darren wrote:

I'm with ya, amigo.
Hows this ad for a crack-smoker....

http://stlouis.craigslist.org/cto/4380043649.html

Wow... As with most all of the 65-66 Mustangs, those first ten years must have been REALLY HARD ON IT!!  Even the patch panels have rusted completely away.  I guess when someone who doesn't know anything about a Mustang is writing the description, they just automatically assume that no one else knows any more about them than they do, so all the erroneous descriptions start to fly.

It also had that ONE OF ONE rectangular headlight bezel option along with the 66 gauge bezel option available only to a very rare group of 65 Mustangs !  That car looks like it would be perfect for a fastback roof transplant project for Ramses, but not for anything close to the asking price.

The coupe in my first post is a very nice car.  It is just too bad they didn't just take a bunch of pics and keep their mouth shut.  Once some BS comes out, you just assume everything else is more of the same.

hey terry, head on over to east alton and look it over..................heck, we could do a "Bash Build" in September........think of the possibilities.................

Richard Rawlings sales man...LOL

I usually let that stuff go right by me, but I sent him a polite email saying I thought there was one too many zeros on the end of his price.

wsinsle wrote:

 
So you pay $12000 for a car and spend $25000 to restore it and you end up with a really nice car worth $25000. What's the problem with that?
Is my math off?

I think so 12 + 25 = 37...

Now if you only paid $1200 instead of $12,000

I get the math, that was just a poor attempt at sarcasm. I think the issue is people see a cars sell on a TV show for $50,000 or $100,000 and they think all old car are worth that much.

Last edited by wsinsle (3/25/2014 4:36 PM)