So bottom line, this is a GS 455? with a new paint job and interior? So what is it really worth? Probably about what it is bid up to an no more in my opinion. Wonder if the current bid is a schill bid o No:
I did contact the seller of this car. The seller did not send me the body tag information but sent me the VIN number. I sent the owner a letter expressing my concern that this was not a real GSX and that all GSX's were to be built in Flint. I attached an image of the Buick document shown by Marco. I added that a Buick excutive could custom order a car (I know of two specific cars that had colors not available on 70 GS's) but that any GSX in 1971 would be a special order car and have to be documented. I have since sent an additional letter clarifing that this is not a real GSX. Leason Learned - Be very specific about the information that you give to people or it will be missued. Mark
The listing on eBay clearly states: "The car is believed to be a true GSX but there is no build sheet to verify. " Why all the piss and vinegar? Seems like a big fuss is being made over nothing. They are admitting they do not have the documentation to prove it...it is what it is. The description is full of detail and has plenty of pictures for everyone to make their own judgements. If you don't want to buy it, don't bid on it. Why not spend this kind of time and energy trying to make the world a better place?
"Why all the piss and vinegar? Seems like a big fuss is being made over nothing." The reason for all the piss and vinegar is this, the difference in value between a GSX and a non-GSX. If the car was not built in Flint, it is not possible to be a GSX, and the reason this thread exists is to help educate the members of this BB that that is the case. Personally I could care less who buys the car, but it would be nice if their eyes were open while they were doing it. "Why not spend this kind of time and energy trying to make the world a better place?" We are, for the members here. Duane
Making "the world a better place" sometimes means speaking up and pointing out that there is a liar out there trying to rip people off. Counting all the photographs with the "GSX" plainly indicated, and every time "GSX" is used, Bozo is trying about twelve times to convince the entire global community that he has a "real GSX." Meanwhile, there is ample documentation from the original manufacturer to disprove the bogus claim. Now the world is a better place.
Re: Personal Inspection I just inspected this car. I had met the owner before. This was the first time I had seen the car. The owner is a nice person. I am not going to go into anything covered already. Rather than respond to the private emails I am posting the essence of what I observed here. Paint --pretty nice job. The outline stripe is blue and not orange as original for a red X scheme. Front spoiler -- fiberglass aftermarket and not the plastic as original. Front spoiler brace -- OEM brace not present. Mounted without a brace. Trans -- does not match the car. Engine -- block is a 72 model 455 with a Holley carb. Intake is the air rail type from post 71 applications. Steering shaft -- small block steering shaft consistent withe the car starting its life as a GS 350. Core support -- hurt under the battery tray as is oftern the case. Interior light is center mounted in the roof consistent with originally being a base interior car. Present interior -- nice black --column shift GSx emblem is in the dashpad. I really did not spend much time evaluating the body. Rear bumper showing age and really needs a rechrome. I did not hear it run. The owner said it ran well but volunteered it has an exhaust leak at one manifold.
The Agent for the Seller contacted me due to some of my pointed questions about the eBay ad (title and copy) ... about the same time Gsxy joined and made a prior reply in this very thread (i.e., Gsxy is the Seller or Agent). His reply and questions: 1) Just hypothetically speaking, how should it be described if we can't confirm it to be a GSX and can't confirm it to be a clone. I really am asking and not trying to be smart. 2) If you read the auction description and questions/answers posted, you'll find out that the car was repainted in a different color than it originally was manufactured in. The seats were reupholstered as well and the photos do not lie, they are black. I included a photo of the cowl tag so those with their books could determine what the original paint and trim were...I do not have that information or those books, otherwise I would have included it. In summary, the data tag and the restoration do differ in paint and trim. The restoration work was done by the previous owner, so why they chose that paint and trim is a question I do not have an answer for. 3)I am not a dealer. I am helping this owner sell his car by doing the legwork on eBay. I don't have any resources to verify information on this car, only the information of this owner and the previous owners. 4)Jim Lore called me yesterday and asked to see the car. I provided him the owner's number to schedule a time to see it. I did not tell him the car was sold because it has not sold, it is still on eBay. Please don't assume that what other's say to be factual until you hear it straight from the horse's mouth. I'm not maliciously hiding any information or keeping folks from seeing the car. My phone number should be all over the listing so if folks want to call and talk about the car, they can reach me. That would be more productive than hypothiszing [sic] and postulating on a message board, wouldn't it? Please post this response on the board as well so "everyone" can read it. Here is my number again in case someone wants to actually talk to me, instead of presuming I'm a shady car dealer trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. 919-969-7065...thanks for your questions and concerns and please don't hesistate [sic] to contact me. My response: Let me start by saying that I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue. Pardon the movie parody references … it just happened. Part I: Attack of the Clones: Part of the issue is borne out a much larger and broader problem which is the fact that there is an ever present and increasing number of … and I won’t mince words here … imposter vehicles for sale in the muscle car market. I don’t think many serious collectors would even attempt to challenge the notion that there are way more Cranberry Red Chevelle SS vehicles present in the market place than Chevrolet EVER ORIGINALLY PRODUCED. Therein lies one of the broader issues presented here. Similarly to the prior statement about the red SS’s, there are a lot more Buick GS and Skylark-bodied vehicles now wearing GSX stripes than Buick EVER ORIGINALLY PRODUCED and with plant build codes that contradict officially documented Buick internal manufacturing documents. There is no middle ground between 'clone' and 'authentic' ... either it is one or it is the other, but not some gray area. Part Deaux (II): “Hmmmm, I don’t know how those emblems or stripes got there. They were there when I found the car.” After looking at many collectible vehicles over the years that were advertised as moderately-to-very rare vehicles, I, and I really, really think many others by my observations, experience the same ole’ common elements in the seller’s representations about the vehicles for sale. I have no problem per se w/ the concept of Caveat Emptor, (even though many states’ laws now swing in favor of Buyer’s rights, especially when the Seller was put ‘on notice’ of a problem of issue before the sale for which the Seller had the ability to resolve, explain or prove, but rather did not by affirmative action or inaction), but, suffice-it-to-say that the rarer a vehicle advertised is, then there will probably be a corresponding increase in interest in that vehicle and necessarily a lot more pointed questions by a range of potential Buyers attempting to verify the merchandise for sale. That should be no surprise. For example, I looked at your ad on eBay and saw the statement about the Buick being refinished in code 75 Red. This may be a factual statement, but to me personally, it seemed incomplete as though there was more information there that needed to be asked and or disclosed … like what was the color before the ‘refinishing’ considering the data tag in the ad that is presumably from this very vehicle differs from the visual representations (pictures) and text description. So, this is really a matter of “connecting the dots”: 1. pictures show GSX paint scheme now; 2. the ad clearly says this vehicle IS A 1971 BUICK GSX; 3. the description says the vehicle was refinished in code 75 Red; the interior is black; and 4. the data tag, which nearly always indicates the precise original build information and is one of the very best sources of original verification of authenticity, contradicts the photos as advertised. A natural question involves how this change of exterior color and interior trim occurred and this would lead to when it happened, etc., in the prior ownership or chain of title. Part III: the Sequel’s Sequel: I am a trained fraud investigator by trade. I am specifically not making any allegations in this case. I will say that my professional experience, which is considerable, has shown me time and time again that while there are the aforementioned (as advertised) bogus vehicles present in the market place, these situations seem to be repeated time and time again in repetitious ‘turn-around sales’ or ‘flips’ by Owners who unwittingly previously purchased the same vehicle and are now selling the same vehicle trying to ‘unload’ the car. I don’t know if this is the case because I do not know the exact details of how this vehicle was previously acquired or what warranties or representations were made at that time in the previous sales. Regarding you being a personal seller as opposed to a dealer, well, eBay qualifies this seller’s account as a business/dealer account and as such, treats this differently from a personal seller’s account. I don’t know if this auction is some kind of fee for access arrangement, etc., like is present in some ‘sell yourself’ real-estate arrangements, other than eBay seems to take a harder line with dealers about on-line representations and descriptions, but that is not unusual because the law generally does also because when a merchant is in the business of selling that very kind of merchandise (i.e., a car dealer selling cars), they are usually held to a higher standard and often under the jurisdiction of more strict laws or regulations. Back to your question about how I would advertise this vehicle. I understand economics 101: a buyer wants to buy low and a seller wants to sell high. But, I think I can read from your reply that you will agree with my position that a buyer should in-fact get what is actually advertised. Logically, your question has framed 2 different points on a continuum. On one end, you say you cannot confirm this vehicle is a ‘clone’ and on the other side that this vehicle is actually a 1971 Buick GSX. To me, the ad reads as taking the posture that this vehicle is indeed a real bonafide 1971 GSX … meaning the Seller is presenting this as though this vehicle is just that without mentioning all the information that has been discussed about this car and the associated questions about the authenticity. So what would I have said: Well, I probably have stated something very simple and direct like: The Seller cannot confirm that this vehicle is actually 1971 Buick GSX. That is simple and quite frankly, probably legal protection. It is clear from the title of the auction that a representation is being made that this is a very rare vehicle and yet there is credible and substantial information that this is not the case. If I take your statement about ‘not being able to disprove this vehicle is a 1971 GSX’ because of lack of factory documentation and take it to its logical conclusion, then no person can disprove that any 1971 Buick GS is not an actual 1971 GSX. The fact that something cannot be disproved does not prove its truth. I would not leave the issues discussed in the ads Q & A up to the mere possibility of some potential Buyer asking “the right” question, rather I would take a much more proactive and affirmative action. Another suggestion, since you mentioned that the prior owners in the chain of title are known, if you or the current owner actually got a statement or other verifications as to the authenticity of this vehicle as presented in the ad, I should think that you would probably really increase your return in this investment/sale … Mr. Haubrich or Mr. Adams, as prior owners, should not be too difficult to contact. In closing, since this vehicle has been inspected very recently and it clearly appears any and all of the signature GSX pieces present on this vehicle are not original (not made out of original GM factory materials, i.e., for example the front spoiler is presently fiberglass and not the original GM plastic) and that critical GSX-only parts are missing from this vehicle, then I should think the overwhelming and great-weight of evidence – including all of the authority of the factory GM internal literature – should allow a reasonable person in your position to re-assess the fact that a mere conditional statement about “believed to be a real GSX” is not sufficient … at very least, there should be an asterisk next to the GSX on the title and a corresponding asterisk down in the copy of the ad for the conditional statement. This is not intended to be “piss and vinegar”, but protection for other unsuspecting persons. I know a lot of people who have gotten “burned” on deals before and there are a lot of people who watch this kind of stuff regularly and have the credentials, knowledge and authority of the most experienced restorers, collectors, judges and archive record holders for these Buick GS vehicles. They include former GM employees and engineers who actually designed and built these automobiles back in the day. And although you responded that you have limited resources to verify information about this vehicle or its credentials, I don’t quite buy that since somehow you exercised enough effort to find (or was told) and then registered (User name: Gsxy) on the discussion forum so as to post a reply in the face of all the adverse information to your advertisement about this car. So I ask you, why not start with what you can absolutely state with 100% certainty? That this vehicle is a 1971 Buick GS 350 and then maybe a … or is cloned to be a … or is believed to be a … This is what I would do. The motive seems to be $$$$$$$. Ken
Ken. That was a very nice post. If the gentleman/seller is interested in knowing how we can prove "without any doubt" that the car being sold is not a true GSX then you can send him the body of this post. The car in question was not built in Flint Michigan, therefore it is not possible to be a real GSX. We have this point proven by, 1. Factory Assembly Manuals 2. Factory provided Dealer Service Bulletins 3. Factory Daily Car Reports. The 3rd source has the real difinitive answer. We, as in myself and others, have copies of the actual production reports from the last day of the 70, 71, & 72 model years. These sheets list the total number of options produced, by each production plant "up to date", so if you have the sheets from the last day of production you end up with the total number of options produced for that model year. These Daily Car Reports show that for all three years (70-72) there were no vehicles produced, with any of the GSX options, except at the Flint Plant. This means the car in question could not be a GSX, nor could it have been ordered with any of the GSX specific parts, because they were only available at the Flint plant. I hope this helps him to understand. Duane
Isn't the real question , Is it worth the money? Known 71 GSX Clones are selling for more than the car is bringing. I doubt anybody thinks he can get a real car for this money. If so, please let me know.
Ahh, there's the key... knowing exactly what it is being sold and the quality/condition. Of the group of prospective buyers, I would divide them into two broad groups ... those who know this vehicle is a clone and those who don't. The point is that the latter group has shrunk in size due to the discussion about this car, here, and in the eBay comments (Q & A) pre-sale and the former group has grown (been educated about authenticity of GSX's) in the process or been given (finally) enough warning as to be extra cautious about the Seller's representations. This is a good thing and speaks to your question directly that the bidding on this car probably won't go as high as it otherwise would have since some people have been educated to the real facts regarding '71 & '72 GSX's. In other words, the bidding will be for what this car actually is and not what it isn't (what it was represented to be). The market can & will decide, but accurate & truthful information really, really helps this process. Although I enjoy eBay (buying and selling) as much as the next gearhead and recognize the significant contribution eBay has had to facilitating the hobby, it also has the ability to be misused and really cause harm to unsuspecting buyers. This is part of the reason for (my portion of) this discussion thread. I get a kick out of the brief comments by some of the authorities in this field on this board who must be thinking, "Here we go again." or "There is no debate over this issue of authenticity." I know they know it and they are THE authority with THE info to prove it. But, to the credit of the discussion, people are educated in the process and this portion of the hobby is better-off for it. And, maybe some others can just refer back to this thread in the future when this issue reappears. Ken
Broker says: "Jim Lore called me yesterday and asked to see the car. I provided him the owner's number to schedule a time to see it. I did not tell him the car was sold because it has not sold, it is still on eBay. Please don't assume that what other's say to be factual until you hear it straight from the horse's mouth. " Jim Lore replies: Welp, I dicussed this issue with the Broker. As I stated correctly the owner did send me an email on April 16 after I asked to inspect the car stating the Car was sold. Here is a copy of the owner's email response: "Car is sold....sorry" When I read the sender's email address back to the broker he confirmed it was in fact that of the owner. I never stated the broker told me it was sold. Here is what I posted: "I contacted the owner and told him I wanted to see the car in person and that I suspected his was mistaken about the GSX label. He sent a reply saying it was sold." The owner, I suspect, is the real horse's mouth when it comes to knowning whether his own car is sold. So in this case you can assume what I posted was factual because it was. Since the car is still for sale I assume something happened during the interim to make the owner's original email response no longer valid.
To all you guys (and we all know who you are) who have forgotten more details about our Buicks than I will ever know, and are willing to expend your time and energy (and maybe even resources) to keep this hobby/business more honest: We OWE you one.:beers2: Thank you. Frank
Jim L.: I think people know your word is pretty much 'gold' on this board. I'm sure there are some people who are very appreciative of you for taking the time and effort to report factually and accurately - for the sake of all parties involved - what was inspected without any malice or agenda, etc., so an informed decision could be made. You were very fair. Thanks. The hobby is big enough for everyone and open discussion is a good thing. Ken
