I guess we are because I have no idea what your entire first paragraph is about. I asked you a simple question and you again find it necessary to bring up old issues. I'm sure it's me that is not understanding and not you that has the issue. It will never cease to amaze me that would have any issue what so ever with identifying reproduction documents when they are introduced as real. Whether it is a person advertising their vehicle and attempting to further aunt ticket their vehicle through reproduction documents or in a case like this, where we have the opportunity to identify purportedly real docs that are obvious repros. Perhaps this person can go back to the original buyer or further investigate their purchase to ensure the car is what was stated.
Maybe I'll try to be more clear the next time, so you can answer my question and not give me your usual tirade or reversions back to past issues.

Do you know the street address of Ourisman-Mandell Chevrolet, Washington DC in 1963.

Don't know what that one means but I will keep researching and advise if I find anything to the contrary. I am sure all we are really interested in is the facts.

Paul