Buddy Bakers Daytona

[wingcar builder]

Doug I'd have to say i would agree on this being the showcar. not only the decal on the window i'm looking at the more convincing evidence of the right hand exhaust. thats alittle more coincidental than a small sticker.

[Ghoste]

It's baaaaaaack.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Winner-Southern-500-Outside-Pole-Daytona-500-/170480889603?cmd=ViewItem&pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item27b173ef03#ht_4477wt_1161


(like we ever doubted it wouldn't be)

[41husk]

GrEEEEEEEAT 

[Dave Kanofsky]

Does this really suprise anyone?  We knew that this would happen.

[Khyron]

so.... is it real?

*runs after throwing the bucket of gas on the fire*

[Highbanked Hauler]

   The owner-s shot themselves in the foot when they painted and used bed liner on the car

[Ghoste]

Not to mention overpaying in the first place and very probably at least partly based on an invented history for this particular car.

[Highbanked Hauler]

Not to mention overpaying in the first place and very probably at least partly based on an invented history for this particular car.

At least this car was owned by Cotton Owens, that 22 car sold by Mecums  is a joke to begin with

[Ghoste]

Very agreed.  Of the two, the Mecum one is a complete travesty.

[62 Max]

As far as the # 6 car being what claimed,does it really matter?You can argue all day long about the history.It comes down to who said/wrote/saw what is usually debated.Everyone has their own interpretation.Just because it is written/published somewhere that it is correct doesn't prove it so.Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper,what is on network news programs and what floats around on the internet?The car is what it is,unless you are a buyer with that kind of fund's most (and I doubt the majority who have posted including myself) couldn't come close to that figure.That being the case,don't lose sleep over it,a potential buyer with the $$$ will do that.I would bet two thirds of those who nitpick any car probably have some of the same issues with their own (if they even have one) if the truth were known.If you so choose to nitpick me,enjoy yourself

[Aero426]

Well yes, I would say what is claimed does matter.   It's not in agreement with what has been common thought for decades by people involved with the race program.   

At the end of the day, it's still a great car.    As always, the buyer needs to do their homework.    That said, at the current price, it's probably not going anywhere anytime soon.    

[62 Max]

Doug,guess I should have rephrased my statement.Still feel the only ones it matters to in the end is the seller and eventual buyer.

[Ghoste]

It does matter beyond the seller and buyer and it matters very much.  First of all, if it wasn't meant to increase the value of the car, it wouldn't be used as the primary selling feature of the thing.  So make no mistake, the phony pedigree has a huge impact on the perceived worth of the thing.  Once the phony history has been passed around enough, it will become legitimized and everyone will insist that this one is THE car.  So another car has now been made worth more through a lie.  So what you might say?  What if the car or cars that did actually accomplish those goals turn up?  How do they establish their worth?  If we do choose to take a "what is the real harm" approach, where does it stop?  Why should we as the hardcore freaks of this segment of the hobby be selective about which fake cars we try to point out?  If this one is okay what about the Allison car that is also making the auction rounds right now?  What if you paid ALL the money for one of YOUR cars thinking it was something special only to find out after you were ripped off by a fraudster?
If one thief is okay, they all are.

[62 Max]

It does matter beyond the seller and buyer and it matters very much.  First of all, if it wasn't meant to increase the calue of the car, it wouldn't be used as the primary selling feature of the thing.  So make no mistake, the phony pedigree has a huge impact on the perceived owrht of the thing.  Once the phony history has been passed around enough, it will become legitimized and everyone will insist that this one is THE car.  So another car has now been made worth more through a lie.  So what you might say?  What if the car or cars that did actually accomplish those goals turn up?  How do they establish their worth?  If we do choose to take a "what is the real harm" approach, where does it stop?  Why should we as the hardcore freaks of this segment of the hobby be selective about which fake cars we try to point out?  If this one is okay what about the Allison car that is also making the auction rounds right now?  What if you paid ALL the money for one of YOUR cars thinking it was something special only to find out after you were ripped off by a fruadster?
If one thief is okay, they all are.

I would be careful labeling anyone as a thief regardless,you are painting everyone with a broad brush.Suppose in the end that the facts were proved to be correct,or for that matter same scenario with any vehicle.Then what?If I were to ever sell any thing i own,it would be by word of mouth.To openly advertise anywhere opens the proverbial can of worms.You could have bought a car new in 1970,lock it in a sealed building,advertised it today and i guarantee you someone would find fault with it.It would be,I read this,he said that etc and on ad on and on..

[pettybird]

Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper,what is on network news programs and what floats around on the internet?

there are no lies on the internet, silly.

[hemigeno]

The problem I have with the situation is not the claim made earlier by Canepa et al which precipiated this entire debate - it's the insistence on following the same storyline even after its history has been called into question and de facto debunked for all but the most ardent supporters of that particular version of history.

As an example... I've been given a verbal history of my Daytona from its previous owners.  If damning evidence that refutes that history (my car's history is not that interesting or important, of course) is produced and I continue insisting that the story is true in spite of any evidence to the contrary, any objective onlooker has to wonder what my motives are.  In the instance of the #6 revisionist history, the motivation is quite clear.

Now - where the fault lies for the origination of this storyline is debatable.  Ultimately, even that is irrelevant apart from noting that the current seller is apparently unfazed by factual evidence to the contrary.  That's the sad part.  I don't fault them for initially believing what they were told, but I do question the motives under these circumstances.  If they're going to market the car as an unbelievably-preserved time capsule from NASCAR's golden era (that's my opinion of what it is, anyway), fine.  Establish a value and see if the market agrees.  Us armchair quarterbacks cannot have any meaningful feedback on that topic, as the ultimate valuation question is answered only by a bona fide buyer. 

A case could be made, however, that the historical claims made by this seller border on fraud.  For those who don't like the use of that term here, look up the legal definition and see if it applies to this situation.  If a buyer relies on the statements/history being presented and then discovers the factual evidence which refutes said statements/history -- especially if the buyer can prove that the seller or parties associated with the seller knew of this factual evidence to the contrary -- that could easily be grounds for a fairly significant lawsuit.  The seller doesn't have to agree with us (no one HAS to do so), but ignoring pretty convincing evidence which refutes their historical claim could come back and bite them. 

In large part, I agree with 62Max that we don't have much input on the value set for this car.  They can ask whatever they want.  Where I differ is in the treatment of the seller's historical contentions. 

[Ghoste]

I didn't label anyone as a thief.  I am merely stating that if one is okay then they all are.
Now I do agree and concede that my statement implies such but I stand by the sentence as written.  I could never accuse any of the participants in this thread or parties represented herein as being thieves as I have no reason or evidence to such.  I do however fully support my argument that if we choose to ignore perceived examples of fraud without questioning it, then we open the door to encouraging actual thieves to steal our hard earned collector car purchase dollars.   

[Aero426]

5/20/70 newspaper ad

[nascarxx29]

I remember the real moparman cottons son discussion .I believe what the documentation tells you .You have to dig back in the history .To get the real truth about certain mysterys  
On another note by Jack Spiller was a # 6 sponsor
Check out second reply and you will see Jack Spiller dodge is a sponsor on the # 6 daytona
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?topic=63521.120

[pettybird]

5/20/70 newspaper ad

great pic--thanks for sharing!!!!!!!!!!!!!     

[mauve66]

wait till i get my nascar winged 66 charger set up with a new VIN tag and it will be the 2nd prototype right behind the orange/white one out of south dakota

[moparstuart]

wait till i get my nascar winged 66 charger set up with a new VIN tag and it will be the 2nd prototype right behind the orange/white one out of south dakota

[Aero426]

The following posts are from the December 17, 1970 issue of Midwest Racing News.    Article on the 1971 Detroit Auto Show at Cobo Hall.    Photo with Baker and the #6 show car Daytona.   

[Aero426]

Article with the above photo written by Phil Hall.    Hall is a seasoned racing writer and worked with the Milwaukee Mile and Midwest Racing News for decades.    Note his description of the #6 Daytona in column 2 of the article.

[Aero426]

Conclusion of the article for your reading pleasure.