Tom,

Thank you for the reply..It makes for really good reading, and goes to showing your thought process. Please understand that my previous post and this one are simply as a researcher...nothing more nothing less..one who has had unique cars that were diffulct to document. So I certainly can appreciate the "leap of faith" you must have taken to secure such a neat car as the FC.

Repectfully though I must ask a few questions and make a few observations...

It doesn't appear from reading your post that there was really any concrete documentation saying that particular car was a DH car. It seems reading your post that the former owner said it was and you bought it based on that and then tried to research it back to DH. You even mention only being interested in the DH car.

2) It seems to me at least IMO that really the fact the car was a DH car was sort of taken for granted and maybe I'm reading into too much, but that you more or less worked to prove that the car was a DH car..vs. trying to prove or verify really WHAT it was. Another words if I go into something with a predispositon as a researcher more than likely that will be the outcome..even if evidence surfaces that might lead me in other directions.

3) While in your post you mentioned you aren't sure the car is a DH car or even that he had 2..it seems to me that both are only specualtions and as yet 100% unproven...yet you have been marketing the car as THE 1968 DH FC...which is a definitive statement without interpetation..How does this seem like the right thing to do as with something of such a historical nature? IMO it would make more sense to make a "Generic" notasolgia car and market it as such until the true identity could be learned. Isn't it possbile that the car is another , maybe equally interesting and historically valuable car..just not one with the instant marketing and recognition as DH?

4) I guess I'm alittle confused as reading your post and eagerly awaiting your response I expected a point by point rebuttal to the pics on the other website..not just a recap of the "how and why" you bought the car..I guess I'm looking for "more" when someone goes out on a limb as you have and say "this is THE car.." especially with the marketing that you have done with it. To many this is THE car because you say it is, and I guess for one I'm alittle disappointed knowing that there is are doubts.

5) You mention Bob Gibson and talk about his being the guru, yet IMO it seems like you are questioning his knowledge as he found what he feels is a 1969 F/C but the impression I get from your words are you feel it isn't real..I'm not sure how whether you want the reader to believe he knew your car was a DH car because he heard one was for sale or not..maybe I'm confused.

6) I guess for me you mention a big break came from this Dave Libby and he more or less initally verified your car as a DH car...yet now I guess he doesn't or at least has doubts? You two disagree over whether there are 1 or 2 cars, yet he was there and you by your own admission weren't... Wouldn't he be the best source for this?

Tom please don't take offense to my observations as they aren't meant to be critical of you the person. I personally would have approached this car completely different then you did as far as research goes that is all.

I guess in closing isn't it entirely possible that you have another car, and not DH's car from 1968? IMHO the right thing to do..I'm sure I'll catch hell for this..is to post a retraction and stop the marketing of the car until more is known, beginning the research process again. IMO Tom didn't try to deceive only that he went into it with a preconceived answer...

Respectfully,

G S Carlson