"Original Owner" SWC On SFBA CL
01-02-2017, 02:27 PM
#1
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
01-06-2017, 09:20 PM
#2
Pro
Price seems rather "Optimistic" considering the body damage & paint condition.
Is this more realistically a $70,000.00 - $75.000.00 example?!
Is this more realistically a $70,000.00 - $75.000.00 example?!
Last edited by sidepipe seeker; 01-06-2017 at 09:32 PM.
01-08-2017, 06:25 PM
#3
Administrator
Member Since: Jul 2000
Location: About 1100 miles from where I call home. Blue lives matter.
Posts: 51,365
Received 5,321 Likes
on
2,770 Posts
All original, down to the hubcaps, but apparently does know that's not a 63 master cylinder. Wonder what else is wrong?
Has to lose points for not being able to spell Sting Ray.
Wonder what kind of docs available for a one owner?
Has to lose points for not being able to spell Sting Ray.
Wonder what kind of docs available for a one owner?
01-08-2017, 11:26 PM
#4
Pro
So what type of documentation would the dealership that sold the 1963 Corvette Split Window to the original buyer have supplied?
Interesting the car shows fiberglass damage as if the car was hit in the rear, yet the bumpers appear to have no damage
If the bumpers were damaged and replaced then obviously the bumpers along with the master cylinder are NOT original.
As ALWAYS "Caveat Emptor"
01-10-2017, 11:02 PM
#5
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Sep 2009
Location: MI
Posts: 3,111
Received 1,119 Likes
on
575 Posts
2023 C2 of the Year Finalist - Unmodified
2022 C2 of the Year Finalist - Unmodified
2017 C2 of Year Finalist
I believe first year for both Protect-O-Plate plate & tank sticker was 1967.
So what type of documentation would the dealership that sold the 1963 Corvette Split Window to the original buyer have supplied?
Interesting the car shows fiberglass damage as if the car was hit in the rear, yet the bumpers appear to have no damage
If the bumpers were damaged and replaced then obviously the bumpers along with the master cylinder are NOT original.
As ALWAYS "Caveat Emptor"
So what type of documentation would the dealership that sold the 1963 Corvette Split Window to the original buyer have supplied?
Interesting the car shows fiberglass damage as if the car was hit in the rear, yet the bumpers appear to have no damage
If the bumpers were damaged and replaced then obviously the bumpers along with the master cylinder are NOT original.
As ALWAYS "Caveat Emptor"
01-11-2017, 06:58 AM
#6
Team Owner
Interesting...still has the pie crust bias tires....the rear end damage is typical "stored in a tight garage" stuff....kid's bicycle, rake, etc.. I can see the bumpers surviving that. Same with the scrape over the windshield.
Over-priced and I hate those, "....selling for a family member/friend" deals. A) I usually don't believe it, and, B) as in this case, Joe Son-In-Law, trying to be a hero to older person by getting them stupid money for the car.
I got over the '64 M/C a few years back, its a typical "get it back on the road" repair and not an indictment of a car's base originality IMO. I see it more than original M/Cs anymore.
It's gonna sit a good while...
Over-priced and I hate those, "....selling for a family member/friend" deals. A) I usually don't believe it, and, B) as in this case, Joe Son-In-Law, trying to be a hero to older person by getting them stupid money for the car.
I got over the '64 M/C a few years back, its a typical "get it back on the road" repair and not an indictment of a car's base originality IMO. I see it more than original M/Cs anymore.
It's gonna sit a good while...
