E-Bay '69 Yenko Disguised As a Z-28 Clone!

[black69]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PeteLeathersac</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-style: italic">[quote=black69]&quot;...Some experts in the Camaro field would have to say that the dash vin was never removed (so original paint better be present), and someone would have to say some of the original firewall is remaining...&quot;[/quote</span>]

Bergy has already confirmed the Vin tag itself has indeed been removed so suggesting ideas like this also court cases and things anyone 'would have to say' sounds felonious?.

Up 'til now I thought this thread was all about Bergy's quest of gaining information and opinions to determine what any components in hand actually are also considering possibilities of them being best consolidated both legally and fairly but including suggestions such as above in this open dialogue seems to take things from exploration to contriving?.

[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/hmmm.gif[/img]
~ Pete </div></div>

Hey, all I was trying to do is put a positive spin on what I think he could do, if ONE thing remained on the car like the vin plate. If that has been removed and reattached..then I think you have a pretty weak case getting a state to allow that car to keep its VIN. 35 pages to this thread, mistakes get made, I thought it was still original and never removed. Bergy did write: <span style="font-style: italic">I will move for a judicial declaration as to the propriety of this vin being attached to this car as soon as I have sufficient evidence.</span>. I got my head too wrapped up around that statement, and to me, this thread is more than just collecting information on his car. It opens up a lot of dialog.