Scott Hall wrote:
>
> okay, but explain this: my mk. II is titled as a '64. now, you could sell
> a '66 as a '67 if you sold it in '67, but how did he get that comm. no. in
> '64? the numbers on the title match up, and the other little mk. II
> things are there--but weren't the first mk. IIs late '65?
Scott,
I guess that one will remain one of life's great mysteries. The car was
built in 1965, but there actually were some Mk2's built in December of
1964. FC68647L would have put the build date late in 1965, so how it
got registered as a 64 is beyond any rationalization that my aging brain
can come up with. It would be interesting to see where the car was
shipped to from the factory.
YOu might consider ordering a build certificate and find out as much as
you can about it.
Regards,
Joe
--
"If you can't excel with talent, triumph with effort."
-- Dave Weinbaum in National Enquirer
|