Re: [Chrysler300] authenticity re 300s ??!!

[Nancy Kramer <nekramer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Christopher,

I totally agree with you.

Regards,

Nancy Kramer


  At 07:22 PM 3/14/2009, christopher beilby wrote:


>As usual I speak from afar, so excuse me if I do not fully understand. 
>This likely will not be my last post, but it soon maybe my last for a 
>while, so either delete now, or read on.
>
>Normally one would asume if one is trying to return a 300 to how when 
>brand new it left the Factory or Dealer,
>
>(and that already opens a 300 can of worms - like which is more 
>correct/relevant - namely which is more important??!! The car that was 
>made, or the car that was supplied/used??!!),
>
>then one would assume it should be as clse as possible to correct?
>
>This happens with Shelby Cobras, early 50s Ferrari, rarer early Jaguar, 
>and no doubt Dusenbergs, pre WWII finer Cadillacs, etc..
>
>And so then we come to Ron Water's perhaps good question, and the 300 Club 
>Judging Criteria - such as tailight lenses. And about all this - what is 
>said '300 Judgingwise' correct, and what is said not - I know nothing.
>
>But it suprised me, in restoring one of my 300Cs:
>
>1) that there seemingly is much still to be documented in one 
>form/publication, where all that should by now be known, is recorded, 
>publically available?!
>
>2) that there is seemingly no well pointed out 'public list' of what is 
>allowed re Club Judging, that is non factory, or should that be 'non 
>dealer' !??
>
>(ie what if a 300 shows what was not a factory microfish spec, but is 
>maybe a Dealer add on?! - or worse - a later owner, add on??!! (such as 
>how many 300Cs left Dealers with two/both outside rear view mirrors?!! 
>Personally the now so common two mirrors is OK/fine with me,, but how may 
>this be viewed in 20-50 years - is it important??!!)))
>
>To me, any 300 if it as owner wishes, and not harmfully modified, then 
>that is a 300, and not to be looked on with scorn. I have one 300C I drive 
>that willl never (maybe?) be a show car. But then if one wishes to do a 
>300C correct, it suprises me I yet to learn who has the really 100% 
>definitive list of how one should be?!. And to me if one is going to say 
>Chrysler Dealer supplied Glo Brite lenses that have different markings 
>lose points (maybe correctly so, if they unavaible while cars still in 
>production/new?) that list should also include what special Chrysler 
>marked nuts and bolts that hold the car together are correct, and ALL 
>items that are correct Chrysler date marked should be used. ( Factory 
>bolts in some, many, key areas may be structural, so using generic made in 
>China poorer quality steel bolts maybe not safe, never mind not right??!!)
>
>Otherwise it is double standards to say that particular lens has wrong 
>letters at base, yet for eg not look at say the date stampings on brake 
>booster face plate, to see if it is not maybe also a later item?! Both are 
>just as visible, so why pick on a lens, yet not the other part?
>
>I am not saying a 300 is wrong because it may have later parts, just that 
>if someone really wants to bother doing a 300 that little bit better 
>'correct', that at least 300 members have a best available guide to help. 
>Plus - as with Ferrai, etc - a car judged correct, should be correct?!! OK 
>allow wrong modern tyres, other hard to get items, but surely document, 
>award differently if desired, if a car uses ALL/more correct parts?! (this 
>may be seen as extreme say 20 years ago, but with 300 values for some 300 
>models way higher today, there a need for higher knowledge of what correct?!)
>
>In doing my 300C recently I have found additional detail/questions re 300C 
>'originality re factory build', yet the Club author of the supposed (and 
>likely) best current 300C guide, seems somewhat 'prickly' sometimes re 
>some matters if they not his exact 'viewpoint/whatever'?, never mind has 
>published in his 300C handbook for years wrong detail re my supercharged 
>300C, otherwise I would have passed all I have found onto him, but from 
>his zero reply re first few I wrote him about, it seems he does not want 
>to know, so I raise it here for other 300 members to suggest a better 
>future solution, that if anyone cares? And this is no comment/reflection 
>re him - the Club is lucky he put his time and effort into publishing what 
>he has.
>
>My Membership comes due soon, and so it might be timely I may give all/any 
>of you bored by my often overlong posts a break as I let it lapse for a 
>period before renewing at some later time, plus while I wait and see if 
>the wrong entry that has gone out for years in this semi 300 Club 
>publication publishes a correction?!
>
>Until now I chose to ignore this somewhat Club endorsed 'wrong 
>publication', but I feel it time that the author either put up why he 
>knows he is correct re what he has said for years, or otherwise 
>retracts??! And likewise, he has again chosen to refuse to respond.
>
>I will let my Membership matter go a few months - maybe he may be better 
>placed re any reply, plus those who feel their view is the only 
>view/way/rule if that is how it is?! The Club should be about sharing the 
>wealth of knowledge that 300 owners have/find, putting it on paper for 
>all. That is how the Shelby register has worked/grown/survived/prospered 
>for over 30 years. It stuns me how little is on public record re the pre 
>300H 300s, while so many menmbers know so much that each year becomes more 
>threatened to be lost forever? Why - who is afraid of it all being out 
>there - who wants to nick that special/rare/super low miles 300 - what 
>crazy/wrong reason exists for not doing it?! Or does it just need someone 
>being appointed to start it all?! Chrysler's 1955 - early 60s 300 story is 
>pretty special, why not try to get it written down before so much more of 
>it is lost - plus get real serious re 300 resto guides for all years if it 
>felt appropriate?!
>
>There are many many true great 300 Members, the 300Club International is a 
>credit to those serving Officers who love and wish to see endure 300s, and 
>I am planning to get to the US later this year, hopefully do the big drive 
>around, and I look forward to meeting those I have got to know,
>
>Christopher Australia - ps light rain just last days has maybe totally 
>finished fires, fire risk, for this summer. Drought still on over most of 
>southern part of nation though.
>
>
>To: <mailto:wgraefen%40windstream.net>wgraefen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>CC: <mailto:chrysler300%40yahoogroups.com>chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>From: <mailto:ronbo97%40comcast.net>ronbo97@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:40:09 -0400
>Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Re: OEM vs. Glo-Brite
>
> >They said the '57 Chrysler was the ONLY Chrysler specific tail lens they
> >had ever made though they had made numerous Plymouth and Dodge lenses.
> >Part of the reason they made it was that the factory supply of OEM lenses
> >from Auto-Lite was fairly quickly used up by Mopar service parts and they
> >were asked to supply Mopar and they did. This is why you will find
> >Glo-Brite "CY-3" and "CY-4" lenses in Mopar boxes with Mopar packaging.
>
>So based on this information, it sounds like Glo-Brite was a vendor for
>Chrysler and the CY-3/4 lenses would/should be considered OEM correct even
>by the club's concours standards. Any thoughts ?
>
>Ron
>
>__________________________________________________________
>Need a new place to rent, share or buy? Let ninemsn property help.
><http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Edomain%2Ecom%2Eau%2F%3Fs%5Fcid%3DFDMedia%3ANineMSN%5FHotmail%5FTagline&_t=774152450&_r=Domain_tagline&_m=EXT>http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Edomain%2Ecom%2Eau%2F%3Fs%5Fcid%3DFDMedia%3ANineMSN%5FHotmail%5FTagline&_t=774152450&_r=Domain_tagline&_m=EXT
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/2000 - Release Date: 
>3/13/2009 6:00 PM


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/2000 - Release Date: 3/13/2009 6:00 PM




------------------------------------

To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For list server instructions, go to http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm

For archives go to http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:Chrysler300-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    mailto:Chrysler300-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/