|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Anybody know how it checked out? [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/dunno.gif[/img]
Joe [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif[/img] |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Last I heard, the owner was going to have someone "certify" the car. He told me the name of the certification person (I & others never heard of him). I sent him a list of things to look for & instructed him to make sure that nothing gets taken apart. He said that he wanted me to look at the car, but wouldn't give me his phone number. I'm still waiting for a call from him.
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Nobody can certify a non-OE drivetrain no docs car as a COPO.
After 15 years in the Camaro business I sold every part needed to create the appearance. All the noise about BE axles and TH400 cross members cracks me up. In the late '80s one of our customers did a near-perfect clone using an 06A Florida car. Frost Green, green standard, automatic. Wonder where it is today... |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
I could see a situation where a known group of Copos were built for a dealer and done in a sequential run. Maybe this car could fall within that group. Example would be the body #'s before and after were both Copos. I would probably then think it was a Copo. Not enough to certify it but enough to believe it.
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Even Gibbs ZL1s were not all in sequential body number order. The #3 ZL1 isn't in sequence with other known Berger COPOs.
All Camaro orders submitted by a dealer at the same time may be in body number order. JMs '69 book has Z/28 shippers for N623127 & N632342. Body numbers are 307027 & 307028. Dale Chev here in WI had many performance Camaros. 3 of their L72 cars still exist, one is not in body number sequence with the other two. I will bet some of the non-performance orders they placed are in sequence with all three. As you noted, really doesn't mean much. |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
"Nobody can certify a non-OE drivetrain no docs car as a COPO."...............I had a 350ss 4 speed late build x11D80 with factory cowl induction. If someone took a used heater box and core,3/8 fuel line, and a BE rear, and removed a few small block items, that car would be more "certifiable" than many ive seen.
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Once again, IMO - original paperwork, ownership history, & certification.......all 3 are important. It appears that the car in question has 0 of these 3 critical pieces (so far).
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
At some point ....good old common sense prevails ....not the cookie cutter crap ....until you see it for your own eyes ...don't pass judgement .....to many negative people on this thread ....AND ....NO I AM NOT A PERSON OF INTEREST ON THIS CAR [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif[/img]
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Judgment is defined as "an opinion or decision that is based on careful thought."
In my case that is over 38 years in the hobby including 15 years of Camaro business experience. Just to ensure you get it I will repeat it. Nobody can certify a non-OE drivetrain no docs car as a COPO. |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
What's your problem. I can read YOUR OPINION ..and I do not need for you to repeat it ....visual is good medicine to form an opinion. Ones opinion is not the final say in any discussion....since we BOTH haven't seen this car ...I guess we both only have opinions .
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Enough already.
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: William</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Judgment is defined as "an opinion or decision that is based on careful thought."
In my case that is over 38 years in the hobby including 15 years of Camaro business experience. Just to ensure you get it I will repeat it. Nobody can certify a non-OE drivetrain no docs car as a COPO. </div></div> William, My intent with this post is not to challenge you only to provide another point of view. You and I as well some others in the industry completely disagree on this matter. You can in some circumstances prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a 1969 Camaro is indeed a COPO L72 and in some cases you may also be able to prove some of the factory options on said vehicle. Whether or not you individually choose to believe that particular vehicle is a 9561 COPO L72 is up to you. But the case wherein a certification can be provided by someone, is valid. I have seen at least one certification from a prominent "core member" of CRG, wherein, the Camaro certified had no paperwork, none of the original drivetrain, was not directly in a body and/or vin sequence, had no dealer or long term owner history etc and did receive a certification. While I may not agree with that particular certification. It is obvious that in the hobby and even amongst CRG members that there are some varying opinions. Certainly the perceived and or realized market valve of a paper-worked, documented and or original drivetrain COPO 9561 Camaro may far exceed that of one without such proof. |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Hi Stefano:
Challenge away! I welcome intellectual debate. You have been around the cars as long as I have. You’re correct; I do not agree. My position has everything to do with my long history in the hobby, virtually all of it involving the ’69 Camaro-bought my first in 1975. When I started out with CPX in the ‘80s buying/selling parts one often bought as much as they sold at a good meet. In fact I often walked those swaps with some of your buds: Stevie, George, Ron, The Hippie, Drew, Joe. Parts were everywhere and as a group we sold it all: disc brake sub frames, DZ engines, 837 alternators, 4053 & 4346 carbs, 472 & 163 intakes, YH & XT wheels. We sold 2 BE axles [I know where they are…]. Many parts were still available from GM such as the TH400 cross member, BB frame mounts, fan shrouds. We stocked and sold all of that also. Now imagine 15 years of that exposure-where did all those parts go? The Frost Green clone I mentioned was certainly one recipient. Another was a triple black ’69 SS-RS convertible L78 clone, done correctly and to near perfection. I know for a fact it was re-sold years ago as being real. If you know what you are doing it isn’t hard to do. So from my standpoint claiming a car is a COPO only because it happens to have all the correct componentry, holes, clips, whatever, is ludicrous. Several good books out there showing what is needed; plenty of parts around. This in particular applies to cars that have had a long rough life and cars that have undergone complete restorations. In both cases there is often virtually nothing original remaining; anything could have been done to them. A case might be made for a car that was in untouched survivor condition but just happens to no longer have its original engine or paperwork. The CRG has no involvement whatsoever in “certifying” anything. Some don’t care for my viewpoint; some may not care for yours. But as a couple of guys that have a long history in the hobby it is important that we speak our minds. Let the chips fall where they may. |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
"The CRG has no involvement whatsoever in “certifying” anything."
I believe the CRG has done a wonderful job of collecting and presenting data regarding first generation Camaros. I reference the published data often. You and I can debate semantics, so call it what you will, but at least one of the CRG "core" members (this is stated as a credential on the actual certificates) will certify as well as render opinions regarding the authenticity as well as validity of a first generation Camaro and or parts and components to include COPOs as well as other vehicles, some of which are not Survivors, do not have any factory paperwork and sometimes do not even have one single original drivetrain component. I'm not questioning your degree of knowledge regarding COPOs and their components, I would believe that you know as much as anyone regarding the subject matter. Since you like to quote definitions, look up "certification". You state that it can't be done, I disagree. While the credibility and value of a given "certification" may be subjective, it has been done. . I believe that calling out a potentially real factory original COPO Camaro is a good thing. I also believe that those who use their knowledge and info to restamp, retag, fake up cars and or parts and or purposely attempt to defraud people are criminals. |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
I've been following this thread since the beginning and have come to a couple different conclusions.
First: I would say that the car is probably worth gambling on, although I am not interested in buying it. A decent '69 Camaro race car has some value and depending on how nice it is in person, the asking price isn't out of the stratosphere. Second: I would consider this an "entry-level" COPO (a new term) as this car probably will never have the original components and/or documentation. This being the case, in my opinion, it may not warrant a high-end restoration as it might be a money losing proposition. How much is a non- numbers and non-documented "possible" COPO worth? Is it worth more than the price of the car, the price of the COPO-specific pieces that are missing, and the cost of the restoration including chrome, sheet metal , etc. when you total all of these things? Third: William and Stefano and many others have voiced their opinions and each of those opinions are formed by data and experience. While these opinions do have validity, they do also differ. Opinions should differ---we are talking about a 45 year old race car with no supporting paper trail or any original documentation. I'd be more surprised if everyone thought the same. The guys and gals here know their stuff, but instead of the bantering and cross examinations, why not pool the facts and draw a reasonable conclusion and see if there really is a hidden Supercar that has surfaced? |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
DW, There's no room for rational thinking and calm discourse on the internet!
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
I'd keep it as a race car and run the "Oldtimers" as the Super Car Reunion........wheels up!
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Stefano,
Jerry is a member of the CRG. Jerry certifies/appraises cars. But that doesn't mean that the CRG does. [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/smile.gif[/img] No matter who does an appraisal, one should read the report and understand what the basis of the conclusion was. |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
That is exactly one of my main points, you have one CRG member who states that you cannnot certify a COPO without factory paperwork and/or original engine/drivetrain and you have another who does without any of the above.
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
I'm just curious...When Jerry certifies a camaro,does he state anywhere on the certification paper that he is a member of CRG?
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Some of these cars have been lost to badged up Z28 race cars ....I have been lucky ....of all the cars that I have purchased most of them did not have certain drivetrain components nor paperwork ...but based upon my inspection ...I considered them to be COPO cars....and not one has failed me thus far. My point is only to say if you do enough homework then eventually it pays off. We had this issue with the Radical One when we inspected it 2 weeks before the auction took place. It is healthy to disagree but wrong to discredit any particular car until it has been inspected...and only then it becomes an opinion. My black COPO was discredited...and with homework ...it was found to be one body number off another documented COPO from the same dealership and further homework turned up Joe Patrick of Marion Ohio ...the original owner. My point is ...you just can't quit on a car or part it out just because you have no paperwork or some/all of the drivetrain is missing.
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Since Doug has mentioned the black car in his post above the time is ripe to discuss it as my experience with it falls in line with the topic content.
The car was presented to me as an SS 396 but previously sold by a dealer as a COPO The car had a rear end that was not a BE and had an assembly date that matched the production date range of the body/ VIN#. Car had a reproduction Tach Car had Q-Jet fuel lines on it. Seller was evasive when I asked to do a more in-depth inspection. Seller became a non seller soon after and sold the car telling the buyer that I had verified the car as a COPO. |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Hmmm different story ....I was told that you inspected the car and the both of you could not agree upon a price. The seller contacted me after the both of you could not get a deal done.. that was his words to me . He never said it was a COPO ..but was hoping it to be and asked me to come and inspect the car. The Rearend in question was dated 10-8-69. That would be almost 2 weeks after the build date on the car ....as you looked at the reproduction tach you concluded that it was a 396 low horse car...and inspecting the date and axle code was a start to an intense inspection ..... I am the one that brought it to your attention that is was a reproduction tach and the big block heater box had never been touched.... As well as the trim tag with X 11 code had not been messed with or altered. Also some other COPO traits were still there . I guess the original owner Joe Patrick was the ace in the hole as I found him approx 9 months after I purchased the car. He is approx 74 years old and lives on Marion Ohio. Doing ones homework does pay off.... This particular car went on to score Legends at GM Carlisle.
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
A little off topic but, would a bonafide, documented, unrestored, ex-factory backed & dealer-sponsored '69 W-31 stick be welcome at the race Stefano speaks of in one of his latest posts? 'Cause I'm all about that "Wheels Up" stuff!!! I'm changing the rear and installing some fresh M&Hs for this upcoming season. 2013 was an uneventful year due to my back surgery----2014 should be a whole lot more fun!!!
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Absolutely!
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: C O P O CARTEL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hmmm different story ....I was told that you inspected the car and the both of you could not agree upon a price. The seller contacted me after the both of you could not get a deal done.. that was his words to me . He never said it was a COPO ..but was hoping it to be and asked me to come and inspect the car. The Rearend in question was dated 10-8-69. That would be almost 2 weeks after the build date on the car ....as you looked at the reproduction tach you concluded that it was a 396 low horse car...and inspecting the date and axle code was a start to an intense inspection ..... I am the one that brought it to your attention that is was a reproduction tach and the big block heater box had never been touched.... As well as the trim tag with X 11 code had not been messed with or altered. Also some other COPO traits were still there . I guess the original owner Joe Patrick was the ace in the hole as I found him approx 9 months after I purchased the car. He is approx 74 years old and lives on Marion Ohio. Doing ones homework does pay off.... This particular car went on to score Legends at GM Carlisle. </div></div>
I hear you... first of all I want to say congrats on your COPO!!... but what the seller told you is not true. There was no price discussion We did not get that far and I told you that when you contacted me after you bought the car, and again in our public "Discussion" at Good Guys. After I found the car I discussed some initial reasons with the seller as to why I had doubts the car was a COPO: Low horse Tach, Q jet lines, Cowl hood with no guts, fresh looking radiator that did not match the patina of the rest of the engine compartment and the BB Heater box looking new or refinished... then there is the rear end discrepancy. Already researching the book I reached out to the Norwood repair guys. These guys were the repair men at AGR and Supervision in 1969. I was told that it was not at all uncommon for a car to sit in the plant holding lot out back for replacement parts to arrive and this could be well over a week or sometimes longer to get parts to repair -- especially on specialty low volume Hi Performance parts as the HOT specialty parts in the pipeline were already build committed-so replacement parts had to be salvaged or ordered for repair. At the time I was thinking perhaps the car was a factory COPO with a defective BE rear? Perhaps the rear that finally made it to the car was a replacement rear end to get the car off to the dealer? [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/dunno.gif[/img] I was really trying to talk myself into the possibility. Next I contacted Arena Auto Sales and spoke to the salesman who placed the AD stating the car was a COPO which the seller had framed and on display with the car. Arena Auto Sales guy remembered the car stated the car was dressed as a 396 but the TT was incorrectly coded for a 396 factory build. When I asked him why they advertised it as a COPO? He stated that the info on COPO's had just been released by the USCC at the time they had the car for sale and since the car had "big block stuff on it" and the car had a "curved neck Radiator" "we advertised it as a COPO". Several weeks passed and I called the seller back and told him I wanted to inspect the car again and I would take three hours to look it over and If I was convinced it was a COPO we would discuss the price. He took that one call from me and told me he would get back to me the next day. He did not call me back. I tried calling him again leaving messages to call me. I had all but forgot about the car until about 18 months later - my Secretary told me "some Camaro guy was on the phone" and that day you had told me you had purchased the car having gotten my information from the seller in Ashville. On the Tach.. Yep I am giving your restoration guy the credit for stating it was a reproduction and I have no reason to disbelieve him to state otherwise would be to enter into a debate that is not needed. I think we both agree it was a low horse tach and obviously contributes nothing to proving COPO or not. Again this discussion should not be taken as questioning Doug's car or his research. <span style="font-weight: bold">Again CONGRATS on your COPO Doug.</span> This story does underscore the thread topic of discussion here of just how darn hard it is to authenticate a COPO car when the entire drivetrain is long gone. |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Didn't the black car have the original X11 coded trim tag? X11 coded 396 car?
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Good discussion - sounds like Doug saw enough on physical inspection to take a chance - then, to his credit, he tracked down the OWNERSHIP HISTORY. People fake paperwork & people fake car parts, but it's a lot harder to fake complete ownership history with contact info. I've had the same great experience tracking down old owners (with the holp of some really nice people on this site).
I truely wish that I could add more to the subject of this thread (the green RS car) - the owner hasn't called back yet. |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Yes Mark you are correct ...we are attempting to upload a photo of the engine compartment just after the motor was taken out by Dave McGaffee. We are challenged at the tech world Lol
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics...0-dsc03024.jpg
Here is a picture of Doug's Black COPO after I removed the engine. Single fuel line cut off at firewall, original heater box, original cowl induction selonoid and throttle arm etc.... |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Yep that is the car alright. [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif[/img]
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stefano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is exactly one of my main points, you have one CRG member who states that you cannnot certify a COPO without factory paperwork and/or original engine/drivetrain and you have another who does without any of the above. </div></div>
So?? How does that involve CRG? This is a stretch. Neither are posting or appraising as the CRG. Affiliation does not make CRG complicit in their statements. |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Did some one say that it had a shine heater box? looks like it has never be touched to me, also I NEVER seen a X11 with a 396!!!! someone also said it had the wrong fuel line (looks like a single 3/8 to me) NO cowl guts?? I can see in the picture the guts are there. ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT THE SAME CAR, If so I think some one is upset they didn't closed the deal before you Doug
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZL1#61</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did some one say that it had a shine heater box? looks like it has never be touched to me, also I NEVER seen a X11 with a 396!!!! someone also said it had the wrong fuel line (looks like a single 3/8 to me) NO cowl guts?? I can see in the picture the guts are there. ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT THE SAME CAR, If so I think some one is upset they didn't closed the deal before you Doug </div></div>
Same car. It also needed rear floors because they were hammer modified for large dual mufflers. It is Doug's car-he says it is a COPO so it must be. [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/burnout.gif[/img] |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics...1-dsc03047.jpg
Here is a picture of the floors.....nothing needed replaced just a little straightening here and there. Most people would love to start with a car this nice and solid, it even has the original quarters along with ALL of the other body panels intact. |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
No guarantee of anything, but isn't that a small block clutch rod?
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
You guys can see what I saw and draw your own conclusion as to why I bought the car.... Visual inspection is far better than looking at a monitor.
|
Re: 1969 Copo ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kurt S</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stefano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is exactly one of my main points, you have one CRG member who states that you cannnot certify a COPO without factory paperwork and/or original engine/drivetrain and you have another who does without any of the above. </div></div>
So?? How does that involve CRG? This is a stretch. Neither are posting or appraising as the CRG. Affiliation does not make CRG complicit in their statements. </div></div> The CRG is a tremendous resourse, none of my points are meant to be derogagtory to the CRG. I'll try to make my main point again; <span style="font-weight: bold">1969 COPO 9561 L72 Camaros can sometimes be authenticated, verified and "certified" without any of their original drivetrain and/or with out any dealer paperwork.</span> Point number two: A "core member" of an organization which specializes in first generation Camaros facts/data/assembly processes etc. states the opposite while another "core" member of the same first generation Camaro "organization" routinely certifies such Camaros as COPOs and happens to state his core membership of CRG as a credential of expertise on his certificates. Who is the ultimate "voice" for the CRG? Does the CRG have any, even one single 1969 Camaros in their data base, which do not have paperwork or numbers matching drivetrains, which are classified as 9561 COPOs or potential COPOs? |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
Perhaps you overlooked one of my points in a previous post:
<span style="font-weight: bold">A case might be made for a car that was in untouched survivor condition but just happens to no longer have its original engine or paperwork. </span> Why does it bother you that some CRG members disagree? Someone once said "When two people in a business always agree one of them isn't necessary." We are no different than any other organization. Do you assume politicians, engineers, scientists, historians always have to be in agreement? |
Re: 1969 Copo ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: William</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps you overlooked one of my points in a previous post:
<span style="font-weight: bold">A case might be made for a car that was in untouched survivor condition but just happens to no longer have its original engine or paperwork. </span> </div></div> A case might be made for a car that was in untouched "unrestored" condition but just happens to no longer have its original engine or paperwork. Replace "Survivor" with "unrestored" and we are in agreement and thus not necessary. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.