Re: 1969 Douglas Yenkos
How many conversations can we have at one time?!?
To answer Marlin: "What corroberating evidence of an agreement are you referring to? I have yet to see any evidence??"
I'm not sure anything less than the Dead Sea Scrolls will fit your evidence requirements. How many contracts between any of the dealers mentioned have survived all these years? Much less one that was for less than a year.
Evidence? There are statements from employees of both dealerships and one dealership owner, all of which jive surprisingly well. There's the fact that Douglas didn't lose the Chicago area Yenko distributorship. There's the fact that Yenko sold the stripes to Douglas. This is all evidence, none of it is heresay (well it is now since none of the people quoted actually posted the info).
"QUOTE: "What is a Yenko anyway? My definition would be:..." I would add to your definition that the car was ordered by and MSO'd to Yenko Chev."
I'm not sure why the source of the car would be in the definition. It is not what defined the product. The Nickey/Thomas scenario is similar, and the cars are still considered the Nickeys.
I said a 69 Yenko Camaro is : 'A COPO that was specially decalled as a Yenko and marketed as such.' This same statement can be changed to fit the Nickeys, Harrells, Yenkos, BMW's, etc. The source of the product was not what inferred value to the original customer, what did was the marketing of it as a Yenko (or Nickey, et al) and the inherent value associated with that name and what it represented.
Mike,
I agree Yenko was not a manufacturer, but per the sanctioning organization's rules, they could be considered one. Hey, they made those rules, people just worked around them. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
Stefano,
My car is a L35 car.
__________________
Kurt S - CRG
|