing the message. These are real cars to the "power buyers' with money.

anybody hear Craig Jackson saying over and over while this so called ZL1 was on the block "this is a BARGIN of a deal .. this is the est Deal of the whole Auction" sometimes he should just stand there and keep his mouth shut while the money just flows in his pockets.

[QUOTE=Jeff H;1141506]I have to wonder what the risk is of buying a known rebodied car. If the car was inspected by the authorities and the VIN tag and hidden VINs don't match, couldn't the car be confiscated? I don't think $290K is worth risking that situation.

why would anyone in the world pay that money for that car? if the only thing original from a ZL1 is the vin, then thats what you would own an original ZL1, vin period.
I would rather have a real small block ss or rs. at least or anything real and original for that matter.


I DONT GET IT

shill bidding and a retraction to boot? Wow, now that really is fishy. Did he retract because he didnt want to end up with the car after no one else bid?

positively, you bet

I would think, with the obvious resources that B-J has, that they would know of at least some of the history of this car and disallow it at their auction. Maybe this one got by them, or maybe they didn't care, but one thing is certain-This one auction is giving B-J a black eye .

It is disclosed as a rebody in the BJ web site discription here


http://www.barrett-jackson.com/application/onlinesubmission/search.aspx?st=2

Joe, I'm not sure when that part was added to the description, but it was definitely not there all along. I remember looking at The Deuce, the Yenko Camaro and they both were listed as rebody but the ZL1 was not at that point in time. If it was added before the auction, then obviously it was buyer beware. There might be a post on the Yenko board showing the other 2 as rebody but not the ZL1.

I (Chuck Sharin) recently received a message with more history on the CLONED # 27...........Remember this is hearsay and I have no photographic proof!!!!!!!!!!!

"We had the Illinois State Police come to Performance Restorations in Mundelein, IL......
Under State Police supervision, the car was partially disassembled. The right vin tag was on the car. However, SOMEONE HAD SLOPPILY RESTAMPED THE COWL ALTERNATE NUMBER. AND WHEN WE REMOVED THE HEATER BOX, THERE WAS A COMPLETLY DIFFERENT VIN IN THERE. I believe it was a 6 cylinder car. The police didn't confiscate the car then because Reggie Jackson and the current owner at the time struck an agreement and Reggie took the car back. I never thought Reggie would have the balls to remarket the car."

Wow! That would be a smoking gun.

I would think, with the obvious resources that B-J has, that they would know of at least some of the history of this car and disallow it at their auction. Maybe this one got by them, or maybe they didn't care, but one thing is certain-This one auction is giving B-J a black eye .

Obvious resources? There are only 3 resources anyone on the planet need if they want to find out about the history on a 1st generation Camaro:

Camaros.net
Camaros.org
Yenko.net

If they haven't talked to someone here or at the other sites, they don't know squat.

Maybe this one got by them, or maybe they didn't care, but one thing is certain-This one auction is giving B-J a black eye .


If the price sold at $290,000 lets do the math. $500 registration fees for the seller and buyer, $1,000. 8% sellers fee $23,200, 10% buyers fee $29,000 = $53,200 and also the on TV fees if you are shown on camera.

B/J is just a vessel for the product. How many times do you hear the
announcer say "It's up to the individual to do his or her own homework". All of the horror stories you read about fraud and yet that one saying will cover them in Court if this goes into legal litigation. In the end the buyer gets screwed. Another case of buyer beware.

B/J is just a vessel for the product. How many times do you hear the
announcer say "It's up to the individual to do his or her own homework". All of the horror stories you read about fraud and yet that one saying will cover them in Court if this goes into legal litigation. In the end the buyer gets screwed. Another case of buyer beware.



Yes but under law, they must execute some form of due diligence because they are seen as an organization of trust. Some people do go there because they feel they can get an honest and rare car there.

If a buyer can prove that the auction house knew about a condition of a car that negatively affects its value but failed to disclose it, you can be sure the buyer has a good case.

If the price sold at $290,000 lets do the math. $500 registration fees for the seller and buyer, $1,000. 8% sellers fee $23,200, 10% buyers fee $29,000 = $53,200 and also the on TV fees if you are shown on camera.

B/J is just a vessel for the product. How many times do you hear the
announcer say "It's up to the individual to do his or her own homework". All of the horror stories you read about fraud and yet that one saying will cover them in Court if this goes into legal litigation. In the end the buyer gets screwed. Another case of buyer beware.


Sure, you hear the announcers on TV say that. But I watched the You Tube playing of this auction and I didn't hear either the auctioneer or Craig Jackson say anything about it. The way Craig Jackson was overtly pumping this auction anyone would think it was a legit ZL-1. Apparantly the TV team from Speed thought it was legit too.....one of them commented at the end how the ZL-1 was thought to be the first of the Camaro cars that would bring 1 million dollars, and how this auction demonstrated the effects of the economy on these cars.

Don't get me wrong, it certainly is buyer beware in regards to everything bought in life. I just think it is a total sham by B-J not to at least check out these cars some, especially when cars like #27 is fairly well known to have lots of issues.

I do feel bad for the buyer even though it is ultimately his responsibility to check everything out, but this car was totally misrepresented by B-J.

I want to be clear I am not faulting Speed or their team. This is on B-J imo.

I have this auction on my bucket list for next year or the year after......I absolutely positively will not even consider buying a 'numbers' or 'original' car at the auction under any uncertain terms because of this single auction.

Obvious resources? There are only 3 resources anyone on the planet need if they want to find out about the history on a 1st generation Camaro:

Camaros.net
Camaros.org
Yenko.net

If they haven't talked to someone here or at the other sites, they don't know squat.

I absolutely agree. B-J has resources in the tens of millions for sure, maybe even more. They have the resources to check out these rare cars more so than anyone. And they SHOULD so they can protect the integrity of their product. They could hire teams of experts to rigorously check these cars. For this car alone they made probably 50K or more.....how many people like Jerry M could that get to rigorously inspect cars like this?

I (Chuck Sharin) recently received a message with more history on the CLONED # 27...........Remember this is hearsay and I have no photographic proof!!!!!!!!!!!

"We had the Illinois State Police come to Performance Restorations in Mundelein, IL......
Under State Police supervision, the car was partially disassembled. The right vin tag was on the car. However, SOMEONE HAD SLOPPILY RESTAMPED THE COWL ALTERNATE NUMBER. AND WHEN WE REMOVED THE HEATER BOX, THERE WAS A COMPLETLY DIFFERENT VIN IN THERE. I believe it was a 6 cylinder car. The police didn't confiscate the car then because Reggie Jackson and the current owner at the time struck an agreement and Reggie took the car back. I never thought Reggie would have the balls to remarket the car."

http://www.performancerestorations.com/

I do believe that the buyer should do thier homework , But on these high profile cars that are hyped by these high profile Auction houses selling a made up car is a joke ... what because some former celebrity is the former owner....

So it sounds like Gary Holub might have something on Reggie for selling him this car maybe,did Gary know when he bought it from Reggie? Did Gary find out later on?

Yes but under law, they must execute some form of due diligence because they are seen as an organization of trust. Some people do go there because they feel they can get an honest and rare car there.

If a buyer can prove that the auction house knew about a condition of a car that negatively affects its value but failed to disclose it, you can be sure the buyer has a good case.


I AGREE!

Barrett Jackson needs to become a lot more educated on the products they sell.I know this may seem like a difficult task with the many makes and models……

But come on……With the millions they make,they can hire an expert for each of the most popular makes and models……And prevent many of the problems that have been happening…

The logical thing to happen would be for law enforcement to seize the car. Remove the ZL1 vin tag that was unlawfully put on the car and assign it a state assigned vin. Then you have what it really is.

Barrett-Jackson could avoid most of the GM Supercar headaches by asking about them at Yenko.net. We know about most of them. They just need to ask ahead of time.

The logical thing to happen would be for law enforcement to seize the car. Remove the ZL1 vin tag that was unlawfully put on the car and assign it a state assigned vin. Then you have what it really is.

Barrett-Jackson could avoid most of the GM Supercar headaches by asking about them at Yenko.net. We know about most of them. They just need to ask ahead of time.

That is what would be the logical thing, but that would amount to BJ shooting themselves in the foot.
What is their priority? credability or cash? I think we have seen enough questionable cars cross the block to answer that.
The BJ auctions have been on Speed for a number of years and are getting a little long in the tooth. Someone mentioned that the show will be moving to DirectTV next year......true? That should knock the viewership down even more.
I, for one, am tired of 2 cars and 6 commercials......and the same commercials to boot.

jmho
sean

I don't care for the BJ CarCircus show either.I didn't watch it this year and definitly never again! Its ALL smoke and mirrors.....The bigger they are the harder they fall.

BJ is not a bad place to go to buy your dream car if it is a resto mod, custom, hot rod, or a pink VW micro bus with 22 inch wheels.

You can go on a little vacation, have fun, watch the laser light disco balls, listen to the Noise Makers, and bid on a car you like at a price you want to pay.

Just not a good place to buy a real documented collector car that needs careful research and inspection.
No way.

Lets examine Mike Joys logic. Lets say you have George's original ax. Ax head and handle intact. You buy an ax at Home Depot. You remove George's ax head and put it with a Home Depot handle. You place the Home Depot ax head on George's handle. Now you have 2 original George Washington ax's.:yes:
Nope, you still missed what he said!!:
With what the guy said that "parted the car out," it is like having ONLY that little metal part (I can not remember what it is called) that they use to drive between the handle and the axe head to hold it together. Then taking a old ax head made by the same maker {or an exact (or close) replica} and a carved out new handle that looks the same and now calling this NEW TOOL, Ol' George's, even though they know where the original handle is.

One other thing: I am so tired of hearing all you guys that say doing this is illegal. You have no idea what you are talking about. Then, some of you keep posting up states and their written law (in other threads). You have no clue. This car should help you understand that you have NO clue. I guarantee you that this car can sell legally in any of the 50 states and Puerto Rico. So please, let's quit saying that. I wish it was, but it is not.

Barrett-Jackson could avoid most of the GM Supercar headaches by asking about them at Yenko.net. We know about most of them. They just need to ask ahead of time.

Perhaps 'the list' should be modified to include this information. In essence, having a rebodied Yenko/ZL 1 with a vin on the list reflects that it's still a real Supercar. If it's on the internet, it must be real. :noway:
Last yr a HO Yenko drag car was found with it's tags removed. The rebodied/restored Camaro had found a new home without the owner knowing anything about it and I'll bet the the new owner of the drag car is trying to get his tags back thru legal channels...can hardly wait to hear how this one turns out:yes:

Nope, you still missed what he said!!:
With what the guy said that "parted the car out," it is like having ONLY that little metal part (I can not remember what it is called) that they use to drive between the handle and the axe head to hold it together. Then taking a old ax head made by the same maker {or an exact (or close) replica} and a carved out new handle that looks the same and now calling this NEW TOOL, Ol' George's, even though they know where the original handle is.

One other thing: I am so tired of hearing all you guys that say doing this is illegal. You have no idea what you are talking about. Then, some of you keep posting up states and their written law (in other threads). You have no clue. This car should help you understand that you have NO clue. I guarantee you that this car can sell legally in any of the 50 states and Puerto Rico. So please, let's quit saying that. I wish it was, but it is not.

Swapping VINs is illegal. Ask your local DMV. But they probably dont have a clue either.

The logical thing to happen would be for law enforcement to seize the car. Remove the ZL1 vin tag that was unlawfully put on the car and assign it a state assigned vin. Then you have what it really is.

Barrett-Jackson could avoid most of the GM Supercar headaches by asking about them at Yenko.net. We know about most of them. They just need to ask ahead of time.


:hurray::yes::beers::thumbsup:

there is a reason why swapping vins is illegal other than making money in our little hobby. it goes into a wider spectrum than classic cars. they are swapping vins on newer cars and this is their main concern.

infact, this car is a good reason why swapping vins should not be done.

The logical thing to happen would be for law enforcement to seize the car. Remove the ZL1 vin tag that was unlawfully put on the car and assign it a state assigned vin. Then you have what it really is.

Barrett-Jackson could avoid most of the GM Supercar headaches by asking about them at Yenko.net. We know about most of them. They just need to ask ahead of time.

Yea Charley,
But I think they prefer to hide behind a veil of ignorance. By ignorance, I do not mean stupid, simply unaware. (whether they are truly unaware is another story, and they certainly are not stupid!) They can claim it's the buyer's responsibility to do his due diligence.

Yea Charley,
But I think they prefer to hide behind a veil of ignorance. By ignorance, I do not mean stupid, simply unaware. (whether they are truly unaware is another story, and they certainly are not stupid!) They can claim it's the buyer's responsibility to do his due diligence.


In the short run, that might be a good approach to wipe their hands of everything. In the long run, all this will do is harm the BJ reputation because enthusiasts like us will be so turned off by the place. Executives at Speed will smell a rat and drop the contract. Would you want to be associated with a company who does not look out for it's customers? Would you want to be associated with a company who is well aware of the BS going on but does nothing about it?

Barrett has put in plenty of protection for the buyers. Many times the buyer has come back to them and pointed out that the seller lied on his description and they unwound the deal and charged the seller both the buyer and seller fees.

Barrett has put in plenty of protection for the buyers. Many times the buyer has come back to them and pointed out that the seller lied on his description and they unwound the deal and charged the seller both the buyer and seller fees.

Does BJ allow buyers to get out of a deal when the seller did not state that the block was .080 over on the rebuild or the crank has been turned 30-30? Most crap only gets identified after the car has been back home and quite often, months and years after the transaction has taken place.

John,

Again someone making a statement they have no clue what they are talking about. I am not trying to be a jerk and I am not going to keep talking about this. (The sad reality of having a lawyer friend) That is why I have stayed out of this conversation for the last year (other threads). If this is true, then I tell you what; REPORT THIS CAR!!!!! Then, please report back to us on all the arrests. You will see you are totally wrong and you will look pretty silly. If you talk to a lawyer, you will find that you have to prove fraud, intent to fraud, theft, illegal sale of parts, etc. You can want it to be illegal all you want (as I would like also), but when you make comments like "Swapping VINs is illegal" you show your total lack of understanding. Your comments make the assumption that you understand the legal definition of these words and that in a court of law they have no subjectiveness. If you are saying he "swapped" Vins you will find that you are totally incorrect in a court of law. Then you make another comment "Ask your local DMV. But they probably dont have a clue either." I am not trying to pick on you, but all the comments that I have seen on this website & CRG are just repeating text or wishful thinking. I wish you were correct!!!! Just not the way it works. Ask a lawyer friend that handles fraud cases. Even ask one that does not.

Like I said, All you guys that think this is the law, Report a Car!!!!
Report back to us after you have done this. Don't get me wrong, there are true fraud cases (this one with using this other guys OWNED VIN not related to the B/J car, may be one of them). No matter how much you and I want this B/J car to be one of them, it will not. So when you make comments like this, you show your emotion. Not your knowledge of the law. Report back when this seller and B/J are sent to Jail.

Will never happen because they did not break the law. I know, that sucks!!

Angel is exactly right. That is why there should be NO wiggle room, but there is.

One other thing: I am so tired of hearing all you guys that say doing this is illegal. You have no idea what you are talking about......I guarantee you that this car can sell legally in any of the 50 states and Puerto Rico. So please, let's quit saying that. I wish it was, but it is not.


Really!!?? Here's a law one of our members (Lynn) help pass in Oklahoma - Title 47 Section 4-
107A:

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to:
1. Knowingly and intentionally destroy, remove, cover, alter or
deface, or cause to be destroyed, covered, removed, altered or
defaced the trim tag plate of a motor vehicle manufactured from
1953 to 1977;
2. Knowingly affix a counterfeit trim tag plate to a motor vehicle;
3. Manufacture, offer for sale, sell, introduce, import or deliver
for sale or use in this state a counterfeit trim tag plate; or
4. Offer for sale, sell, introduce, import or deliver for sale or use
in this state a trim tag plate that was affixed to a motor vehicle
at the time of manufacture but has since been removed or become
dislodged.
B. Paragraph 1 of subsection A of this section shall not apply to:
1. Any person who engages in repair of a motor vehicle, provided
that removal of the vehicle's trim tag plate is reasonably necessary
for repair of a part of the vehicle to which the trim tag plate
is affixed, and provided that such trim tag plate is not intentionally
destroyed, altered or defaced; or
2. Removal of a trim tag from a motor vehicle which is being
junked or otherwise destroyed, if the removal is being done for
historical documentation purposes by a person actively involved
in judging events or for historical documentation of classic motor
vehicles and reasonable precaution is taken to ensure that the
tag is not sold or affixed to another motor vehicle.
C. Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this act
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person convicted of violating
the provisions of this act a second or subsequent time shall
be guilty of a felony.
D. In addition to any other civil remedy available, a person defrauded
as a result of a violation of this act may bring a civil action
against any person who knowingly violated this act regardless
of whether that person has been convicted of a violation of
this act. A person defrauded as a result of a violation of this act
may recover treble their actual compensatory damages. In any
action brought pursuant to this subsection, the court may award
reasonable costs, including costs of expert witnesses, and attorney
fees to the prevailing party.
E. As used in this section:
1. "Trim tag plate" means a plate or tag affixed to a motor vehicle
by the manufacturer which displays numbers, symbols, or
codes that identify characteristics of the vehicle including, but not
limited to, date of manufacture, body style, paint color, engine
option, transmission option, trim option, general option, interior
option, and interior color;
2. "Counterfeit trim tag plate" means:
a. any trim tag plate manufactured by a person or entity other
than the original manufacturer of a motor vehicle upon which the
trim tag plate is designed to be affixed, unless the trim tag has
been permanently stamped, in the same manner as other information
on the trim tag, with the words "REPLACEMENT TAG" in
letters measuring at least one-eighth (1/8) of an inch in height,
or
b. any trim tag plate which has been altered from its original
manufactured condition so as to change any of its numbers, symbols,
or codes; and
3. "Motor vehicle" means the same as defined in Section 1-134 of
Title 47 of the Oklahoma Statutes.

I am amazed that you don't get it.
Oklahoma is not the only state that has that law.

Last words: Report the car!

Isn't it amazing that even when I want it to be illegal, and have been explained the law, that someone that knows nothing of the law or has not talked to a lawyer wants to act like I am an A.H. And, when they know that no one will go to jail, that they will still want to pick on me for the facts. I can not wait to here the follow up that Dr. JW will give us on all these people going to jail. Don't forget to do that, OK, Dr. JK. Like I said, emotion not facts.

Let me know when they do. Until they do, you are definitely wrong on your understanding of this car and the law.

Last word: Report the car!

Good...

There is criminal law and civil law. You report it and you will be told to make a civil case out of it. You will most likely win a civil case based on this cars history, condition and misleading descriptions of it.

Just because it is not enforced does not mean it is not illegal! Straight to the point: Let there be no doubt that it is illegal to tamper with a VIN on a vehicle or even the parts of a vehicle.This is not an all inclusive list of state laws/statutes. It is merely a sampling. Do not assume because a state is not mentioned here that there are no such laws in that state (country).
Legal research/reference provided by Sam Mamola, J.D.
18 USCS § 2321

TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I. CRIMES
CHAPTER 113. STOLEN PROPERTY

18 USCS § 2321 (2003)

§ 2321. Trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts

(a) Whoever buys, receives, possesses, or obtains control of, with intent to sell or otherwise dispose of, a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part, knowing that an identification number for such motor vehicle or part has been removed, obliterated, tampered with, or altered, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

107 A.L.R.5th 567

SUMMARY: Illegally removing or altering a vehicle identification number (VIN) or selling or possessing a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN constitutes a crime in most states. In order to impose liability, state courts normally require a culpable mental state on the part of the defendant in altering or removing a VIN or in possessing a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN. Some states, however, do not require any culpable mental state on the part of the defendant when selling a vehicle or vehicle part with a removed or altered VIN.

For example, in State v. Smith, 972 S.W.2d 476, 107 A.L.R.5th 791 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1998), the defendant sold a vehicle that was subsequently found to have an altered VIN. The defendant claimed the state was required to establish that he had knowledge of the VIN alteration at the time the sale occurred. The court held that while knowledge was required for possessing a vehicle with an altered VIN, the statute's plain language indicated that knowledge was not required when selling a vehicle with an altered VIN.

Most state courts held that knowledge of the altered or removed VIN is required before the defendant can be convicted of altering or removing a VIN or possessing or selling a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN ( § 10[a] ). However, a few courts have concluded that from a plain reading of the applicable statute, knowledge of the altered or removed VIN is not required when altering or removing a VIN or possessing or selling a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN ( § 10 ). Courts singled out a number of particular circumstances as tending to establish knowledge of an altered or removed VIN on the part of the defendant. For instance, knowledge was found to exist where there is physical evidence of the VIN alteration as well as proof the defendant tried to sell the vehicle or had possession of the vehicle for a long period of time ( § 10[c] ). Knowledge was also proved by evidence that the defendant was warned of a missing or altered VIN and did not correct the defect or where the police found evidence of a "chop shop" and other dismantled vehicle parts in the defendant's possession ( § 10[c] ). To the contrary, courts found the defendant did not have knowledge of an altered or removed VIN where, although there was evidence of possession or sale of the vehicle, there was no direct or physical evidence the defendant altered or removed the VIN ( § 10[d] ). Knowledge was also not proved where the defendant merely leased a building to a person operating a "chop shop" and did not know what was happening inside the building ( § 10[d] ).

Along with the culpable mental state requirement, courts also addressed the criminal conduct involved in altering or removing a VIN or possessing or selling a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN. For example, state courts found that a VIN was altered or removed even if the concealed VIN was not removed or the vehicle bore an additional VIN not affixed by the manufacturer ( § 12[a] ).

Delaware:

In Tackett v. State, 416 A.2d 1225 (Del. 1980), the court held that two statutes: (1) the possession of a vehicle with a removed VIN (Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 6709); and (2) the possession of a vehicle with knowledge that the VIN is falsified with intent to misrepresent the identity (Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 6705(d)) were not unconstitutionally vague. The court noted that the standard for judging the certainty of a criminal statute is whether it is specific enough to give notice to a person of ordinary intelligence of the conduct prohibited. Consequently, the court found Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 6705(d) clearly comports with constitutional standards of specificity in that the statute unambiguously describes both the conduct prohibited and the requisite states of mind. The court also found that Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 6709 was not vague as applied to this case because the indictment charged that the defendant knew of the altered VINs; the defendant was in the auto repair business and a former employee of a major automaker, giving rise to a fair inference that he was familiar with confidential VINs; and the defendant's knowledge that the VINs had been altered was charged and proven.

New York:

The court held in People v. Giese, 95 Misc. 2d 792, 408 N.Y.S.2d 693 (Sup 1978), order aff'd without published op, 68 A.D.2d 1019, 414 N.Y.S.2d 947 (2d Dep't 1979), that federal law (Federal Safety Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1381 et seq. (Repl.; see 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 30101 et seq.)) did not preempt N.Y. Penal Law § 170.70, which makes it illegal to possess a VIN that has been removed from a vehicle or vehicle part to which the VIN was affixed by the manufacturer in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Motor Vehicle and Information Cost Savings Act. The court noted that the promulgation of the safety standards cannot be said to be so pervasive of the area to prevent the state of New York from enacting and enforcing laws with respect to the illegal possession of VIN plates in order to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle theft. Consequently, the court held that such legislation was not in conflict with the purpose or language of the Federal Safety Act.

Maryland:

In interpreting Md. Ann. Code art. 66 1/2, § 73 (1957), which prohibits a person from knowingly possessing or selling a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN, for the purpose of concealing or misrepresenting the identity of the vehicle or vehicle part, the court in Greenway v. State, 8 Md. App. 194, 259 A.2d 89 (1969), concluded that "knowingly" as used in the statute means "having knowledge." A person thus may be found to have knowledge by evidence establishing that one has actual or direct knowledge of the VIN removal or alteration. For example, explained the court, actual knowledge is when one removes or alters the number personally, while direct knowledge is when one admits to knowing that the number has been removed or altered, and has no reasonable nonculpable explanation as to why it has been removed or altered.

Missouri:

The court in State v. Smith, 972 S.W.2d 476, 107 A.L.R.5th 791 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1998), held that the plain language of Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 301.390.1, 301.390.6 (1994) does not require criminal intent when selling a vehicle with an altered or removed VIN. The statute's language prohibits a person from selling or offering for sale, or knowingly having the custody or possession of a motor vehicle with an altered or removed VIN. The court said that the legislature clearly and deliberately wrote the statute so that "knowingly" refers only to the crime of custody or possession, and not to the crime of selling or offering for sale. The requirement that the defendant know the VIN was altered or removed in order to be convicted thus applies only to the crime of custody or possession, and not to the crime of sale.

Knowledge found:

The courts in the following cases held that the defendant knowingly altered or removed a vehicle identification number (VIN) or sold or possessed a vehicle or vehicle part knowing it had an altered or removed VIN.

Georgia:

In Martin v. State, 160 Ga. App. 275, 287 S.E.2d 244 (1981), the court found that a man who rebuilt and sold a vehicle with parts containing altered or removed VINs knowingly concealed or misrepresented the identity of the vehicle under Ga. Code Ann. § 68-9916(a). Since the Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title Act requires that the certificate of title for any vehicle that has been rebuilt, reconditioned, or remanufactured must so state on the face of the title, and the certificate of title that the man obtained for the vehicle did not disclose on its face that the vehicle had been rebuilt, the court found there was enough evidence to conclude that he knew the vehicle contained an altered or removed VIN.

The court in Ramey v. State, 239 Ga. App. 620, 521 S.E.2d 663 (1999), denied a directed verdict of acquittal when the court found enough circumstantial evidence that the car dealer sold the stolen vehicle knowing it had an altered VIN, which is prohibited under Ga. Code Ann. § 40-4-22(a). Because the car's true VIN was damaged and then concealed, and a false VIN plate applied loosely to the door, changes that a person in the business of buying and selling cars should have noticed, and the VIN stamped on the false plate and used by the dealer for the bill of sale did not match the car and could not have been assigned to that year vehicle, the court found sufficient evidence to show the dealer had guilty knowledge of the altered VIN.

Illinois:

Enough circumstantial evidence was found by the court in People v. Kilgore, 33 Ill. App. 3d 557, 338 N.E.2d 124 (2d Dist. 1975), to sustain the defendant's conviction under Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 95 1/2, P 4-103(b) (1973), for knowingly possessing a vehicle with an altered or removed VIN. The court found that the combination of circumstances, which included the payment of $ 500 for a car valued at more than $ 2,000; the falsified VIN on the bill of sale in defendant's possession; the defendant's explanation that he purchased a burned out car and added value thereafter, which was refuted by the actual condition of the car; the fact the defendant did not present invoices or receipts corroborating his story that he bought parts to repair the car; and his failure to complete the title application or apply for plates in the time available, supported the conviction.

Kansas:

In State v. Holland, 141 Kan. 307, 40 P.2d 469 (1935), the court held there was enough evidence to uphold a conviction of possessing a vehicle, whose VIN was altered or removed in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-116(b). The evidence included testimony of the VIN alteration or removal, which showed that several VINs had been ground off and other VINs were stenciled on. In addition, it was found that the defendant had been in the possession of the vehicle for 15 months and therefore had enough time to gain knowledge of the change in the numbers.

Massachusetts:

In Com. v. Perreault, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 1072, 435 N.E.2d 635 (1982), the court found was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of violating Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 266, § 139(b)-(c), which prohibits the possession or sale of a vehicle or vehicle part knowing the VIN has been altered or removed. Because the defendant testified that the true VIN numbers were no longer on the cars and an auto theft investigator testified as to what the VINs were as they appeared on the stolen vehicles and what the VINs should have been, the court concluded that the Commonwealth satisfied its burden of proving that the defendant knew the vehicles had altered or removed VINs.

Ohio:

In State v. Halczyszak, 1990 WL 32605 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1990), the court upheld a conviction under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4549.62(D)(1), after it was found that salvage yard owners knowingly possessed a vehicle in which the VIN was altered. The court found that the case record revealed that the owners knowingly and purposely altered the body of an older vehicle by attaching the VIN from a newer vehicle. In addition, one of the salvage yard owners further demonstrated this knowledge by stating to the police that she believed they could transfer the VIN from one car to another.

Missouri:

According to the court in State v. Wakefield, 682 S.W.2d 136 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1984), there was sufficient evidence to convict the owner of a salvage yard and repair shop of removing or defacing a vehicle's VIN in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 301.400 (1978). The court held there was enough evidence in the record that permitted the inference that at some time the owner, or his employees, mounted the body of a stolen 1978 vehicle on the frame and transmission of a 1980 vehicle, which the defendant had acquired as salvage. The public VIN was removed from the 1980 salvage vehicle and was affixed by homemade rosette rivets to the body of the 1978 vehicle. Thereafter, the reconstituted vehicle was sold as a 1980 model vehicle. The court found the above evidence was sufficient to support the judgment of conviction under the statute. Here are cites to individual state laws and cases:

JURISDICTIONAL TABLE OF CASES and STATUTES

UNITED STATES CODE

18 U.S.C.A. § 2321 See --§ 2[a]
18 U.S.C.A. § 511 See --§ 2[a] --§ 5

1980--§ 10[d]
State v. Self, 492 So. 2d 319 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)--§§ 10[a],11[a]




PENNSYLVANIA

75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 7102(b), 7103(b) See --§ 11[c]
75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 7103 See --§ 10[c]
75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 7103(a) See --§ 10[d]
75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 7103(b) See --§ 10[d]
Pennsylvania Stat. Ann. tit. 75, 301 See --§§ 10[c] 10[d]

Com. v. Cecchini, 315 Pa. Super. 153, 461 A.2d 843 (1983) --§ 10[d]
Com. v. Grabowski, 306 Pa. Super. 483, 452 A.2d 827 (1982) --§ 10[c]
Com. v. Lowry, 385 Pa. Super. 236, 560 A.2d 781 (1989) --§ 11[c]
Com. v. Milewski, 340 Pa. Super. 226, 489 A.2d 925 (1985) --§ 10[d]
Com. v. Stevenson, 242 Pa. Super. 31, 363 A.2d 1144 (1976) --§ 10[c]
Com. v. Unkrich, 142 Pa. Super. 591, 16 A.2d 737 (1940) --§§ 10[a] 10[c] 10[d]
Com. v. White, 259 Pa. Super. 397, 393 A.2d 886 (1978) --§ 10[d]


Is stamping or removing a VIN on an engine block or other part illegal?

It might be, according to this case:

The court held in Greenway v. State, 8 Md. App. 194, 259 A.2d 89 (1969), that there was sufficient evidence to sustain an automobile repairman's conviction, under Md. Ann. Code art. 66 1/2, § 73 (1957), of possessing a vehicle knowing the engine VIN had been defaced for the purpose of concealing or misrepresenting the identity of the vehicle. While the evidence clearly showed that the repairman had in his possession a vehicle containing an engine which he admitted had been removed from another vehicle and whose VIN had been covered by a bead of weld, it was not shown that he ever had direct contact with the engine, either in purchasing it, receiving it after it was purchased, or removing it from one car and installing it in the other. Nevertheless, the court recognized that the repairman admitted he knew the provisions of the statute and therefore the court held that he deliberately "shut his eyes" so he would not have knowledge that the VIN on the engine in his possession had been defaced. The court noted that the engine was easily accessible to him while in his possession and it was immaterial, in the face of the statute, that engine numbers may not be required on certificates of title and that the statute does not provide specifically that failure to make a reasonable inspection means knowledge. He thus acted at his peril, concluded the court, and could be deemed as having "knowledge" of the fact that the engine VIN was defaced.

BE CAREFUL, EVERYONE. WITH THE VALUE OF OUR CARS RISING, SUCH CONDUCT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS MALICIOUS AND FRAUDULENT.

^^^ Somebody has been doing some research!! Kudos to you Dave! :thumbsup:

I just hope that if I ever sell a car at BJ, that Craig and the boys work the bid up as aggressively as they did on the ZL1. I saved all of the Sat auction on my DVR. The car had CLEARLY stalled and Spanky was getting ready to hammer it sold when Craig Jackson(standing right next to Spanky) clearly said, "don't do it".

I watched that and thought that was not right also.

Dave, give credit where credit is due.
http://www.boss302.com/legal.htm
I had read that article over a year ago and found it very interesting. There is a more current one that I tried to find for you also.
You will notice the criminal intent on these cases. You also are reading the summary's. You can get more info on each of these. They are public information. As you read these cases you will notice the ones that go bad have deceptive intent. You will be amazed at what we would call deceptive that the courts will not. Especially if the buyer knows what he is getting.
Again, this car will not fall into that category.

He will have a better chance of showing something was not right with the auction.

I have said it on other threads. I would never buy a car that the trim tag had been removed even though many will justify it. For me, there is no reason. I have found the most car enthusiasts agree with me. I have found that those that justify it have done it. I don't justify trim tag removal and have never removed one. I just find the law of it interesting. If there was no grey area in the law, no one would make or sell trim tags. They do it legally. For me the law should be that they can not be sold and they can not be duplicated and they can NOT be removed. No confusion.

Does anyone know who the buyer of the ZL-1 is, and more importantly, does he know about the issues with this car?

Dale
I never attempted to take credit for all the research. There is a reference on the top of the page to Sam Mamola for the research.

Why is it that You cannot admit that you may be Wrong? It took me about 5 min of searching to find that. Do you really believe that the laws miraculously changed.

Here is the listing:
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj265/Dale8346/Copo.jpg

Dave,
You still don't get it. It has nothing to do with being wrong. It has to do with "interpretation" of the law.
My point has not changed if you read it. People keep saying that it is illegal to do it.
It is NOT as simple as, "it is illegal." I believe it should be TOTALLY ILLEGAL. But, it does not make a difference what I think (or you think). If you had this car and did what this guy did, it would not be illegal. These emotional debates get old fast. Have you discussed this with a lawyer?? Don't argue with me, I don't write or interpret the law. But when you keep telling me that it is TOTALLY illegal, and that a guy sold a $300,000 car in a public forum, you have to ask yourself, "How can they do this." They can do it because they did not break the law. It is called legal interpretation.

I have listened for a year on here how it is illegal to manufacturer or repo a Cowl tag.
It is not. You and I may not want it to be illegal, but it is not. And even though it is NOT illegal their are situations where it is. How do you get an old Vin on a new body??????????
You do it by not being deceptive. To us purists, this car is deceptive. To this guy paying $300,000 for this car, it is not. And, when he sells it for $500,000 in 10 years, you will still be wrong. And he won't be selling it from jail.

paDave what you posted above .. i wont quote the whole thing again but it said that removing a vin is ILLEGAL in most states ... most being the key word here... which are the states that dont care or not illegal in.

He is correct. Removing a vin is "Illegal" in most states.
What you call removing and a court of law call removing are two different things.
What you call tampering will be different also.
In a court of law he will have repaired his old rusted out body.
You can dislike me for our legal system, but I did not write it.
And you can emotionally say this guy can not do that, but he can AND DID.
The more interesting question, is "Why can he do it?"
Don't be mad at me, I am just trying to help people understand that it can and is done legally all the time.

Remember, OJ did not kill Denise Brown. Interpretation and proof.
If anyone gets it, just write that you do. Again, I don't write the laws and it does not make a difference how mad at me you get, I have nothing to do with it. Neither do you!

"... owned by Reggie Jackson"

My gut reaction to that statement has changed 180 degrees in the last six months.

Did you guys see this one from the HAN auction?

http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=139597&highlight=JL8

Yes,
They made Reggie get off the podium and go onto the floor. Rules!!
He decided that for what it was selling for, he wanted it again.
Someone else wanted it more.

He is correct. Removing a vin is "Illegal" in most states.
What you call removing and a court of law call removing are two different things.
What you call tampering will be different also.
In a court of law he will have repaired his old rusted out body.
You can dislike me for our legal system, but I did not write it.
And you can emotionally say this guy can not do that, but he can AND DID.
The more interesting question, is "Why can he do it?"
Don't be mad at me, I am just trying to help people understand that it can and is done legally all the time.

Remember, OJ did not kill Denise Brown. Interpretation and proof.
If anyone gets it, just write that you do. Again, I don't write the laws and it does not make a difference how mad at me you get, I have nothing to do with it. Neither do you!


You've made your point now 90 ways to Sunday. I thought you said "final words"?

Current owner/buyer of # 27 has called me. I WILL NOT reveal his name. He had not read any/most of the Camaros.net or Yenko.net threads. I went through my history of the #27 as I've previously written here.

The buyer was told by Holub (at the auction site) that he had documentation from Gibbs Chevrolet specifically on the #27. I never had any documentation when I owned the car.

Interested if any of the "experts" here can comment on the reality of someone with a Fred Gibbs background or contact, could have produced REAL/ORIGINAL documentation , or might any alledged documentation, have been created as was the car itself ???????

Thanks, Chuck

He does have original paperwork that came from the Gibb estate.Whether he got it from the Gibbs or elsewhere I don't know.Having the original docs I think is a mute point.

Current owner/buyer of # 27 has called me. I WILL NOT reveal his name. He had not read any/most of the Camaros.net or Yenko.net threads. I went through my history of the #27 as I've previously written here.

The buyer was told by Holub (at the auction site) that he had documentation from Gibbs Chevrolet specifically on the #27. I never had any documentation when I owned the car.

Interested if any of the "experts" here can comment on the reality of someone with a Fred Gibbs background or contact, could have produced REAL/ORIGINAL documentation , or might any alledged documentation, have been created as was the car itself ???????

Thanks, Chuck

Chuck,

I would love to know if he was surprised to hear your news and if he was under a different assumption as to what the car really is. Did you inform him that the body is still out there?

" I would love to know if he was surprised to hear your news and if he was under a different assumption as to what the car really is. Did you inform him that the body is still out there? "

Hylton, The buyer/gentleman was very cool and calm about the situation. I got the impression he is going to work toward a remedy with/from B/J.

WHAT makes anybody think/believe that the ORIGINAL #27 body (VIN-less, floorless) still exists "somewhere" ??? I cant prove anything, and wont offer any guesses, but in all these past 30 years, Ive never heard or seen anything, leading me to believe it still exists!!!!!!!!!

Chuck...Before Fred Gibb died he wrote a letter about each of the ZL1's he ordered, listing each vin. What he has is probably that letter. He also supplied a copy of a transit sheet to Gibb with the vin on it. And a new car inventory sheet.

I just hope that if I ever sell a car at BJ, that Craig and the boys work the bid up as aggressively as they did on the ZL1. I saved all of the Sat auction on my DVR. The car had CLEARLY stalled and Spanky was getting ready to hammer it sold when Craig Jackson(standing right next to Spanky) clearly said, "don't do it".

How would you liked to have been the high bidder at the time?

I remember it was first stalled at $150K??? I would have like to get it for that if it wasn’t illegitimate!

Craig Jackson Took the car right out of that bidder hands!!!! For a friend that was standing next to him on stage....

What happened to the You Tube video?

What happened to the You Tube video?

Click the white text in the red banner, not the play button.

YouTube - 1969 ZL-1 Camaro - Barrett-Jackson 2009

I normally do not get into these type moral/philosophical discussions, but I can't help it in this case. PLease help a redneck out..

If the description of the car that is posted in this thread is the actual one from BJ, then I believe it says twice that the car was rebodied. If this is truly the case then why in the devil would someone pay $200,000 plus for something that is admittedly tampered with?

Dale8346 with all respect I sure would like to know where you're getting your information from that swapping VINs while illegal, is generally not prosecuted. You seem VERY sure of yourself in your comments but have given NOTHING to back it up while others have posted actual LAWS that clearly say it is illegal in most states. What is your background ? Are you a lawyer, a cop ? Where do you get your information from ? I can only speak from personal experience about how it's done here in New Hampshire. In NH any vehicle over 15 years old does not need a title. However instead of a title what's used here is a VIN verification form on these older cars. I am licensed by the state of NH to perform state inspections (for the last 25 years) and one of my responsibilities is filling out and signing these forms. The only other people authorized to sign them is a NH State trooper. There are 3 boxes on the form that are labeled as follows. VIN appears to be "altered" "tampered with" or "missing" If I check off ANY of those boxes you will not only NOT get your car registered but you will most definatly get a visit from the State Police. If I sign the VIN verification form knowing the VIN has been swapped then I would very likely go to jail. Another of my responsibilities while doing a state inspection on a vehicle that does have a title is to carefully check the VIN for any signs of tampering including having the wrong rivets. If I find anything wrong I am supposed to reject the vehicle and inform DMV about the issue unless it's a simple thing like a typo on the registration ( 1 or 2 numbers off is allowable) Maybe we do things different here but if you build a kit car, custom motorcycle from new parts, or anything similar you will not even be given a state issued VIN unless you have reciepts for EVERY single part you used to build your vehicle. I apologise if my post comes across as being a little strong but you came here and basically said that everyone who says it's illegal to swap VIN numbers is full of crap but you give nothing at all to back up your statements.

John,

You will see you are totally wrong and you will look pretty silly. If you talk to a lawyer, you will find that you have to prove fraud, intent to fraud, theft, illegal sale of parts, etc. You can want it to be illegal all you want (as I would like also), but when you make comments like "Swapping VINs is illegal" you show your total lack of understanding.
No matter how much you and I want this B/J car to be one of them, it will not.


How can you not see nothing but fraud here. A ZL1 #27 tag was attached to increase the value of an otherwise base price camaro since it contains not one part of the original car. I agree with Chuck that it's a recreation or clone.:thumbsup:

I normally do not get into these type moral/philosophical discussions, but I can't help it in this case. PLease help a redneck out..

If the description of the car that is posted in this thread is the actual one from BJ, then I believe it says twice that the car was rebodied. If this is truly the case then why in the devil would someone pay $200,000 plus for something that is admittedly tampered with?


Because he was being mislead by CJ et al ,on stage. Notice in the video that nothing is mentioned about the car being rebodied. CJ goes on and on how it is 'the deal of the auction' and how he carries on about it being so cheap.

He may have docs. showing it came from Fred Gibb, And I don't think anyone disputes this. But for sure this car is no longer the original ZL1 delivered to Fred Gibb.
There was no mention of original drive train, numbers matching in the BJ ad. Just CJ saying that it was a "real car". They tipped toed all around the complete truth of this car.
I say to anyone who has ever bought a car from BJ buyer beware. CJ showed his true colors. I dvr all 6 days of the auction and I keep replaying the ZL1 over and over. I wonder if CJ has even watched the tape of him making a a$$ out of himself.
Think of all the past people who complained about cars auctioned to fast. Think about the convertible dodge that he found the engine to overseas, Think of any so called legit cars. And to top it all BJ took in over 10. million just in auctions.
The 2 green car auctions to me, should be enough to warn anyone, that is if anyone cares!


By the way does anyone have the mag The Barrett Jackson Experience from Jan. 2007 it has the red Baldwin or Foose car on the cover. It has a story on BJ's due diligents and more tip toeing. I tried to scan and copy but could not get it to post. I sure would like for you guys to read.

Remember, OJ did not kill Denise Brown. Interpretation and proof.

Dale,
You are absolutely right.....he killed his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson!!

Rick H.

Charley aka Clill.................

Interesting to know that there is/was Freb Gibb documents that speak specifically of #27.

The fact remains that the ORIGINAL #27 ceased to exist over 30 years ago.........and what everybody saw on Speedvison or at B/J is a recreation (aka) CLONE........

The buyer, while on the phone with me told me he believed that the engine was a "old school" , real, original ZL-1 engine.........

Charley, Was there, is there any conclusion from the "experts" on the history of the current #27 engine.........?????????

Chuck is right, the car is a CLONE. CJ even says during the auction when it was around 215K that 'this is the price that clones bring'........he is a better prophet than he thinks he is!

Chuck. I have no knowledge at all about the engine. I agree that the car is a clone. You guys are hanging Barrett-Jackson but they were supplied with the story that is in the catalog about much of the car being replaced blah blah blah. Did Chuck tell Barrett-Jackson his story firsthand ? Someone must have told them something at the last minute to make them add that it was a rebody and they did disclose it then. I was there at the auction and I never heard a thing about it being a rebody. There is still the mis information that it is a rebody. My interpretation of a rebody is what Chuck did years ago. He transferred all the parts and the vin to a different body. But according to Chuck, someone simply bought the vin tag off of the rebody and put it on a entirely new car. This car should sell for whatever a green clone would sell for. Maybe even less because of all the crap associated with it.

:)

Now I will go back to the sidelines and hopefully the story will have closure!

Actually both storie.....both green cars!!!




I should bring my car to BJ next year!

I can hear them now......

They only made one z convert...but this is not it.

But it’s got all the docs to prove it is.....so wait...umm.....it can’t be....ummmm.....

Were having a short circuit......

WTF is going on…….?

They must know what has been going on in this hobby!

BJ emphasizes on docs way to much....

Please don't!!! Only two saga's at a time!!!.

Please don't!!! Only two saga's at a time!!!.

Actually there is 3 - Bowtie Acres gold car is also being misrepresented.

Actually there is 3 - Bowtie Acres gold car is also being misrepresented.

Now there's another? I haven't seen anything about a gold car :confused:

I am amazed that you don't get it.
Oklahoma is not the only state that has that law.

Last words: Report the car!

Isn't it amazing that even when I want it to be illegal, and have been explained the law, that someone that knows nothing of the law or has not talked to a lawyer wants to act like I am an A.H. And, when they know that no one will go to jail, that they will still want to pick on me for the facts. I can not wait to here the follow up that Dr. JW will give us on all these people going to jail. Don't forget to do that, OK, Dr. JK. Like I said, emotion not facts.

Let me know when they do. Until they do, you are definitely wrong on your understanding of this car and the law.

bla bla bla bla ... Be careful ... you sound like you are going blow a head gasket with all the "emotion" displayed in your posts. Just trying to look out for a brother. :D

I am amazed that you don't get it.
Oklahoma is not the only state that has that law.

Did you actually read what Hylton posted? Pretty sure OK is the only state with a trim tag (not VIN) law, unless other states have adapted it recently :confused:

The RJ BJ ZL1 is slightly better than a 'clone'.. A clone would be someone building a 'lookalike' ZL1 using original, or facsimile parts, and a standard camaro to make it *appear* to be a ZL1 but without any 'numbers' to back it up.... Everyone would know it was a clone.

This case is similar to the above... they built a clone, but. dropped the *real number VIN* on top of it... so as far as it being a ZL1... it looks like it.. it 'reads' like it. but. it's FRAUD....

OR.. they could advertise is as a beautiful prepared ZL1 clone with a REAL ZL1 VIN plate....?

I agree with the above. To me, no one is trying to deceive a buyer with a car that is touted as a "clone". It is just a car that was built to look like something it originally was not. Maybe to try to up the selling price, or maybe just because the owner likes the look of the SS, or ZL1, or Yenko options. You are in an entirely different category when you start VIN swapping, or representing the car as original "with a little sheet metal work".

This car was never advertised as a clone. It was advertised as an original car that had metal work done that they thought some would call a rebody. Not even close IMO.

uh guys... you're beating your chests awfully hard here.
I do agree this car is a fraud, but it's pretty darned hard to have a crime without a victim, and I sure don't see one here in "Camaro court" complaining about this.

This car has been known for what it is for a while, certainly since Reggie was selling it.

Now the one last year, where 2 copo's with the same VIN came to light, now that was a crime.
But even then, there were no victims to be found.

There are different levels of rebody. At one end you can have an original but rusted or cut up ZL1 in the garage along side a doner car and you save as much as the original car as possible. At the other end of the scale, you just jack up the vin tag and drive a doner car under it.

This Camaro story has a new twist since it is the first "double rebody" I heard of since the vin plate was on 3 cars.

Maybe even less because of all the crap associated with it.

Maybe we're adding to the value. It's a "celebrity" car now :D !

I just watched the video again, and at the end, it was apparent to me that the poor guy who won the auction really thought he was getting a great deal on the car. I guess that is open for debate now.:rolleyes: Just out of curiosity, how much would it cost him to have the identical car built from a 6-cyl body, using a real ZL1 engine and components, etc.? Everything except the transplanted VIN, and maybe the Reggie front license plate and incorrect Yenko sticker on the valve cover. Subtract this from the selling price, and this is the number that I would try to reach in a settlement with BJ or the seller. Unless you want to put that much of a premium on the VIN, and of course, the Reggie front license plate!:p

On saterday afternoon there was a blue Zl1 clone sold for 70 grand + 10%. The guy selling the car said it had one of the original 75 GM blocks ?
This car was really nice!

uh guys... you're beating your chests awfully hard here.
I do agree this car is a fraud, but it's pretty darned hard to have a crime without a victim, and I sure don't see one here in "Camaro court" complaining about this.

This car has been known for what it is for a while, certainly since Reggie was selling it.

Now the one last year, where 2 copo's with the same VIN came to light, now that was a crime.
But even then, there were no victims to be found.

Certainly there is no victim that has come to light as far as the reaches of this site go. We don't know what is happening in the private world of the fellow that bought the car. Maybe he knows by now and maybe not.

On saterday afternoon there was a blue Zl1 clone sold for 70 grand + 10%. The guy selling the car said it had one of the original 75 GM blocks ?
This car was really nice!

yeah and I've got a pair of "thick steel" wheels for an altered wheelbase MOPAR A/FX'er, you know, because they used to do wheelies so easy!!

Chuck said the guy has contacted him, so he's aware of the controversy. He asked Chuck not to reveal the contents of their conversation, but I suspect he's seeking retribution.

If you know anything about Chuck, you know he is very precise. When he asks questions, he uses words like "what product, exactly did you use for..." or, "precisely, how did you..." etc. It's annoying sometimes, but all he wants is accurate and precise information. He is also very detailed when he provides information. When he says, "It happened this way...." I, for one, believe him. The easy thing to do is to keep his mouth shut, but he did not choose that route. He has no financial dog in this fight, but he wants to make sure the facts are revealed, and inaccuracies are exposed.

I cant prove anything, and wont offer any guesses, but in all these past 30 years, Ive never heard or seen anything, leading me to believe it still exists!!!!!!!!!

Hey Chuck,
I would probably go the other way and believe chances are the car is gone....30 years ago, people did not save floorless, VIN-less heaps of old Camaros...they re-bodied them and scrapped the shell!!! Just because you have not heard anything, I would not assume the car still exists. I have personally scrapped/had crushed over 100 early Camaros back in the day. Not one did I contact a prior owner to inform them of the fate of thier former cars!!! jmo Max

Chuck said the original ZL1 body was sold or given away and was a "gutted out floorless body with rollcage, etc."

So if the car still had the rollcage and modified frame rails someone may have saved it and made a race car out of it or a Pro Street style Camaro.
With the power of the internet maybe it can be found?

If all 3 cars ("restored" ZL1, red race car, and original ZL1) can be found and original engine can be found (some ZL1 engines have been) you can put together a good ZL1.

It is a long shot, but that would be a great Camaro story and a real ZL1 would be saved.

Chuck, can you give a better description of the original body the last time you saw it?
Did it still have the trim tag and 2 hidden vins on it?
When you say complete floor was gone do you mean just the rear seat and trunk floor or did the guy rip out the front floor also? Was the modified rear frame work complete?

Carrol Street Auto in Manchester NH had one of the original Camaro VIN numbered ZL-1 engines that they bought from a good friend of mine (now passed away). The rumor I heard was that Carrol St Auto then sold it to someone at the Carlisle PA swap meet a couple years ago. My buddy had bought it from an ad in Hemmings several years ago from a guy who had it in a Cobra kit car. He paid 10k back then and the number I heard when it was sold in Carlisle was 30k. Wonder what the VIN was...

Chuck, can you give a better description of the original body the last time you saw it?
Did it still have the trim tag and 2 hidden vins on it?
When you say complete floor was gone do you mean just the rear seat and trunk floor or did the guy rip out the front floor also? Was the modified rear frame work complete?

I really cant remember the condition of the body when I sold it to John C in North Seattle. I cant rememeber if and how much of the Thayne Porlier rollcage, race car rear frame, etc etc was there ????????

I just KNOW I removed every possible G.M. part, that I used to build the multi colored C/SM drag car with

As best I can remember (30+ years) I ONLY removed the VIN tag from the ORIGINAL #27 ZL-1.

I did not cut out any cowl or firewall stamped VIN #'s. I did not remove the trim tag as I was not trying to build another ZL-1 or make anybody think it was the same body. I merely wanted a new race car with a WASH state title and matching VIN.

Had I not switched the ZL-1 VIN, I suppose I would have had to go through the WASH State Patrol and been issued one of those rebuilder special vin tags with a branded title.

At that point in time, it seemed so simple and easy to do what I did...............

Yes he did bid then retract it. I have never seen bj let a retraction happen. Also I would have to believe Reggie knew it was a rebody. HE USED TO OWN IT!!! Plus car was so hyped by BJ it also had a reggie front license plate on it.

I've reviewed the video to verify my recollection of what happened on the auction block right in front of me.

Reggie Jackson did NOT retract his last bid. Reggie was saying no, but the auction ringman, Tom Johnson, misinterpreted his hand movement as a bid, and turned away to signal it to the auctioneer. Reggie IMMEDIATELY corrected him, and the errant bid increase was taken down.

There was no bid retraction.

To your final point, a seller can put any front or rear plate he wants on his vehicle. In the staging lane, they put a B-J paper plate over it unless the seller tells them not to.

Glad you all liked the Geo. Washington's hatchet analogy... that one always sparks a good deal of debate, :yes: and :noway:.
Mike Joy
SPEED TV

I cant prove anything, and wont offer any guesses, but in all these past 30 years, Ive never heard or seen anything, leading me to believe it still exists!!!!!!!!!

Hey Chuck,
I would probably go the other way and believe chances are the car is gone....30 years ago, people did not save floorless, VIN-less heaps of old Camaros...they re-bodied them and scrapped the shell!!! Just because you have not heard anything, I would not assume the car still exists. I have personally scrapped/had crushed over 100 early Camaros back in the day. Not one did I contact a prior owner to inform them of the fate of thier former cars!!! jmo Max

If this is the business that you are engaged to do, then thats what you do. No questions asked. You have pretty much stated you have no feelings for the cars. Enough said.

Many thanks to Chuck & Mike for enlighting us from your perspectives. While most of us don't have a personal interest in this specific deal, especially in this day of legal ease, it's really nice to see that we as passionate hobbiest can get answers to the questions that arise out of a special interest car.

Charlie 69 Camaro RS
70 Challenger

Hey Chuck,
I would probably go the other way and believe chances are the car is gone....30 years ago, people did not save floorless, VIN-less heaps of old Camaros...they re-bodied them and scrapped the shell!!! Just because you have not heard anything, I would not assume the car still exists. I have personally scrapped/had crushed over 100 early Camaros back in the day. Not one did I contact a prior owner to inform them of the fate of thier former cars!!! jmo Max


If this is the business that you are engaged to do, then thats what you do. No questions asked. You have pretty much stated you have no feelings for the cars. Enough said.

In my statement, I did not talk about my first 67 Camaro that I bought when I was 15 years old ...and I did not write about the over 100 early Camaros that I have owned and either restored or sold or the Camaro and parts collection that I currently own. I feel that I saved many great parts from rusted out/wrecked heaps of Camaros that would have been scrapped. Im sure many hundreds of Camaro parts are still in use because of me!!! I dont think it is fair to say I dont have feelings for these cars. Actually 100% just the opposite!! Now enough said!!

I didn't watch the show in question, but I have heard of someone buying the VIN tag of some guys ZL1 drag car and using it to "restore" a vehicle. No idea if this is the same car or not as I heard about this years ago. We should all know better about buying these cars, even if someone reputable is involved. Money brings the worst out in people folks.