Harrell Website

[RPOZ26]

Hey Hotair I speak for myself and have no marching orders,unlike you. If you would take the time to look at the facts you would see the truth. I have met some good people on this site,but if this is the way things are here count me out. I think Tom needs to speak for himself and tell the facts about the car. Ed

[resto4u]

This topic is unreal and makes me sick! Race cars were wrecked. frames and bodies repaired and replaced. Race cars change hands often and are stripped of parts and parts changed. Previous owners memories are foggy at best usually. Next to impossible to prove or not prove this and that! What a waste of bandwidth! I am done with this thread! Roger

[sYc]

I first learned about my car from a friend who sells classic cars. He gave me the guys name and number, which I used to inquire about the car. At the time, the owner told me he had 3 vintage funnycars, one a 1967 Dick Harrell flip top car. Even though he told me the DH car was not for sale, I asked if I could see it, which I later did. Not only did the guy have in his shop 3 vintage funnycars, but more racing and hi-performance parts then I have ever seen in once place. Everything from wheels, blowers, injection setups, 348 & 409 engines, the list goes on and on.

While there we discussed at length the DH car. The car was in poor shape, the body in primer, no glass, portions of sheet metal missing, , the chassis in not much better shape, with a brackets for a radiator, hand brake, forward mounted engine brace, etc. The body had been stripped using a chemical stripper and a putty knife, at times going past the gel coat. He did tell me that in the removal of the paint is when they first saw signs of the car possibly being a DH car. Also, he had spoken with Don Hardy, who built chassis’ for Dick. Unfortunately he was not the type of person who was into taking pictures (documentation). While there he tried to sell me another early Camaro funnycar he had, but I told him I was only interested in the DH car, that if it ever came up for sale, I would be interested.

Fast forward a few months, I get a call from the guy, in desperate need of cash. He quotes me a price, and only gives me a couple of hours to make a decision. That afternoon we make the deal.
After getting the car back to my shop, and not having a clue about vintage funnycars, I begin searching the internet for information and pictures of DH and other vintage FCs. As we all do, I began buying any era magazine I could that had a pic of a DH FC in it. I too contacted Don Hardy. In addition, I purchased several individual pics off of Ebay and other sites. But it seemed, the more I learned, the more confused I became. The question kept coming up, how many 67/68/69 FCs did DH have? Fortunately two things happened that helped clear up a few things. I got to visit with Jim Kirby about his car and where it fit in, and the biggest break, I ran across Dave Libby. Once I began conversing with Dave, I felt I knew enough to begin the restoration process, but still by no means an expert on vintage FCs. Mo and I simply went by what we could see in the various pics, what was the simplest (sheet metal, etc) and what Dave was telling me. More then once I told Dave that once finished, I hoped he was not disappointed, that I would be satisfied if the car was 50-60 correct (due to the shape the car was in when I got it and my limited knowledge of FCs. Also, the guy who I bought it from said he bought it at a flea market somewhere around the Chicago area. Well, shortly after I bought the car, I talked with Bob Gibson (who lives in Springfield, IL, and is considered by most to be a vintage funny car guru) who told Mo and I that he had heard of an early Dick Harrell car being for sale in his area (this is the same Bob Gibson who discovered the “alleged” ‘69 DH funny car). In fact, the first show we attended (Hot Rod Reunion in Bowling Green) the car was parked in the American Racing Wheels booth, in which Bob Gibson was in charge.

The car was shown at the Hot Rod Reunion, then York, and then the biggee, the 2nd Annual FC Reunion at Etown, where Dave, Valerie and Pulde first saw the car. It was a special weekend, with many photos taken. The best part was listening to Dave as he walked around the car. A lot of things he complimented us on, others, such as the stance, no front sheet metal and the lack of nitro, he told me he would suggest changing. He told me he was well satisfied, that I had done well, with the car about 80% correct. IMO, the key moment took place while Dave, me, Mo and Marlin Spotts were having lunch and looking at pictures, not too far from my car. Dave asked if there had ever been any repair work done to one of the front fenders, which I replied I did not think so. Mo disagreed, went up and checked, and low and behold, repair work right where Dave said it would be. Seems Charlie Therwanger had a slight accident with the car. Since that time, Dave has appeared in several magazines standing by the car, and in a couple, answering questions about the car and its history.

While at Etown, Dave and I discussed something else, were there at least 2 ’68 cars, not counting the Kirby car. I felt there were at least two ‘68s, and 1 ’69, Dave said 1 ’68 and 2 ‘69s (more on the ’69 later). My theory is this. Judging by the photos, magazine articles, the video of the door car I have, I feel there were two early cars. The first one, most likely a ’67 Camaro, built in late ’67, one of the first one piece Camaro bodies ever produced, and needless to say, somewhat crude. And not out of the same mold as the second car nor the Kirby car. Then in the spring of ’68 the second car, the door car with the vanes on the rear deck. An interesting side note is a portion of “Agent 1320 Reports” article in SS&DI magazine. “..the poor funny car guys, the ones who took delivery on their ’67 body shells six weeks before the ’68 announcements”. Also of note, a side note in the September issue of SS&DI, where it says “The tricolor burgundy on the new Camaro was sprayed by Corky Larson of Phoenix, AZ, Harrell’s original hometown. The car took eight weeks and $12,000.00 to complete, and has run 7:80s at almost 190 mph against all kinds of tough competition. Since Dick has another similar car, he has appointed his top wrench, Charles Therwanger, to drive the new car”. Remember, back in the day, information contained in magazines was a lot more current then today. It is well documented the Red/Black car was running in early ’68. If the R/B car was simply redone, would it have cost $12,000 in 1968, and would Dick, who we know was over booked in ’68, taken the car off of the race circuit to completely redo the car?

To continue on with what Dave and I disagree with, he has gone on record saying there was one ’68 car, 2 ’69 cars, with the back-up car’s chassis used for the ’70 car. I say there were two ‘68’s, the R/B and the Burg, with the chassis from the Burg. car going under the ’70 and the body being attached to another chassis, which Steve Bimbi has a pic of from 1969. In 1968, Dick was only racing a funny car, in 1969 he was racing both a funny car and the ZL-1, thus seems he would have more need for 2 FCs in ’68 then in ’69. And I want to make it clear that I have nothing but the up most respect for Dave Libby. Even though I may disagree with him on some things from the past, he was there, I was not, so I will tip my hat to him for everything he has done for our hobby. Having the opportunity to spend time with Dave, visiting about my car has been a blast.

Now, can I say that I am 100% sure DH had 2 ‘67/68 car fliptop cars, and one of them is mine? No. Do I still believe that? Yes. But, as I have done for the past several years, I will continue to do research on my car. And to guarantee that no one gets “taken”, the car is not for sale (not that any one would want to own it). For now, it will simply remain another item in my personal collection of supercar memorabilia.

And now I see why Bill Porterfield removed the name Dick Harrell from ZL-1 #1. Some days it just is not worth it.

A few emails...

[ QUOTE ]

From: Ken Boje
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 5:00 PM
Subject: Funny Car

Rob,

Sounds like you have your hands full of a bundle of joy!

Could you pass this on to your dad. I was fortunate to talk to Dave Libby this week, he told me he is sure the funny car your dad has is Dick's red/original funny. I don't know how much he told your dad so far, but it seems the burgandy car was a leased car, being rebodied by Jim Kirby the owner with a 70 body for the 70 season, and he still owns it. Also, said Dick was killed in the 71 "mini" camaro, as I posted on the site. Does anyone have a compendium list of magazine articles compiled about Dick? I am trying to buy whatever article related to him I can fin, regarding his work with the different dealers.

Ken Boje


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: (no subject)
Dear Tom,
Glad to hear all is well with you. I'm sure you are eager to get the car finished. If you would, please send me a few pictures of the car. I would be honored to sign the car and I too am looking forward to it's completion. I also would like to authenticate your car with a Dick Harrell Licensing Agreement signed by you and me, that is if you plan on having Dad's name on the car. Moreover, since it was you who guided me in the right direction in getting his name licensed & trademarked and I am especially grateful that you helped me financially get the trademark started, I am only asking for $1.00 for a signed licensing agreement. I hope you will not be offended. I am honored by all that you have done to help keep Dad's name alive. Dale and I will not be at the Hod Rod Reunion, however, we do plan on being at the Funny Car Reunion in Englishtown the weekend of July 25, 26, & 27th. How about you? Again, it is always so good to hear from you. Hope your family is doing well and everyone has their health.
Warm wishes,
Valerie

Valerie Harrell
Dale Pulde
H.P. Racing, Inc.
Sylmar, CA


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 8:22 AM
Subject: Fwd: (no subject)

Rob,
Just checking email before going to work. Thank you for getting back with me right a way. I hope to see you both again on of these days. Issues are still unresolved as far as the divorce goes, however, our home did finally sell and I paid all money from that to my attorney. Oh, and by the way, please tell your father that the DH Licensing Agreement fee ($1.00) is already paid in advance.
Thanks.
Warmly,
Valerie

Valerie Harrell
Dale Pulde
H.P. Racing, Inc.
Sylmar, CA


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2003 10:00 AM
Subject: Fwd: Final proofs

Tom,
After Englishtown....... it would really nice to create a 1968 shirt for your car. Let me know. Here is what Dale helped me put together. I need to get Helen's approval, as well as Nickey.... your input please on this. I need contact info for these people too, if you have them to seek permission. As always, Val

PS: I have been meaning to tell you that I I just haven't had time to follow up on that licensing agreement for you. Just so you can have it for your records and to let others know that you have my full approval for what you have done with the car. Warmly, Val

[/ QUOTE ]

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

[sYc]

Now that everyone else is telling all, I guess it is time I come clean.

<font color="red"> Chapter two. The 1969 car.

I have known about that car for several years, actually getting to see it while being stored in a shed in KC. In rough shape would be an understatement. I have also have spent considerable time visiting with the guy who first “discovered” the car, which happend to be the same guy, Bob Gibson, who knew of my funny car. As happened with my car, as he was stripping the car with a cheap hardware store chemical stripper, he discovered remnants of a prior paint job and lettering, which led him to believe it might have been one of Dick’s. But because he saw no historical significance in the history of the car, he finished stripping the car, painted it (I believe Blue) and went on about his business, finally selling the car to a racer in Las Vegas. Once again, as with my car, he felt no need to photograph what he saw. I have no reason to doubt what he told me, just think it is ironic the parallels between my car and the ’69.
In the past, there was quite a discussion on here about the ’69 car, and did Valerie have what she said she did, with a lot of the critics coming from the same folks who now say the ’69 is legit and mine is not. When you can some quite a bit of time, check out this thread.
https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/show...0/fpart/1/vc/1

The good thing, the ’69 car would be easily to indentify, as the gentleman who worked for Dick in late ’68 through ‘69, who transported the car 1000s of miles as well as worked on it, is alive and well, living it New Mexico. That is Mr. Glenn Powell, who incidentally, was one of the sYc’s guests at SCR8. He has told me on more then one occasion he would be glad to look at the car and give his opinion.







Chapter three. The legal issues

First, in regards to the rights to the DH mark. If I had wanted control of the mark, I could have done so very easily. You see, when we first met, sometime in late 1999 or early 2000, I am the one who advised Valerie that she needed to register the mark, and GAVE her the money to do so, with no strings attached. I did this because I had learned the hard way about registered trademarks with the Yenko mark. Even though I had received written permission from the Yenko family to use the Yenko name, they could not give me permission to use the Yenko name in commerce, as a guy in Texas held those rights. Unfortunately I was unaware that there was a DHPC still operating in New Mexico, owned by Dick’s sister Betty Hall and her husband Charles. Betty is in poor health and Charles passed away not too long ago. The business is now being ran by their son Rick. Rick and Valerie have been engaged in a long running dispute, over several issues, including his rights to use the DHPC name in conjunction with his business, Their disagreement has entered the legal system, where, unless a compromise can be reached out of court, a Federal judge will decide things. My involvement in the case, as with other sYc members, has been as a friend to Rick. Unless I am called as a witness, I am not an actual part of the suit. It is because of our friendship with Rick, and the other legal action you are about to read about, that several sYc members, and their cars, have been bashed on the DH site.



Chapter 4, the Gibb trademark.

To me this is the most important issue, at least to our hobby that needs to be brought out into the open. A while back, it was reported on this site that Valerie Harrell had applied for the trademark rights to ALL things related to Fred Gibb Chevrolet. If approved, Valerie would have complete control over whom, and how the Gibb mark could be used. Anyone wanting to use the Gibb mark would need Valerie’s permission, including Helen Gibb, the city of LaHarpe, the sYc, etc. As soon as this was posted, I was swamped with calls, emails and PMs from folks wanting to know what could be done to prevent this. I assured everyone I would do some checking, which I did. At this past Vettefest, Helen and I had a nice visit about this. Helen, realizing just how damaging this could be to the Gibb name (look at what Valerie and friends have done to the DH mark), asked if the sYc would help her retain the rights to the Gibb mark, one she had been using for over 40 years. After checking with a few friends, we agreed to support Helen, as we felt it was the right thing to do. So “yes”, the sYc is directly involved in a legal issue, but over the Gibb mark, not the Dick Harrell mark.
</font>

[sYc]

I think it is obvious there is a major difference of opinion, and agendas between sites, so rather then propogate the hatred between the two sites, I have instructed our moderators to delete all messages referencing the other sites or their owners.

Also, now that everyone has had a chance to voice their opinions on this subject, I am locking the thread.

Time to take this off line and move on to more enjoyable topics.

[JoeG]

First off let me congratulate both sides for being able to type so fast------Unfortunately SYC had to make a public comment because of all the cage rattling and he said she said inuendos-------Just remember, This argument has rolled out into the street where all eyes are upon you so it's very easy to see thru private agendas if one keeps going up the same avenue on hot air alone----Alot of what's in the SYC statement was revealed by SYC when the car was first shown on the SYC site----IMO SYC has honestly represented the car with the information presented to them---

[Belair62]

Joe...you are right on. The agenda is not the car either....Ed...thanks for sharing your last self-serving useless comment on this board...

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

[moparts]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have to be a member of that group to view pics.