Chuck Most

Absolutely right- my neigbor Bill is one of those guys. And I have seen the 'built one year/titled as year sold' quite a few times with IH trucks. But I have seen a few instances where an IH truck's serial numbers disagree with the year on the title- Bill's old '66 was always titled as a '66, sold new in the early summer of 1966, but the serial numbers said it was built in early '65- March/April. It even had the '65 'model year' eggcrate grille and not the '66 style vertical bar grille from the factory, though Bill later changed the grille to a '66 so his Binder buddies would quit harrassing him about the disagreement between the year and the grille. More an exception than the rule, but it did happen that way a few times. Now don't get me started on his '63, which was built in and titled as a '63, but has had at least two different cabs put on it since he got it in 1977, and it is now titled as the '63 that donated the second cab (third altogether) and not the '63 he started with, even though the drivetrain, chassis, and bed are all from the 'original' '63...

International didn't even bother with using the model year system until 1972, and they made changes continually throughout the calendar year up to then.Before that, the trucks were titled in whatever year they were sold, whether that was the calendar year or model year. The laws varied from state to state, but if you bought a Loadstar in '66, but that Loadstar had been sitting on the dealer's lot since late '64, it was titled as a '66.

I like the woody idea, but something about the way they did the roof just isn't sitting well with me. Not sure if it's the sharp angle of the rear window or the shape of the rear side windows... Still might get one though- I keep picturing it as another phantom... a sedan delivery.

Speaking of- chew on this- none of the cells in your body are the same ones you had ten years ago- they've all died off and been regenerated since then. Are you the same person you were ten years ago, considering every cell in your body has regenerated since then?

Dave- Regarding that Lemans- by 'rebodied' do you mean the body shell was replaced (but many other pieces of Grandpa's old Poncho were reused on the replacement body), or the vin off Grandpa's Lemans was switched with a car with a better body, meaning it is a completely different car? If the former were the case it wouldn't irk me too much, especially if the car was pretty far gone to begin with.

I'm not too worried about the lack of an up-top. If I wanted to 'seal off' the interior, I'll just build one of the '53's I already have! Just use the boot and have fun detailing out that interior, and keep it in a display case if you're worried about dust. That's what I'm gonna do.

That's what I thought. That's why you'll never see an ad in a magazine for repop VIN tags! I remember reading somewhere when Shelby had a few leftover '69 cars, they re-tagged them as '70's, and the FBI was called in to supervise the process. I believe Dodge did the same thing in the mid '60's with leftover trucks (even though I seem to remember Dodge did not employ the traditional 'model year' system on trucks until the very late '60's).

Anyone remember when Brookville began reproducing Model A bodies in steel? They entered a car restored with one of their bodies in a concours-type event, and the car won its class. A panel of judges could not distinguish between the orginal Henry steel and the minty-fresh Brookville components. After the car won, it was revealed to have the Brookville body, and boy did the purists ever raise a godawful stink, even though not even the experts spotted the fact it had an aftermarket replacement body during the entire show or scoring process. I guess I just don't get it.

Just to muddy the waters further- there are places that will make you a reproduction VIN tag. Theoretically, if you had nothing more than a clean title with a good VIN, you could make a brand-new 19XX fill-in-the-blank appear out of thin air. (Giant stack of cash would help, though.) And people do swap VIN tags all the time, even though I'm about 90% sure that's illegal under most circumstances.

This guy's favorite reaction to 'is that real'? was "Well, walk out there and touch it..." I always used to tell him "Tell them you'll park it on the guy's foot and then ask him if he thinks its real". I think Craig put it pretty well- yeah, it's a big change, but is replacing a body much different than replacing an entire floor? Really, if your '67 Mustang is nothing a roof with just enough metal left to keep said roof a few feet above the ground, why bother piecing the thing back together when you can replace the entire body? "I want to keep it original". Okay, fine, but 1- your Mustang didn't leave the factory with replacement quarters, rockers, decklid, and doors from aftermarket manufacturers or three other Mustangs. How's that original? 2- While I do think that keeping a car 'original' has merit, that's really best suited for a car that's pretty well-preserved in the first place. If your project is at the point where you need to replace the entire body, keeping it 'original' probably isn't the best way to approach the project.

This has been happening for a few years- I still can't see why people still get worked up about it. Most of the '32 Fords you see at shows nowadays are 100% aftermarket (ie, not 1932, not Ford), and nobody bats an eyelash. Muscle car guys really confuse me sometimes- I don't see an issue with 'cloning' a rare model or variant, as long as you aren't trying to pass it off as a legit piece. A former co-worker of mine has a 'fake' '69 Cougar Eliminator. The second-most frequent question he gets about it (right after 'What year is that Charger'. ), is 'Is that a 'real' Eliminator?' He's the first guy to tell you that no, it is not a 'real' Eliminator, and yet there it is in the parking lot, real as any Eliminator I've ever seen. I've seen people get good and offended when they realize it didn't roll off the assembly line as an Eliminator, even though they had no idea until they asked him. Does it really matter? He can drive it all summer long, leave it in an Advance Auto Parts parking lot (where it's been hit more than once) and take it to the Pure Stock Drags with no fear of ruining a real Eliminator. I'm with Dave- I'd much rather have a 'fake' that I can actually enjoy as a vehicle than a valuable piece of garage jewelery.

I won't claim to be an expert on late '60's funny car kits, but I think that's the one. It's the only one I can think of that has a pure stock '69 Goat body. The rest of the kit is pretty much a generic MPC late '60's Logghe chassis.

That's exactly what I did with the Model King 'Prosecutor' GTO funny car kit from a few years back. No, the project still isn't done! Forgettabout the Fall Guy GMC- I'd like to see them bring back the long, wideside bed and 4wd components to the MPC '78 Dodge pickup kits. I want to build the Power Wagon from Simon and Simon.

Great idea- promote all your 'fantastic new products' by trumping up stuff that's been out of production for fifty years. Glad to see your tax dollars going to good use, huh?

:lol:Sphinxter.... Sorry, must have a little Beavis and Butthead fever today!

Ace Hardware sells MCM? Wow. That's one of the last places I'd expect to find it.

Why no '53 version? Because race car!

For the Brougham, you might be able to rework the roof on an R&R '48 4-door to work.

Sweet! All that's missing is a Horn Toad.

Wrong make, but I still like the Chevy! I can't hear any chickens or cows, but that might be because the old Hoyt-Clagwell won't pipe down.

I've thought about making a Challenger wagon, but by using a Magnum roof on the Challenger body. Very interested in seeing how this one turns out.

A couple more recent pics, with MOAR BEARD And one from 2001, with my junk old El Camino

Cool! It'll be very interesting seeing how this one went together.

Uuuuuuuuugh on the wagon, but that chopped body does look pretty cool.

Yep, that's the one. Now I just need to find a figure of a John Candy-looking guy with a combover to go with it!