68 HEMI CHARGER ON EBAY

cdr · February 03, 2015, 03:54:54 PM

Galen says the vin has been changed but still a j code car.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Dodge-Charger-R-T-1968-426-hemi-dodge-charger-r-t-export-car-authenticated-j-code-/281577764542?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item418f57b6be&vxp=mtr

Q: Hello: My first question is about the VIN change that Galen reported. Do you know how and/or why this was done? What makes him say that it was done? As you know, a changed/replaced/modified VIN can be a problem in many states. Secondly, although not necessary, I'd bid stronger if you were willing to take a trade. Probably the two candidates would be a stunning survivor '69 Camaro Z28 or a '65 Pontiac GTO convertible in black with white buckets, loaded including factory AC (rare on a conv.) PS, PB, sport wheels, power gauge, and much more. I can send photos and more details if you'd consider either one on trade. If not, I wont' clutter your inbox with that stuff till you decide. Cheers, Mike Jan-31-15
A: At some point in this cars life the original vin plate was lost. Galen noted that the vin had been replaced. The vin has been installed with the original style rivits. He verified that it is a true XS29J8B car which is what corresponds on the vin. The only part of the vin that he thought was not accurate were the last 4 digits, but he said it still was a true "J" code Hemi car and documented it in his authenticity paperwork. In 1968 the last numbers of the vin have nothing to do with the body numbers. The body numbers which are on the car, are located on the fender tag in 1968. He noted the fender tag is original and codes as a 426 hemi car, plus he took photos and noted the correct hemi torque boxes, etc on the car. Thanks for the inquiry.

charger_fan_4ever · February 03, 2015, 04:00:26 PM

moparnation74 · February 03, 2015, 04:10:51 PM

I know the owner of this car. He lives about 15mins from me. I have seen this car in person and it is a beautiful ride.

The motor is a crate hemi.

tan top · February 03, 2015, 05:18:00 PM

**** EDIT*** I originally posted

the wrong screen capture of Ebay AD ,showing a XP vin charger !! , now corrected !! 4th picture ! sorry if it caused any confusion

tan top · February 03, 2015, 05:18:43 PM

tan top · February 03, 2015, 05:19:28 PM

tan top · February 03, 2015, 05:26:34 PM

tan top · February 03, 2015, 05:27:54 PM

tan top · February 03, 2015, 05:30:58 PM

TUFCAT · February 03, 2015, 05:31:47 PM

I have to

because that's such a stunning and beautiful color combo car

I love everything about it.......(well maybe not the blue spark plug wires).

Its obviously had a very expensive professional restoration with a Govier inspection but....

How do you translate this VIN thing? It makes no sense?

Is the seller saying this is a real '68 Hemi Charger that's wearing a vin from another real '68 Hemi Charger?

****
"Up for sale is a REAL 1968 426 Hemi "J" code Charger R/T. This car has been decoded and verified by Galen Govier. I have his authentication paperwork on the car".

"At some point in this cars life the original vin plate was lost. Galen noted that the vin had been replaced. The vin has been installed with the original style rivits. He verified that it is a true XS29J8B car which is what corresponds on the vin".

"The only part of the vin that he thought was not accurate were the last 4 digits, but he said it still was a true "J" code Hemi car and documented it in his authenticity paperwork".

"In 1968 the last numbers of the vin have nothing to do with the body numbers. The body numbers which are on the car, are located on the fender tag in 1968. He noted the fender tag is original and codes as a 426 hemi car, plus he took photos and noted the correct hemi torque boxes, etc on the car. Thanks for the inquiry".

TUFCAT · February 03, 2015, 07:24:03 PM

I went to the ebay auction page and clicked to enlarge the fender tag photos. I saw the RR1 Burgundy paint code and CGW white interior.

tan top · February 03, 2015, 07:28:28 PM

Quote from: TUFCAT on February 03, 2015, 07:24:03 PM
I went to the ebay auction page and clicked to enlarge the fender tag photos. I saw the RR1 Burgundy paint code and CGW white interior.

MxRacer855 · February 03, 2015, 07:41:41 PM

Beautiful car! I love the white interior.

ws23rt · February 03, 2015, 07:42:47 PM

I appreciate how the seller included the information he has about the vin.
My question is about the "body codes" not matching the vin. My understanding is/was that the last numbers on the vin should match the body stamping and the fender tag. (as it is in 69). If this is not true in 68 then I just learned something new.

"In 68 the last numbers of the vin have nothing to do with the body numbers"

Did that quote come from the seller? Did it come from Galen?

Galen said the vin. had been replaced and the last four digits were not accurate.

How can it be known-- if the last numbers of the vin have nothing to do with the body numbers?

moparnation74 · February 03, 2015, 07:52:16 PM

Quote from: ws23rt on February 03, 2015, 07:42:47 PM
I appreciate how the seller included the information he has about the vin.
My question is about the "body codes" not matching the vin. My understanding is/was that the last numbers on the vin should match the body stamping and the fender tag. (as it is in 69). If this is not true in 68 then I just learned something new.

"In 68 the last numbers of the vin have nothing to do with the body numbers"

Did that quote come from the seller? Did it come from Galen?

Galen said the vin. had been replaced and the last four digits were not accurate.
How can it be known-- if the last numbers of the vin have nothing to do with the body numbers?

68 is different than 69 as stated above.

In 68 the body numbers match the FT and the only way to link that to the VIN is via the broadcast sheet.

ws23rt · February 03, 2015, 08:00:09 PM

Quote from: moparnation74 on February 03, 2015, 07:52:16 PM
Quote from: ws23rt on February 03, 2015, 07:42:47 PM
I appreciate how the seller included the information he has about the vin.
My question is about the "body codes" not matching the vin. My understanding is/was that the last numbers on the vin should match the body stamping and the fender tag. (as it is in 69). If this is not true in 68 then I just learned something new.

"In 68 the last numbers of the vin have nothing to do with the body numbers"

Did that quote come from the seller? Did it come from Galen?

Galen said the vin. had been replaced and the last four digits were not accurate.
How can it be known-- if the last numbers of the vin have nothing to do with the body numbers?

68 is different than 69 as stated above.

In 68 the body numbers match the FT and the only way to link that to the VIN is via the broadcast sheet.

I saw no mention of a broadcast sheet. If their was one then that could explain how Galen determined the vin to be inaccurate. If their was no broadcast sheet how would he know?

moparnation74 · February 03, 2015, 08:02:37 PM

Quote from: ws23rt on February 03, 2015, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: moparnation74 on February 03, 2015, 07:52:16 PM
Quote from: ws23rt on February 03, 2015, 07:42:47 PM
I appreciate how the seller included the information he has about the vin.
My question is about the "body codes" not matching the vin. My understanding is/was that the last numbers on the vin should match the body stamping and the fender tag. (as it is in 69). If this is not true in 68 then I just learned something new.

"In 68 the last numbers of the vin have nothing to do with the body numbers"

Did that quote come from the seller? Did it come from Galen?

Galen said the vin. had been replaced and the last four digits were not accurate.
How can it be known-- if the last numbers of the vin have nothing to do with the body numbers?

68 is different than 69 as stated above.

In 68 the body numbers match the FT and the only way to link that to the VIN is via the broadcast sheet.

I saw no mention of a broadcast sheet. If their was one then that could explain how Galen determined the vin to be inaccurate. If their was no broadcast sheet how would he know?

If there is no broadcast sheet, then there is no link. All you have is a VIN and a FT at that point.

Mytur Binsdirti · February 03, 2015, 08:07:12 PM

Time to nitpick......

Radiator cap
+ cable
- cable
No transmission cooler
funky headlight hoses
Breather hose too long
missing antifreeze decal
missing the heater hose bracket on the alternator
Wrong fan clutch (from another photo)
wrong water pump housing

ws23rt · February 03, 2015, 08:10:25 PM

If a vin tag was generated without the benefit of a broadcast sheet or other information such as title or registration the last digits need to come from somewhere.
If they are selected at random then they could very well end up matching another car.

ws23rt · February 03, 2015, 08:12:20 PM

Is the fuel line behind the radiator hose correct for 68?

moparnation74 · February 03, 2015, 08:17:42 PM

Quote from: ws23rt on February 03, 2015, 08:10:25 PM
If a vin tag was generated without the benefit of a broadcast sheet or other information such as title or registration the last digits need to come from somewhere.
If they are selected at random then they could very well end up matching another car.

The last time I saw this car was several years ago. Unfortunately, I didn't dig deeper into the originality of it. The VIN plate has a "J" on it. Whether it is a repop or from another car I do not know. That may be why a pic of the VIN is not listed. As far as paperwork, I wish I asked at the time if he had a BS. He may but I do not know.

Just 6T9 CHGR · February 03, 2015, 08:29:19 PM

Quote from: Mytur Binsdirti on February 03, 2015, 08:07:12 PM
Time to nitpick......

Radiator cap
+ cable
- cable
No transmission cooler
funky headlight hoses
Breather hose too long
missing antifreeze decal
missing the heater hose bracket on the alternator
Wrong fan clutch (from another photo)
wrong water pump housing

Looks like the wrong MC as well...A Body maybe?

At least its a Mopar battery

Mytur Binsdirti · February 03, 2015, 08:38:08 PM

Quote from: ws23rt on February 03, 2015, 08:12:20 PM
Is the fuel line behind the radiator hose correct for 68?

The fuel lines look correct, but the shape of the upper hose is not.

Mytur Binsdirti · February 03, 2015, 08:40:17 PM

Quote from: Just 6T9 CHGR on February 03, 2015, 08:29:19 PM
Quote from: Mytur Binsdirti on February 03, 2015, 08:07:12 PM
Time to nitpick......

Radiator cap
+ cable
- cable
No transmission cooler
funky headlight hoses
Breather hose too long
missing antifreeze decal
missing the heater hose bracket on the alternator
Wrong fan clutch (from another photo)
wrong water pump housing

Looks like the wrong MC as well...A Body maybe?

At least its a Mopar battery

The master cylinder would be correct for a disc brake car, but it's most likely an aftermarket one. No public law decal on the door jamb either.

TUFCAT · February 03, 2015, 08:53:56 PM

Quote from: ws23rt on February 03, 2015, 08:00:09 PM

I saw no mention of a broadcast sheet. If their was one then that could explain how Galen determined the vin to be inaccurate. If their was no broadcast sheet how would he know?

The only thing I can think off is this VIN number flagged somewhere else within his registry. Over the last 40+ years Galen's registry includes information on dead hemi cars in junkyards, fields, you name it....

For those who don't want to submit information, or believe in the power of a registry (Galen's or otherwise) here's more proof that its a very good thing.

ws23rt · February 03, 2015, 09:15:36 PM

Quote from: TUFCAT on February 03, 2015, 08:53:56 PM
Quote from: ws23rt on February 03, 2015, 08:00:09 PM

I saw no mention of a broadcast sheet. If their was one then that could explain how Galen determined the vin to be inaccurate. If their was no broadcast sheet how would he know?

The only thing I can think off is this VIN number flagged somewhere else within his registry. Over the last 40+ years Galen's registry includes dead hemi cars in junkyards, fields, you name it....

For those who don't want to submit information, or believe in the power of a registry (Galen's or otherwise) here's proof that its a very good thing.

Thanks for that

Let's suppose a situation came up where a vin. tag was needed and a number to be chosen. I would think the mind doing this would be interested in whether the number was already taken.

Even with a registry to check there is a possibility that a number chosen could conflict with a car that still exists that is not yet accounted for.---Am I missing something?

TUFCAT · February 03, 2015, 09:29:27 PM

I've always support the facts. In this case there's only 264 Hemi/Auto '68 Chargers built according to Govier. 22 Canadian and 3 export Hemi Chargers total. That's enough cars to keep track of in my opinion.

6bblgt · February 04, 2015, 04:57:37 AM

Where to start?
Every aspect of who?, what?, when?, where?, why? a car was built was done to procedures developed by Chrysler Corp. - there is a reason for everything. AND There are also known exceptions to some procedures.
NO NUMBERS ARE RANDOM WITH NO PURPOSE!!
Obviously, any existing historical documentation (connected to this car) with a VIN on it different than the one presented on this car would make GG's conclusions accurate I would hazard a guess that none exist.

based on claims in the auction:
the VIN tag attached to the car is a reproduction with a non-authentic sequence number (wouldn't this be some form of VIN fraud, isn't making alterations to a VIN tag ILLEGAL?)
how does one end up with a clear title with a VIN number on it that is NOT correct?

myk · February 04, 2015, 05:46:34 AM

Shouldn't have a clear title, if that's the case...

Ghoste · February 04, 2015, 06:35:36 AM

Could it be a rebody?

sdweatherman · February 04, 2015, 07:04:55 AM

Quote from: Ghoste on February 04, 2015, 06:35:36 AM
Could it be a rebody?

Supposedly the VON on the original fender tag matches the body stampings (remember we are dealing with a 68), but the VIN tag was missing. With the original drivetrain gone and no paperwork whatsoever, recovering the actual VIN is impossible. But the original fender tag does have the SPD on it, which is April 10th. So looking at a 68 database of cars that were built on April 10th, one could come up with a random VIN number that fits the SPD. Example - Cars built on April 10th have sequence number that range from 8B423457 to 8B424804 (I made these up - I don't have a 68 charger database - yet). So pick a number like 423896 and you are good to go. Your new VIN falls within the range of VINs that were built on April 10th, and chances of that particular sequence number being another hemi car are slim to none. Good to Go!

moparnation74 · February 04, 2015, 08:19:52 AM

Quote from: sdweatherman on February 04, 2015, 07:04:55 AM
Quote from: Ghoste on February 04, 2015, 06:35:36 AM
Could it be a rebody?
Supposedly the VON on the original fender tag matches the body stampings (remember we are dealing with a 68), but the VIN tag was missing. With the original drivetrain gone and no paperwork whatsoever, recovering the actual VIN is impossible. But the original fender tag does have the SPD on it, which is April 10th. So looking at a 68 database of cars that were built on April 10th, one could come up with a random VIN number that fits the SPD. Example - Cars built on April 10th have sequence number that range from 8B423457 to 8B424804 (I made these up - I don't have a 68 charger database - yet). So pick a number like 423896 and you are good to go. Your new VIN falls within the range of VINs that were built on April 10th, and chances of that particular sequence number being another hemi car are slim to none. Good to Go!

Correct. I have seen this car in person. I wish I paid closer attention. The claim around Dallas has always been that it is a hemi car. You very rarely ever see the car. I think the VIN is a repop with the sequence number as noted above. The VIN has a J and the plate looked real.

Old Moparz · February 04, 2015, 08:25:16 AM

Beautiful looking car, you don't see that maroon color as often as you used to.

Now whether it was an original Hemi car or not, to me this is no different than buying a 318 Charger with a crate Hemi in it & a VIN tag swap.

73rallye440magnum · February 04, 2015, 10:26:30 AM

Quote from: Mytur Binsdirti on February 03, 2015, 08:07:12 PM
Time to nitpick......

Radiator cap
+ cable
- cable
No transmission cooler
funky headlight hoses
Breather hose too long
missing antifreeze decal
missing the heater hose bracket on the alternator
Wrong fan clutch (from another photo)
wrong water pump housing

Take a peek at the paint coverage on the frame rails in the photo showing the engine install. Nothing to write home about.

Nice color combo but I think it received an average quality driver 'resto'

Nothing wrong with that though.

I'd love to own it!

Mytur Binsdirti · February 05, 2015, 05:26:10 PM

It's up to $101,855.00. Why do I suspect shill bidding?

73rallye440magnum · February 06, 2015, 08:33:32 AM

Could be the blue spark plug wires?

TUFCAT · February 06, 2015, 02:49:39 PM

The seller replied via EBay. Based on the information he provided, the status of the original VIN number still must be questioned. I'm not sure what "other type" of information could be provided to avoid the conclusion this VIN is not original/or from a different car? Whatever the missing link is, the seller obviously isn't telling... $:-\$ I'm amazed at the huge price bid (currently $111,220.00). For that much coin, nobody should have to play the "guess the VIN" shell game...

No build sheet. Here are photos of the Galen Authentication paperwork. (Note: photo provided was a copy of Galen's fender tag decoding sheet which provided no additional VIN information)

There are many more pages with more details from Galen verifying this car true Export with notation to possibly Stuttgart, Germany- near military base 426 hemi charger. I have attached photos of the fender tag and vin off the car and on the car. (note: The last six digits of the VIN was covered up in both photos provided)

There is another tag that I have that Galen notates was placed on the car when it actually went overseas. (note: was not shown)

F8-4life · February 06, 2015, 03:44:43 PM

Could you get a hemi or 440 Rt without the strip in '68?

Troy · February 06, 2015, 04:16:46 PM

Quote from: F8-4life on February 06, 2015, 03:44:43 PM
Could you get a hemi or 440 Rt without the strip in '68?

Absolutely. Both of my R/Ts are stripe delete.

Troy

F8-4life · February 06, 2015, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: Troy on February 06, 2015, 04:16:46 PM
Quote from: F8-4life on February 06, 2015, 03:44:43 PM
Could you get a hemi or 440 Rt without the strip in '68?
Absolutely. Both of my R/Ts are stripe delete.

Troy

Nice, it looks very classy without the strip.

TUFCAT · February 06, 2015, 09:57:10 PM

Is the consensus to avoid calling this a VIN replacement/Rebody because it present so nicely?

This has been fundamentally been presented as a hemi car with no real documentation except a fender tag. The VIN is even questioned by the experts.

For the current eBay bid $117,970 big dollars.... shouldn't one expect an undisputed VIN number to go along with their hemi purchase...? shruggy

moparnation74 · February 06, 2015, 10:01:31 PM

Quote from: TUFCAT on February 06, 2015, 09:57:10 PM
Is the consensus to avoid calling this a VIN replacement/Rebody because it present so nicely?

This has been fundamentally been presented as a hemi car with no real documentation except a fender tag. The VIN is even questioned by the experts.

For the current eBay bid $117,970 big dollars.... shouldn't one expect an undisputed VIN number to go along with their hemi purchase...?

Based on the current information/documentation presented by the owner and or lack of, I will consider it a Rebody, no matter how presentable it is.

ws23rt · February 06, 2015, 10:54:43 PM

If I was buying this car I would not consider it a "numbers matching car"

The term "numbers matching" is tossed around a lot but for me it means all documenting numbers that it came with are present and original.

This whole conversation about originality gets clouded when the car is stripped to the bones and remade as it was. Is this not the same as a rebody?

It's actually rather odd when one thinks about a few little dents in some metal parts being worth perhaps thousands of dollars.

I personally would be drawn with much greater interest to an unrestored original ("survivor") than a car that looks like all the rest of the better than new. BTW those better than new cars (if they were all done right) would all be exactly the same accept for the number dents.

In the case of this car I appreciate that it's vin. number history is not hidden. That's what we and future owners need to know.

cdr · February 06, 2015, 11:50:58 PM

Based on the current information/documentation presented by the owner and or lack of, I will consider it a Rebody, no matter how presentable it is.
[/quote] moparnation74

TUFCAT · February 07, 2015, 12:17:14 AM

We've been prancing around this like a bunch of high school cheerleaders. So let's get down to facts. It's a rebody with an erroneous VIN.

Anyone here with a different opinion?

......

Jeesh, I really didn't expect this much silence.

charger_fan_4ever · February 07, 2015, 12:43:53 AM

Do the fender tags on 68's have the engine code ?

If the 68 tag does have a code for the engine in this case a hemi and the VON # matchs the body IE the trunk gutter hasn't been sectioned in to a donor body. One would tend to believe its a hemi body. Why someone would tamper with the VIN tag, but leave fender tag seems odd to me unless it was stolen once upon a time ?

TUFCAT · February 07, 2015, 12:54:50 AM

You are correct. I have no idea what's right or wrong in this case....all I can say is that I don't think all of the information has been presented yet.

Mytur Binsdirti · February 07, 2015, 06:12:41 AM

By far, this one is a lot nicer......

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dodge-Charger-R-T-1968-hemi-/331452494282?forcerrptr=true&hash=item4d2c1bb1ca&item=331452494282&pt=US_Cars_Trucks

moparnation74 · February 07, 2015, 10:24:24 AM

Quote from: TUFCAT on February 07, 2015, 12:54:50 AM
You are correct. I have no idea what's right or wrong in this case....all I can say is that I don't think all of the information has been presented yet.

You will not know since the owner is unwilling to surface the full GG report.

Futhermore, the bidding activity is all from friends.

BTW a car stripped and restored without altering VIN/FT/Body numbers etc is NOT the same as a rebody. A rebody is any alteration of the three and building a car from them. Good luck on finding a true survivor car, even with one repaint and all original components intact is NOT a survivor. Based on your rebody statement then that would be considered a rebody. Why? Well it's one repaint back in the day they used lacquer and the factory only used enamel. But I guess at this point one would want to debate a true survivor.

sdweatherman · February 07, 2015, 10:53:03 AM

Quote from: charger_fan_4ever on February 07, 2015, 12:43:53 AM
Do the fender tags on 68's have the engine code ?
If the 68 tag does have a code for the engine in this case a hemi and the VON # matchs the body IE the trunk gutter hasn't been sectioned in to a donor body. One would tend to believe its a hemi body. Why someone would tamper with the VIN tag, but leave fender tag seems odd to me unless it was stolen once upon a time ?

charger_fan_4ever is on the right track here. Yes, the fender tag does show the engine code and the 1st 4 letters/numbers of the VIN, XS29. It also shows the Vehicle Order Number. For 1968, its the VON that is stamped in a couple of places on the body. SO, as long as the fender tag is original/legit, and the numbers that are stamped on the body match (and haven't been sectioned in to a donor body like charger_fan_4ever stated), then you have a real deal Hemi Charger on your hands. In this case, I would not consider it to be a Rebody.

Assuming the tag and body stampings are legit, the only thing this Charger is suffering from is an identity crisis. You are given a name when you are born and leave the hospital. Same thing for a car, it is given a name (VIN) and it leaves the assembly plant. Lets say you have a bad accident and suffer total memory loss and don't remember you name. You don't have any ID and no family members come looking for you. After a while, nothing comes back to you, and you simply have to come up with a new name for yourself. You are still the same genuine physical person, you just have a different name.

This Charger was given a new name - XS29J8B423876 (for example) that falls within the know sequence numbers for cars built at this plant on the car's SPD (Apr 10). Is there a possibility that the 423876 sequence number matches another car built at that plant on that day - probably. Is it possible that this other car with the 423876 sequence number is an R/T Hemi Charger (XS29J) - most likely not. So the new VIN (Name) that this Charger has been given is most likely unique, and is not shared by another vehicle out there.

So, in my opinion, it is a real deal 1968 Hemi Charger - NOT a rebody - that just has a different name.
Scott.

moparnation74 · February 07, 2015, 11:28:53 AM

Quote from: sdweatherman on February 07, 2015, 10:53:03 AM
Quote from: charger_fan_4ever on February 07, 2015, 12:43:53 AM
Do the fender tags on 68's have the engine code ?
If the 68 tag does have a code for the engine in this case a hemi and the VON # matchs the body IE the trunk gutter hasn't been sectioned in to a donor body. One would tend to believe its a hemi body. Why someone would tamper with the VIN tag, but leave fender tag seems odd to me unless it was stolen once upon a time ?
charger_fan_4ever is on the right track here. Yes, the fender tag does show the engine code and the 1st 4 letters/numbers of the VIN, XS29. It also shows the Vehicle Order Number. For 1968, its the VON that is stamped in a couple of places on the body. SO, as long as the fender tag is original/legit, and the numbers that are stamped on the body match (and haven't been sectioned in to a donor body like charger_fan_4ever stated), then you have a real deal Hemi Charger on your hands. In this case, I would not consider it to be a Rebody.

Assuming the tag and body stampings are legit, the only thing this Charger is suffering from is an identity crisis. You are given a name when you are born and leave the hospital. Same thing for a car, it is given a name (VIN) and it leaves the assembly plant. Lets say you have a bad accident and suffer total memory loss and don't remember you name. You don't have any ID and no family members come looking for you. After a while, nothing comes back to you, and you simply have to come up with a new name for yourself. You are still the same genuine physical person, you just have a different name.

This Charger was given a new name - XS29J8B423876 (for example) that falls within the know sequence numbers for cars built at this plant on the car's SPD (Apr 10). Is there a possibility that the 423876 sequence number matches another car built at that plant on that day - probably. Is it possible that this other car with the 423876 sequence number is an R/T Hemi Charger (XS29J) - most likely not. So the new VIN (Name) that this Charger has been given is most likely unique, and is not shared by another vehicle out there.

So, in my opinion, it is a real deal 1968 Hemi Charger - NOT a rebody - that just has a different name.
Scott.

The owner does not have a build sheet. So you have a body and Vin that do not match with no link. A recreated Vin that doesn't match the latter. So yes you have a hemi body, then you have no bs or Vin to link the three together. In the end a Vin altered and tampered with was moved and attached to another vehicle, hence rebody. At least the owner is upfront about the Vin situation but not upfront about Galen's paperwork, build sheet, and non matching motor.

TUFCAT · February 07, 2015, 02:22:10 PM

As soon as VIN tampering of any kind gets thrown out into the mix....its a huge red flag.

I'd want to know why it doesn't have the original VIN it left the factory with. Plain and simple.

Associating the fender tag to this VIN is questionable right now, but 'll stop right here.

I'd really like to know what's in Galen's report before I make anymore statements regarding its authenticity.

charger_fan_4ever · February 08, 2015, 11:45:25 AM

Now im even more curious. Forget this car say car B) is a 68 hemi charger r/t with no b.s. The order # on the body matchs the tag BUT you have no build sheet either. From what im understanding a 68's b.s has the order # and VIn number. Which is the only way to match all 3 together. So a 68 with no b.s how can one determine the VIN tag is/isn't correct ?

Now back to the ebay car. With the b.s not present how did GG determine the VIN tag isn't correct ?

TUFCAT · February 08, 2015, 12:27:05 PM

Quote from: charger_fan_4ever on February 08, 2015, 11:45:25 AM

Now back to the ebay car. With the b.s not present how did GG determine the VIN tag isn't correct ?

Exactly Charger Fan....I was curious about the same thing. Without the report there's no way to know why unless Galen had some conflicting information in his databases somewhere.

moparnation74 · February 08, 2015, 12:43:59 PM

Quote from: TUFCAT on February 08, 2015, 12:27:05 PM
Quote from: charger_fan_4ever on February 08, 2015, 11:45:25 AM

Now back to the ebay car. With the b.s not present how did GG determine the VIN tag isn't correct ?

Exactly Charger Fan....I was curious about the same thing. Without the report there's no way to know why unless Galen had some conflicting information in his databases somewhere.

Correct. What does not make sense as your aware of this as I am. Why the owner will not disclose the full gg report?

News:

68 HEMI CHARGER ON EBAY