FS: @road-scholars.com - '72 S Sunroof Coupe

[Peanut]

And it's gone...

[Mrzoop]

In a similar vein, have you seen this '69T'?
http://road-scholars.com/1969-porsch...r-44000-miles/

It appeaers to be 'pending', but what might your call be on pricing?

[67er911S]

180t $ ...

one of the best!

[sithot]

If that car is all original I'm the Easter Bunny.

Tom

[beh911]

I know this car personally and I can vouch for its originality..... time to get that suit on it..;-)

E

I think this becomes a discussion on the seller's definition of 'original' as there are lots of minor, incorrect details on this car (e.g. wrong rear view mirror on an obvious new windshield, 5 bar 70+ engine grill, other nitpicks), as well as numerous options added throughout it's life judging from the period pics (wheel changes, rear wiper, passenger side mirror etc).

If original implies paint (it sure looks it) and documented low mileage (hard to think it isn't since it's a one owner car), then sure, it's 'original'. I think the best description is 'well documented, award winning, low mileage, one owner car'.

It is becoming more difficult to define these terms because they are used so loosely in this hobby turned investment world, and everyone's definitions seem to vary.

Not knocking the car, just questioning its presentation as a bit over the top. Personally, I think the car is beautiful.

[sithot]

Not today!

The black door strikers? Those are later style. I've used a pair of early ones (before black) which were yellow zinc. After you machine
the extra material off the outer edge they are fine. Just need to be plated in silver zinc. Strange that someone didn't do that. It's
a non-issue as this type of plating has no ill effects on anything as there is no aluminum and the plastic isn't bothered whatsoever.

Best,

Tom

[Louie]

Hold on....this is a 69t that is pending sale for what we should assume is north of $150k.....am I reading this correctly?

[sithot]

I think this becomes a discussion on the seller's definition of 'original' as there are lots of minor, incorrect details on this car (e.g. wrong rear view mirror on an obvious new windshield, 5 bar 70+ engine grill, other nitpicks), as well as numerous options added throughout it's life judging from the period pics (wheel changes, rear wiper, passenger side mirror etc).

If original implies paint (it sure looks it) and documented low mileage (hard to think it isn't since it's a one owner car), then sure, it's 'original'. I think the best description is 'well documented, award winning, low mileage, one owner car'.

It is becoming more difficult to define these terms because they are used so loosely in this hobby turned investment world, and everyone's definitions seem to vary.

Not knocking the car, just questioning its presentation as a bit over the top. Personally, I think the car is beautiful.

I agree. However, in the world where you hold yourself out to be one of the finest restoration shops there is you cannot put a car out here for the cognoscenti to peruse "asking all the money" and not expect someone to push back when they see incorrect parts. It would be no different had Sports Car Market or a well versed PPI inspector looked at it.

I don't have the last word on what is 100% correct but I do know what I know when I get involved in the details of "a thing". My comment about the Easter Bunny was calculated because I saw the one part I knew for a fact wasn't right. You have obviously studied it in more detail and found further issues. Thank you.

http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...Striker-Thread

And that's all I have to say about that.

Tom

[beh911]

I agree. However, in the world where you hold yourself out to be one of the finest restoration shops there is you cannot put a car out here for the cognoscenti to peruse "asking all the money" and not expect someone to push back when they see incorrect parts. It would be no different had Sports Car Market or a well versed PPI inspector looked at it.

I don't have the last word on what is 100% correct but I do know what I know when I get involved in the details of "a thing". My comment about the Easter Bunny was calculated because I saw the one part I knew for a fact wasn't right. You have obviously studied it in more detail and found further issues. Thank you.

http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...Striker-Thread

And that's all I have to say about that.

Tom

I was in agreement with your original train of thought in my comments and still am with your latest. It's disappointing to see things glossed over with the big tent words like 'original', etc, especially by those that this hobby looks up to to 'know better'

It ends up taking away from the car, and creates a 'circus' -- to reuse a phrase from a recent FS thread

[TB73]

Did this 72'S really bring $180K ? ...... i'm not Ragging on the car , just wondering if this is a real sale or just talk . TB