1966 Chevrolet Corvette: Restoration Fraud
07-31-2012, 12:13 PM
#21
Race Director
[here, Ernst makes a theory that the frame VIN rusted off because of the NY winters, what a strange way to explain this given the $75,000 resto which had to include the frame work. I go back to the Corvette judges determination that the VIN was correct, but plate reproduced]
Further, he states the VIN number was taken off the trans. Not the motor, the trans.
That indicates to me it had some sort of NOM motor.
Any bets the car now has an "original matching numbers motor" and that is where part of teh $75K went to? probably has an original build sheet and original window sticker with it now, also.
This guy is complaining about being defrauded and I would bet that when he was going to sell the car, it was going to be with the *original* motor...
Doug
07-31-2012, 02:06 PM
#22
Safety Car
Member Since: Jan 2006
Location: Smyrna/Vinings, Georgia
Posts: 3,662
Received 358 Likes
on
241 Posts
This has NOTHING to do with a salvage title. We do not know if and when car was stolen and/or when recovered, nor does it matter. This is an "Assigned" VIN issue.
Far as the original VIN, easily made up from the motor or transmission. Do not throw stones at current owner, he could be totally unaware, JMOP
Far as the original VIN, easily made up from the motor or transmission. Do not throw stones at current owner, he could be totally unaware, JMOP
07-31-2012, 02:15 PM
#23
Tech Contributor
Far as the original VIN, easily made up from the motor or transmission.
07-31-2012, 02:48 PM
#24
Burning Brakes
Imagine you could dig up previous titled owners and grab the one that switched numbers from Georgia assigned ones back to the originals that came on car to find the culprit in all this.
07-31-2012, 03:42 PM
#25
Team Owner
Member Since: Oct 2000
Location: Washington Michigan
Posts: 38,899
Received 1,856 Likes
on
1,099 Posts
If the bogus home-made replacement VIN plate hadn't been added, the Georgia state-issued VIN wouldn't have been a judging issue at all. 
07-31-2012, 11:07 PM
#26
Team Owner
“Apparently, the transmission never left the car,” the collector said."
08-01-2012, 05:08 AM
#27
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Sep 2008
Location: Lake Minnetonka, Mn
Posts: 5,064
Received 1,720 Likes
on
805 Posts
2018 C1 of Year Finalist
From the article: "The investigation showed that the car was originally sold in 1966 by a Chevy dealer in Georgia. It was stolen in that state and eventually recovered by police sometime between 1966 and 1969."
From the article: "He alleges that Ellis removed it and made a new one, forging it using a number from the Corvette’s transmission. “Apparently, the transmission never left the car,” the collector said."
From the article: "He alleges that Ellis removed it and made a new one, forging it using a number from the Corvette’s transmission. “Apparently, the transmission never left the car,” the collector said."
And he knows this, how?
Last edited by Dan Hampton; 08-02-2012 at 09:54 AM.
08-01-2012, 08:10 AM
#28
Safety Car
Member Since: Jan 2006
Location: Smyrna/Vinings, Georgia
Posts: 3,662
Received 358 Likes
on
241 Posts
valid point about the possible non original transmission. proof is the frame VIN, which apparently no one has looked for yet. My guess is owner knows that Ellis made the VIN plate, maybe for "display" purposes, which may or may not be a crime, crime is at least fraud by selling the car with the original VIN instead of the correct GA issued VIN. IMOP
Last edited by hope2; 08-01-2012 at 08:18 AM.
08-01-2012, 08:33 AM
#29
please read the article
valid point about the possible non original transmission. proof is the frame VIN, which apparently no one has looked for yet. My guess is owner knows that Ellis made the VIN plate, maybe for "display" purposes, which may or may not be a crime, crime is at least fraud by selling the car with the original VIN instead of the correct GA issued VIN. IMOP
Ernst claims the frame VIN stamping above the rear wheel probably rusted off from the NY winters. Most likely, for a $75,000 restoration, he sand blasted the frame and sprayed it. Probably doesn't mean much. The judge somehow determined the VIN # was the right one. Ernst makes up a theory that it was from the transmission which probably never left the car.
As to whether this is the original GM VIN #, that's easy. The article says Ernst had investigators perform a title history. I've done one on my car (btw everyone, finally got a response from previous owner, update to come later). You cannot do a title history search without the title showing the GM VIN # to be able to get info on original owner as stated in article. So Ernst definitely has the original GM VIN # on the title in addition to the Georgia assign ID sequence for a car whose VIN plate as removed. So Ernst knew it was once stolen. He buys and sells Corvettes for a living. There's no doubt the GM VIN # stamped onto the reproduction VIN metal plate is the original one, but fabricated (illegal to do).
It is my belief that the Ernst was more upset that he couldn't get the certification from the contest than anything else, though he knew it was once stolen given that weird Georgia sticker he said was on the Corvette, yet claims Ellis removed it (meaning he should've never been able to describe it as being weird).
Last edited by ifitgoesfast; 08-01-2012 at 08:35 AM.
08-01-2012, 08:55 AM
#30
Burning Brakes
I noticed that also.
Further, he states the VIN number was taken off the trans. Not the motor, the trans.
That indicates to me it had some sort of NOM motor.
Any bets the car now has an "original matching numbers motor" and that is where part of teh $75K went to? probably has an original build sheet and original window sticker with it now, also.
This guy is complaining about being defrauded and I would bet that when he was going to sell the car, it was going to be with the *original* motor...
Doug
Further, he states the VIN number was taken off the trans. Not the motor, the trans.
That indicates to me it had some sort of NOM motor.
Any bets the car now has an "original matching numbers motor" and that is where part of teh $75K went to? probably has an original build sheet and original window sticker with it now, also.
This guy is complaining about being defrauded and I would bet that when he was going to sell the car, it was going to be with the *original* motor...
Doug
08-01-2012, 09:06 AM
#31
Race Director
your assuming each and every owner transferred the title/registration into his own name...
08-01-2012, 09:09 AM
#32
Race Director
08-01-2012, 09:28 AM
#34
Burning Brakes
08-01-2012, 09:38 AM
#35
I think some are missing the point that if the original GM VIN # was not on the title which the present owner has, along with the Georgia ID sequence number in lieu of the missing original GM VIN plate under the dash, then the investigators would not have been able to do the title history.
Obviously, the car when recovered was returned to original owner or insurer as the title to this day contains the original GM VIN # which the investigators used to traced to original owner from 1966. There's no way to do this if the car only had the Georgia ID tag on the frame only.
The lesson in all this: when you see a Corvette at a collision auto body shop and want to buy it, obviously check to title to see if it's a salvage, rebuilt, or reconditioned title which means it was once stolen. It's perfectly legal to own it, as long as you're OK with never been qualified to show at a judging event. And if you're a professional restorer who buys and sells for profit, you should know better, as it's your business to look at the title and see the obvious marking that it's a rebuilt or reconditioned title. Nothing hiding there.
Obviously, the car when recovered was returned to original owner or insurer as the title to this day contains the original GM VIN # which the investigators used to traced to original owner from 1966. There's no way to do this if the car only had the Georgia ID tag on the frame only.
The lesson in all this: when you see a Corvette at a collision auto body shop and want to buy it, obviously check to title to see if it's a salvage, rebuilt, or reconditioned title which means it was once stolen. It's perfectly legal to own it, as long as you're OK with never been qualified to show at a judging event. And if you're a professional restorer who buys and sells for profit, you should know better, as it's your business to look at the title and see the obvious marking that it's a rebuilt or reconditioned title. Nothing hiding there.
Last edited by ifitgoesfast; 08-01-2012 at 09:44 AM. Reason: additional note
08-01-2012, 05:57 PM
#36
From the Hemmings Blog:
"There will be people whose first reaction will be to call to break out the baseball bats, but that’s vengeance, and neither punitive nor preventive."
"niether punitive nor preventative"? I'm inclined to think it would be both. But then you must know how to use a tool properly.
Pen and sword...in accord.
"There will be people whose first reaction will be to call to break out the baseball bats, but that’s vengeance, and neither punitive nor preventive."
"niether punitive nor preventative"? I'm inclined to think it would be both. But then you must know how to use a tool properly.
Pen and sword...in accord.
08-02-2012, 09:38 AM
#37
Safety Car
Member Since: Jan 2006
Location: Smyrna/Vinings, Georgia
Posts: 3,662
Received 358 Likes
on
241 Posts
hope2, if you'll just read the article, it'll correct some of the incorrect claims you've been making.
Ernst claims the frame VIN stamping above the rear wheel probably rusted off from the NY winters. Most likely, for a $75,000 restoration, he sand blasted the frame and sprayed it. Probably doesn't mean much. The judge somehow determined the VIN # was the right one. Ernst makes up a theory that it was from the transmission which probably never left the car.
As to whether this is the original GM VIN #, that's easy. The article says Ernst had investigators perform a title history. I've done one on my car (btw everyone, finally got a response from previous owner, update to come later). You cannot do a title history search without the title showing the GM VIN # to be able to get info on original owner as stated in article. So Ernst definitely has the original GM VIN # on the title in addition to the Georgia assign ID sequence for a car whose VIN plate as removed. So Ernst knew it was once stolen. He buys and sells Corvettes for a living. There's no doubt the GM VIN # stamped onto the reproduction VIN metal plate is the original one, but fabricated (illegal to do).
It is my belief that the Ernst was more upset that he couldn't get the certification from the contest than anything else, though he knew it was once stolen given that weird Georgia sticker he said was on the Corvette, yet claims Ellis removed it (meaning he should've never been able to describe it as being weird).
Ernst claims the frame VIN stamping above the rear wheel probably rusted off from the NY winters. Most likely, for a $75,000 restoration, he sand blasted the frame and sprayed it. Probably doesn't mean much. The judge somehow determined the VIN # was the right one. Ernst makes up a theory that it was from the transmission which probably never left the car.
As to whether this is the original GM VIN #, that's easy. The article says Ernst had investigators perform a title history. I've done one on my car (btw everyone, finally got a response from previous owner, update to come later). You cannot do a title history search without the title showing the GM VIN # to be able to get info on original owner as stated in article. So Ernst definitely has the original GM VIN # on the title in addition to the Georgia assign ID sequence for a car whose VIN plate as removed. So Ernst knew it was once stolen. He buys and sells Corvettes for a living. There's no doubt the GM VIN # stamped onto the reproduction VIN metal plate is the original one, but fabricated (illegal to do).
It is my belief that the Ernst was more upset that he couldn't get the certification from the contest than anything else, though he knew it was once stolen given that weird Georgia sticker he said was on the Corvette, yet claims Ellis removed it (meaning he should've never been able to describe it as being weird).
Georgia sticker is not weird, it is the correct legal VIN
08-02-2012, 10:34 AM
#38
Certainly there is doubt GM VIN is correct. Performed title history on what? The wrong car? Nothing is certain without the correct VIN and we cannot be sure of that. Perhaps we have a transmission swap and history on that car. The frame VIN rules and we don't have it.
Georgia sticker is not weird, it is the correct legal VIN
Georgia sticker is not weird, it is the correct legal VIN
The weird sticker comment was quoting Ernst the buyer. He described the Georgia ID as a weird sticker while claiming seller had removed it before he ever saw it, yet describes it as weird.
Ernst, the buyer, asked investigators to trace the history of the car. On any rebuilt, reconditioned title, of which Ernst had in his possession, the Georgia state issued ID (in lieu of the missing GM VIN plate) in this specific case was tagged to the original title of the vehicle. Investigators do not use the reproduced GM VIN plate to conduct the title history, but the paper title document itself which contained both the Georgia ID # as well as original GM VIN on the title itself, which shows the stolen/recovery note as rebuilt, reconditioned.
If this specific Corvette was found abandoned somewhere with GM VIN plate removed, all numbers filed down on frame, etc., and after the state's process, it will receive a salvage, then rebuilt, reconditioned title. The original GM VIN # will never be known. Not title history can ever be performed and no original purchase can be shown. In this case, the investigators ran the GM VIN, and this is the very car which was recovered and issued Georgia ID. Their result did not turn up another Corvette belonging to someone else, like other fraud cases, but instead to this specific Corvette and associated Georgia ID.
08-02-2012, 10:42 AM
#39
hope2,
Your theory is that the seller used some other GM VIN, and not the original one for this 1966 Corvette. If this was the case, as it was with a well known case this past year, the number would've come back as belonging to another Corvette and owner who is currently registered, or it would come up as a total loss and still unregistered. It came up with neither, since it was this vehicle's original GM VIN #.
The only question we cannot conclude from the article is how two separate parties at different times verified that the reproduced GM VIN # (counterfeit) was the Corvette's original GM VIN #.
1. Corvette judge somehow determined this
2. Ernst's investigator(s) determined this
Ernst, the buyer, makes a claim the number stamped on the frame above the rear wheel probably rusted off. Yet, the judge from the contest, and investigators using the title concluded it is the original manufacturer VIN #.
Your theory is that the seller used some other GM VIN, and not the original one for this 1966 Corvette. If this was the case, as it was with a well known case this past year, the number would've come back as belonging to another Corvette and owner who is currently registered, or it would come up as a total loss and still unregistered. It came up with neither, since it was this vehicle's original GM VIN #.
The only question we cannot conclude from the article is how two separate parties at different times verified that the reproduced GM VIN # (counterfeit) was the Corvette's original GM VIN #.
1. Corvette judge somehow determined this
2. Ernst's investigator(s) determined this
Ernst, the buyer, makes a claim the number stamped on the frame above the rear wheel probably rusted off. Yet, the judge from the contest, and investigators using the title concluded it is the original manufacturer VIN #.
08-02-2012, 01:04 PM
#40
Safety Car
Member Since: Jan 2006
Location: Smyrna/Vinings, Georgia
Posts: 3,662
Received 358 Likes
on
241 Posts
hope2,
Your theory is that the seller used some other GM VIN, and not the original one for this 1966 Corvette. If this was the case, as it was with a well known case this past year, the number would've come back as belonging to another Corvette and owner who is currently registered, or it would come up as a total loss and still unregistered. It came up with neither, since it was this vehicle's original GM VIN #.
The only question we cannot conclude from the article is how two separate parties at different times verified that the reproduced GM VIN # (counterfeit) was the Corvette's original GM VIN #.
1. Corvette judge somehow determined this
2. Ernst's investigator(s) determined this
Ernst, the buyer, makes a claim the number stamped on the frame above the rear wheel probably rusted off. Yet, the judge from the contest, and investigators using the title concluded it is the original manufacturer VIN #.
Your theory is that the seller used some other GM VIN, and not the original one for this 1966 Corvette. If this was the case, as it was with a well known case this past year, the number would've come back as belonging to another Corvette and owner who is currently registered, or it would come up as a total loss and still unregistered. It came up with neither, since it was this vehicle's original GM VIN #.
The only question we cannot conclude from the article is how two separate parties at different times verified that the reproduced GM VIN # (counterfeit) was the Corvette's original GM VIN #.
1. Corvette judge somehow determined this
2. Ernst's investigator(s) determined this
Ernst, the buyer, makes a claim the number stamped on the frame above the rear wheel probably rusted off. Yet, the judge from the contest, and investigators using the title concluded it is the original manufacturer VIN #.
Last edited by hope2; 08-02-2012 at 01:15 PM.