When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
There you go again with the wording all screwed up. I don’t know who proof reads it but I can assure you they never owned a mid year. The 63-67 is Sting Ray note it’s two words. And how can it be original if it’s been restored?
Last edited by Nowhere Man; 06-28-2018 at 11:10 AM.
There you go again with the wording all screwed up. I don’t know who proof reads it but I can assure you they never owned a mid year. The 63-67 is Sting Ray note it’s two words. And how can it be original if it’s been restored?
Well said. I think there is too much terminology used incorrectly. How original is this car? The paint? Restored? I can understand that this wording would be correct in the very unlikely event that during restoration, they re-used every part that was original to the car. Minus wear items like tires and brake pads, etc. That would mean that every part removed during restoration was no more than cleaned and confirmed to be in good working order and re-used.
Otherwise, the term "all-original" is being used too loosely. A car described like that would need to be a time capsule.
I realize im a skeptic but I've seen many cars advertised as "all original" which are far from it. Its kind of like saying a car is "numbers matching" which may be technically true but that doesn't mean original (to the car) parts.
And people wonder why Corvette owners have a bad reputation for being d-bags. Looks like a nice car and you guys nit pick the crap ,out of it.
when you lable and write articles about it better be right. If the headline read something in the lines of nicely restored Corvette brings joy to owner. And then didn’t have gleaming mistakes I wouldn’t have the need to start this thread. My point is if your going to write or post articles get your facts straight
There you go again with the wording all screwed up. I don’t know who proof reads it but I can assure you they never owned a mid year. The 63-67 is Sting Ray note it’s two words. And how can it be original if it’s been restored?
Is Keith seriously lecturing someone about editing?
06-28-2018, 11:03 AM
An Almost Perfectly Restored 1967 Sting Ray!
