Buddy Bakers Daytona

[69_500]

obviously this is not the same car...right?

This one can't be the same car its missing a center hood pin, as well as a different grille cut out, window clippings and a few other differences.

[69_500]

How long ago was the photo taken at the Wally Parks museum? The other cars parked next to it look like Juliano's cars. Appears to be the Diamantte next to it.

[hemigeno]

1. You cannot say for certain when that photo was taken.

Perhaps I cannot, but others can.  I'll leave the date and location explanation to them, but I am convinced it's February 1970... and until we get over the timeline hurdle, the rest of the discussion is moot.  That does not mean I don't still maintain the utmost respect for Cotton Owens as a gentleman, his Grand National racing history, and his contributions to the Chrysler Aero car program.  In fact, he's one of my all-time favorite NASCAR personalities, evidenced by the fact that no less than three pictures of the #6 Daytona hang on my office wall.

[Aero426]

obviously this is not the same car...right?

Nope that is a modern homage.

[70Sbird]

For the amount of money that this thing's going for and the amount it went for previously, it HAS to stand up to scrutiny and not just hearsay or first hand recollection to a certain degree... I would think there would need to be documentation. After all, the guy who paid $800,000 plus for it years back, didn't he get any factual and verified documentation?

Regardless, it is one Mean Lookin' Muther.....

Troy

Troy,
And maybe that is also why a discussion about a car that ended last year (this thread) was suddenly brought back to life. If someone is looking at purchasing the car perhaps they are asking these questions and looking for documentation. Apparently the first Buyer that paid $800K+ was fine with the lack of documentation and was OK with "I said so".
In today's era of documentation, matching numbers, and more information available than ever before, I as a buyer would demand some type of evidence backing up a claim for any car that was purchased based on historical significance or rarity.
Have you ever bought a used car from someone and took everything they told you at face value?
I think this is a beautiful car and a great example of a period correct car.
Just my
Scott

[therealmoparman]

💩

[Ghoste]

For the amount of money that this thing's going for and the amount it went for previously, it HAS to stand up to scrutiny and not just hearsay or first hand recollection to a certain degree... I would think there would need to be documentation. After all, the guy who paid $800,000 plus for it years back, didn't he get any factual and verified documentation?

Regardless, it is one Mean Lookin' Muther.....

Troy

Troy,
And maybe that is also why a discussion about a car that ended last year (this thread) was suddenly brought back to life. If someone is looking at purchasing the car perhaps they are asking these questions and looking for documentation. Apparently the first Buyer that paid $800K+ was fine with the lack of documentation and was OK with "I said so".
In today's era of documentation, matching numbers, and more information available than ever before, I as a buyer would demand some type of evidence backing up a claim for any car that was purchased based on historical significance or rarity.
Have you ever bought a used car from someone and took everything they told you at face value?
I think this is a beautiful car and a great example of a period correct car.
Just my
Scott

Hmmm, seems like there are at least 800,000 reasons why we are revisiting this.  Perhaps the first buyer is pissed that he took a bath on it last September and has asked why?  Or maybe the current owner wants reap a huge windfall after 5 months of ownership and he is asking how?
Just my   as well.  

[Aero426]

1. You cannot say for certain when that photo was taken.

Sure I can.   Compare the two photos.   The white fabric covered pole is immediately to the right of the Daytona in both photos.  The top photo is from a group of original Chicago Auto Show slides I have I received almost 30 years ago from a man who attended.    It is clearly 1970 by the cars and signing.

[70Sbird]

1. You cannot say for certain when that photo was taken.

Sure I can.   Compare the two photos.   The white fabric covered pole is immediately to the right of the Daytona in both photos.  The top photo is from a group of original Chicago Auto Show slides I have I received almost 30 years ago from a man who attended.    It is clearly 1970 by the cars and signing.

OK, this may be no big issue, but what is the small circular decal clearly present in the February 1970 auto show car shown in Doug's posting above on the drivers side vent window, and what appears to be the same decal also in the same place in the photo of therealmoparman sitting in the car on the COG website?

[hemi68charger]

..
Have you ever bought a used car from someone and took everything they told you at face value?
...
Scott

Scott, sure I have... But, I have never paid over 3/4 of a million dollars for one car either, not that I ever could. I'm with you about the former owner. It's his money. Like I preach all the time, if both parties are happy, then so be it.. It's all good. With our production-based cars, it's pretty easy to verify what it is to the level of certainty one's looking for ( is it an original Daytona, Superbird, RoadRunner, R/T, etc?, is it an original black car, etc, etc, etc).. But, when you're buying a car to a large extent because of it's "history", then it's harder to verify....

[Aero426]

Please - which questions have not been answered to your satisfaction? Please, one question at a time.

Sure, please comment on this photo from the Don Moody collection.    Do you know when it was taken?

[richRTSE]

How long ago was the photo taken at the Wally Parks museum? The other cars parked next to it look like Juliano's cars. Appears to be the Diamantte next to it.

On display from Aug 2008 to February 2009

http://stylingperformance.search-autoparts.com/stylingandperformance/Industry+News/New-Exhibit-Saluting-the-60th-Anniversary-of-NASCA/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/534319

[therealmoparman]

💩

[chargerboy69]

1. You cannot say for certain when that photo was taken.

Well actually you can.  The big sign in back saying "1970" is kind of a give away.

[Redbird]

Another FWIW, the book "Worlds Greatest Auto Show Celebrating a Century in Chicago" Says that McCormick Place in Chicago burned down in a massive fire 4 weeks before the 1967 show there. The 1967-1970 Chicago Shows were moved back to the International Amphitheatre. The 1971 Chicago Show was moved to the new McCormick place.

The referenced book has hundreds of pictures of the Chicago show over the years. None of the Owens/Baker Daytona though. The picture of the Owens/Baker Daytona on page 1 of this thread matches the pictures of the taller ceiling and window walls of the 1971 McCormick Place.

As for the 1970 car show pictures. I've seen a lot of pictures of the New York and Detroit shows, I don't believe the 1970 pictures on this thread were taken at Detroit or New York, based on the ceiling grid and lights there.

Then the 1970 pictures of the Owens/Baker Daytona have a ceiling grid and fabric on the columns that seems to match Chicago in 1970. I would offer that it is possible that someone could find a picture in 1970 of another auto show with a similar ceiling grid and fabric on the columns. The ceiling grid, 1970 cars around the Daytona, dates of shows/races, and the 1970 sign on the wall of the pictures make a pretty convincing case for the Owens/Baker Daytona being at a show in early 1970.

Someone "bucks up" could probably go to the Chicago Auto Trade Association and find pictures they may have. My guess is this will be "solved" before that happens.

The 1970 car show pictures will be the item that places the car and date.

[richRTSE]

I found this video of the museum car on you tube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC7wzPv5qR4


If you compare some of the details of the video car to the Canepa car, to me there is no doubt its the same car, although Canepa's claim that it is not restored isn't quite accurate. Here are pictures of the interior, the one with carpet is from the video of the museum car, and the one without carpet is from the Canepa ad. Some differences, but not doubt to me its the same car. Same with the engines shots. Definately the same car.

And obviously, the Chicago Auto show pictures are from early 1970. So I guess the question I have is could that show car be a completely different car from the Canepa car? Because if they are the same car, and the show car was shown from early 1970 through part of 1971, then the race history claimed by Canepa can't be true. If they are two different cars (which I'm starting to think is the case), then where is the original show car now?

Rich

[Ghoste]

The "unrestored" touchups that have taken place in the car combined with a sudden need to have a race pedigree firmly attached to it make me think that it is question two of my 800,000 reasons post.  I think the current owner is looking to make a huge return on selling the car.

[Aero426]

So I guess the question I have is could that show car be a completely different car from the Canepa car? Because if they are the same car, and the show car was shown from early 1970 through part of 1971, then the race history claimed by Canepa can't be true. If they are two different cars (which I'm starting to think is the case), then where is the original show car now?

Rich

The man who hauled the show car around for Chrysler in 1970 is still alive.  His name is Andy Agosta.   He will tell you there was only one show car, and that Cotton indeed built it for Chrysler to use on the show circuit.  

It is important to note that my recollection of the claim of extensive race history as a Daytona (by this one and only car!)  began when the car was first offered for sale in 2006.

[richRTSE]

So are you saying the museum/Canepa car is the same car as the 1970 show car then?

[70Sbird]

So are you saying the museum/Canepa car is the same car as the 1970 show car then?

In my opinion (generally worthless) all of the verifiable facts and documentation point that way.

[Ghoste]

That would be my worthless opinion as well (not to mention a good amount of the circumstantial evidence as well).

[Aero426]

So are you saying the museum/Canepa car is the same car as the 1970 show car then?

Andy Agosta believes that the #6 Daytona (the one Cotton built) that he took care of for Chrysler during 1970 was eventually donated to the Darlington museum.   Following that trail would lead one to believe the car Cotton pulled from the museum in 2005 and later sold is the one Canepa owns today.

[hemi68charger]

In the words of Sgt. Shultz,

"I know nuting, nuting."  But, this is fun............  

[69_500]

Of the other known race cars from the period that still survive today, how many of them have a confirmed winning history? Just curious. And i'm not talking about all of the surviving race cars but rather the ones from this same time frame. IE Superbirds, Daytona's, C500's, Talladega's, and Cyclone Spoiler II"s?

[richRTSE]

So are you saying the museum/Canepa car is the same car as the 1970 show car then?

Andy Agosta believes that the #6 car he took care of for Chrysler was eventually donated to the Darlington museum.   Following that trail would lead one to believe the car Cotton pulled from the museum in 2005 and later sold is the one Canepa owns today.

I did notice that on the car in the 1970 auto show photo, on the driver side vent window there is a round decal that looks like the kind that goes on the inside of the window. It looks like the same one on the Canepa car, as well as the "Buddy Baker" signature and "Nascar international race car" sticker. That round sticker seems to be on the car in the photos from 1969, including the Texas 500 in '69 (the wrecked car) when they were still allowed to have side windows. After that, I haven't seen a picture of the race car with one of those round stickers.  Is it possible the Texas 500 wreck (the last race of 1969) or another car from the 1969 season was the wreck that was made into the show car? I thought someone said that definately DID NOT happen, but it would make sense to me...