The Bullit charger is back for 700k less

[Ghoste]

 

[tan top]

    

[myk]

 

[Brock Lee]

The way I see it is if he wanted to sell it or even just display it as one of the originals, Why did he cover the holes up?

And why drill them in the first place? Since his only proof is pics showing the locations of the camera mounting holes can he also prove it wasn't he who drilled the holes, took some pics of them and then restored the car?

Exactly! It wasn't like this car came out to the world and had unknown extra holes that later were identified by an old photo. I also felt the holes looked way too clean. It was the only real "evidence" it was the same car. Has there been any proof the the original was not factory black? In those behind the scenes pics with the trunk lid off the car it sure looks nicely detailed for a movie studio job.

[myk]

Probably been asked before, but wouldn't the studio have some form of documentation indicating the particulars of the cars they bought for the movie, as in recepits or whatever with a VIN or something? 

[Ghoste]

With all the receipts for every item on every movie can imagine trying to find that piece of paper if they did save it?

[tan top]

Probably been asked before, but wouldn't the studio have some form of documentation indicating the particulars of the cars they bought for the movie, as in recepits or whatever with a VIN or something?  

With all the receipts for every item on every movie can imagine trying to find that piece of paper if they did save it?

thought about that before  , cars vin for insurance purposes , could work for vanishing point  & DMCL too ,  don't even have to go to the studio documents only need the  film sets insurance company I would of thought    although i'm just guessing , got no idea how it works  

[Tilar]

On one site where he talks about the car he writes:

"I also contacted Warner Brothers Archive Division and provided the PowerPoint slideshow to them.  They responded that all their historical archive documents have been lost/destroyed. "

So with no known documentation from Warner Brothers, there is nothing physical to dispute his claim

[Ghoste]

Nor is there to back it up.

[Tilar]

Exactly. He was at the nationals a couple years ago and believe me he is more than happy to try to convince you that it's the real Bullitt car, almost to the point that he's overbearing.

[myk]

On one site where he talks about the car he writes:

"I also contacted Warner Brothers Archive Division and provided the PowerPoint slideshow to them.  They responded that all their historical archive documents have been lost/destroyed. "

So with no known documentation from Warner Brothers, there is nothing physical to dispute his claim

Some people have balls of steel; if I had a claim like his I wouldn't open my mouth unless I had irrefutable proof.  Look at it this way: how does HE know it's the real car if there isn't a shred of evidence he can provide?

[ws23rt]

If this is one of the cars used in the movie and it is being offered for sale as that than why has all the original patina been removed?

Isn't it the case that true historical items have their value in large part because of the evidence of originality.

If an original daytona race winning charger were to be restored to factory street daytona class I would think it's value would be diminished.

But I am always amazed at what this market will bring

A reality check is that if this car does sell for silly money it does not change the world we live in. It only means someone had a weak moment with extra money. Sellers out there beware---finding these folks is like winning the lottery

[bull]

If this is one of the cars used in the movie and it is being offered for sale as that than why has all the original patina been removed?

Isn't it the case that true historical items have their value in large part because of the evidence of originality.

Yup. That's what they say on Pawn Stars.

[Mike DC]

Isn't it the case that true historical items have their value in large part because of the evidence of originality.

This is America.  We recognize two possible conditions for material things: #1 looking brand new, and #2 being carelessly neglected.  We do not understand the concept of anything in between.

[1974dodgecharger]

Leave the old man alone he is a fellow arizizonian....

[Ghoste]

Isn't the guy selling the Hurricane Sandy Charger as well? 

[Tilar]

It doesn't matter where he's from. If he were my next door neighbor I would call him out on it. Coincidences are not proof of anything. I'm not saying this is NOT the car, but I see nothing proving beyond doubt that it is either.

[Cooter]

It doesn't matter where he's from. If he were my next door neighbor I would call him out on it. Coincidences are not proof of anything. I'm not saying this is NOT the car, but I see nothing proving beyond doubt that it is either.

AMEN!! If he can't prove it with documentation, its a clone at best imo. Even if I can't prove him wrong. Its NOT my job to prove him wrong, he's the one asking ignorant money for a car he can't prove exists....sorry.

[Ghoste]

Well said!!

[Dino]

It's so nice to see you boys get along from time to time.   

[Brock Lee]

Isn't it the case that true historical items have their value in large part because of the evidence of originality.

This is America.  We recognize two possible conditions for material things: #1 looking brand new, and #2 being carelessly neglected.  We do not understand the concept of anything in between.

I partly agree. If he had solid, unquestionable proof the car is the Bullitt car, I think the resto is fine. However, lacking that proof, it should not have been touched. Why? Because any possible remainders of evidence had to be present for possible verification in the event any other pictures of film surface of this car.

A great example is he is asked why the trunk pan has no holes in it. He says "It had them, but I had to cut it out in the resto". Now we just have to take his word for it. Now he can use the restoration excuse to cover any possible differences between this car and photos that surface of the car used in the movie. That kills a whole lot of interest.

[XS29L9Bxxxxxx]

AMEN!! If he can't prove it with documentation, its a clone at best imo. Even if I can't prove him wrong. Its NOT my job to prove him wrong, he's the one asking ignorant money for a car he can't prove exists....sorry.

[Bob Hanner]

Evidently he's expecting a rich dummy to get suckered in, and there aren't too many rich dummies out there who like Chargers/Bullitt. All the rich dummies in this country drive Priuses.

He can always call Bubba Watson, The rich dummy who got suckered into buying Lee 1.

[Mike DC]

I partly agree. If he had solid, unquestionable proof the car is the Bullitt car, I think the resto is fine. However, lacking that proof, it should not have been touched. Why? Because any possible remainders of evidence had to be present for possible verification in the event any other pictures of film surface of this car.

A great example is he is asked why the trunk pan has no holes in it. He says "It had them, but I had to cut it out in the resto". Now we just have to take his word for it. Now he can use the restoration excuse to cover any possible differences between this car and photos that surface of the car used in the movie. That kills a whole lot of interest.

I'd probably split the difference here, and say it was okay to restore any areas on the car that obviously have all the history gone (exterior paint for example), and left alone whatever might still have history.  

He should have photographed the heck out of the unrestored car before taking it apart.  That would help.  




In the end I think it boils down to the credibility of the current owner/restorer and the backstory on the car.  The owner might have a reputation for being very honest or dishonest, for example.

Everyone is looking for some link to the Bullitt car . . . what about just chasing down the car's more recent owners?  What about the guy who sold it to the current guy?  What if he says the current owner was keenly interested in all the build/dealership data on the car before buying it?    What if the previous owners are sure those holes weren't there, or perhaps even have photos which prove they weren't?  I mean, if you can prove ONE of those holes wasn't on the car all the way back to 1968 then the entire story is blown. 
 

[Ghoste]

Hmm, makes me wonder how forthcoming he would be on the prior history of the car as he knows it.