What's wrong with this listing?

[JBOYLE]

Sorry to beat a dead horse....it's been done before.

What's wrong with this listing?

http://www.russoandsteele.com/past-collector-car/1963-AMC-Avanti/104341

If you don't want to open the link , just read it carefully....

Really, Studes get no respect...just like Rodney.

[JEWELL]

That clearly a Mopar Avanti, where do they come up with this stuff

[StudeRich]

I could find a LOT wrong with the Car, but the Ad is something else. Everything "sounds" believable except this,

Quote: "Exterior is a beautiful metallic blue which Studebaker would have used had it been available in 1963."
Really, I did not know that Cyan color tint was not invented until after 1963!

The AMC part is weird, someone mistakenly registered this Car as an AMC!
If this guy is the second owner, that only leaves the "ORIGINAL owner since new" and himself, who could let that happen knowing full well it's a Studebaker?

You know those "Built for" Avanti nameplates are cheap, I don't think having one of those proves a whole lot.

[aarrggh]

Me like the color .

[Deaf Mute]

Didn't Studebaker offer metallic paints back in the late 1930's?

[StudeRich]

Didn't Studebaker offer metallic paints back in the late 1930's?

Probably, but on post war Cars they were in use mostly from '55 Speedster and 1956 to 1966, and ALL Avantis were Metallic except Black and White.

I do think it is about the BLUE though, and a slightly lighter Metallic Blue (Blue Mist) was on 1963 Studebakers.

[karterfred88]

Looks more like a Kaiser Avanti, but a 1954 version. Could have at least used a 6000 RPM tachometer, and gotten rid of the seat upholstery--"come on man" !!

[qsanford]

I was thinking it might be a Citroen Traction Avanti! <G>

[bezhawk]

AMC= Avanti Motor Corporation. Of course!

[drpreposterous]

I'm thinking that's gotta be a Ford Avanti. It does, after all, have a 289.



Ya, whatta bunch of maroons. They bill themselves as being a company built "for enthusiasts by enthusiasts," then either highlight their ignorance and/or carelessness with that goof.

[evilhawk]

Everyone knows AMC built Studebakers and had Ford engines... Yeesh!

[Jessie J.]

Seats look just like the ones in my old Cavalier. Definitely NOT an improvement.

[JBOYLE]

Ya, whatta bunch of maroons. They bill themselves as being a company built "for enthusiasts by enthusiasts," then either highlight their ignorance and/or carelessness with that goof.

I just came from the auction and I found the staff who I worked with knowledgeable.
Yes, this might be their mistake...or it could just be what the seller told them.
In the auction world, firms usually have to take the owner's word for things since not everyone is a smart as we are!


BTW: I judged the car as a #4...it needs everything (in fact it's not worth restoring to stock since there are so many nice numbers matching Avantis out there) and it sold for $6600.

[plwindish]

I'd love to see the title stating its an AMC Avanti and not Studebaker. The color is ok but I've seen a lot nicer looking colors on Avantis. I am not a fan of the interior and the terrible looking carpet.

[prescottstude]

I just came from the auction and I found the staff who I worked with knowledgeable.
Yes, this might be their mistake...or it could just be what the seller told them.
In the auction world, firms usually have to take the owner's word for things since not everyone is a smart as we are!


BTW: I judged the car as a #4...it needs everything (in fact it's not worth restoring to stock since there are so many nice numbers matching Avantis out there) and it sold for $6600.

Thanks for posting your experience at the auction...Just looking at the auction posting and the photos, it seems to me that the car was certainly worth 6,600 dollars.. Did you/do you think that it was too much ,not enough, or about right?