1971 Motion Car on Ebay

[Racefan]

The paint on the hood is still different in the cover shot than on the pictures in the description. The paint in Belair's link is different between the "newer pics" and the magazine also. Look closely at the lines just above where a hood ornament would be. One has a solid line while the other doesn't. Look closely and you'll see. I am not trying to insinuate anything or make accusations. I am just curious as to why they aren't the same? Maybe it isn't 1 of 1? Maybe there was an accident and it was repaired? Maybe a fire? Maybe someone repainted? However, one thing is for sure.....it IS NOT the same paint job on the hood as was printed in the magazine.

[Seattle Sam]

Maybe some of the paint rubbed off, like the lettering did on the tail panel....

[PeteLeathersac]

It's not surprising if there was repairs needed in it's history....it mentions they were using it as a tow vehicle! . I'd expect the "local brush" mentioned would know the story. ~ Pete

[Racefan]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe some of the paint rubbed off, like the lettering did on the tail panel....

[/ QUOTE ]

Impossible, take a look at it. I don't think you guys are loooooking? It isn't that the paint is "missing".....well, it is....but it is because the pattern is painted differently. Look at the pictures and compare, like those silly puzzles in the paper. Look for differences.

Come on, guys. You can tell if one of the head bolts are "wrong" on the back of the passenger bank in a satellite shot from space (with the hood CLOSED), but you can't see this?

[camarojoe]

Yes, part of the hood's pattern is a bit different, meaning it was spotted in at one time, for some reason... probably to repair a scratch, crack, light hit to the front, etc. so what? I have no doubt its the same car as on the magazine cover.

[MosportGreen66]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, part of the hood's pattern is a bit different, meaning it was spotted in at one time, for some reason... probably to repair a scratch, crack, light hit to the front, etc. so what? I have no doubt its the same car as on the magazine cover.

[/ QUOTE ]

The car featured here... the car's legitimacy has already been proven.

[Racefan]

To be fair, I offered up many suggestions as to why it was different. I was looking for any cool stories about how it was changed, not going on a witchhunt. Geez, relax guys.

But, if this were NOT owned by a member of this site would the differences have been overlooked as they were in this case? Or, would we have gone on for 75 pages looking for answers? Not trying to stir anything up, but just asking what I believe to be a valid question.

[MosportGreen66]

[ QUOTE ]
To be fair, I offered up many suggestions as to why it was different. I was looking for any cool stories about how it was changed, not going on a witchhunt. Geez, relax guys.

But, if this were NOT owned by a member of this site would the differences have been overlooked as they were in this case? Or, would we have gone on for 75 pages looking for answers? Not trying to stir anything up, but just asking what I believe to be a valid question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil... I think you bring up valid points and questions. In this particular case however, the authentication of the car has been proved here so some of the skepticism that arose is not needed. If a car is posted here and is very much in question, all the owner should do is provide documents or other forms of authentications.

I do not think there are major issues with a car's paint (even as rare as this where the paint really makes the auto). Paint can always be changed. It is not as hard to find a talented painter as it would be to track down an original motor from a car. I do not think the paint issues with this car were overlooked. I just don't do not believe they were discussed. This is a radical piece of Motion Performance History!

-Dan

I did not intend for original reply to be nasty or agressive in anyway.