I was not at the show...so I can only go by what is offered as proff and told to us by the orginal builder MTI..the orginal Cheetah was NOT fiberglass..it was hand built and hammered Aluminum..as is the current one in my possession I would call it a re-creation..and it would have its value as that, a re-creation...then I could hold up me restoration next to it..and give a buyer a choice of a re-creation..or a restoration... Done all the time with Clones, re-creations of US Mucel cars as well as many others...re-creation IMO carries no where near the value of a restoration..but for some it is an acceptable alternative when only ONE restoration exsists and they wish to display a re-creation for what ever reason...done in Art work all the time as well..
I Gaurantee, if both Roy & Joe were not sponsors on FC, their disrespectful conduct towards one another WOULD NOT be tolerated by the owner & subsequently the mods. I see very clearly the "Code of Conduct" is applied differently as has been evidenced by the entirety of this thread & others involving Roy & Joe....Mark
Here is the summation of the 377+++ posts of these thread.....Roy, "YES IT IS"!!!....Joe, "NO IT'S NOT"!!!..ad infinitum....Mark [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lih0Z2IbIUQ[/ame]
Understood, the point is, we all appear past this, and your contribution serves only to remind us. We get the point. Roy posted that he doesn't see any mud slinging. Lets move on. Got any viewpoints about the topic that are useful or helpful, please post.
Ok, what I should have said for completeness is: I can see how you see things completely differently, and that is your prerogative, it is what it is. To me and most, its clear the item that was offered me that yo now possess is on a different wheel-base. The implications of this are a clue as to what we have.
Thanks for sharing. Two questions: 1. Does the vehicle in your possession have original stampings and/or ID plates of CHE77-1001 that we can see in clear images? 2. Can we see the rest of the agreement? Image Unavailable, Please Login
Hello Joe; Firstly I'd like to say, I appreciate that you spend time in the garden, attending to the needs of your wife's roses, I too, also find solace in gardening. As to the car in question & I emphasize the term "In Question". I understand Roy's wants, needs, desires to officially document this vehicle as being a Lamborghini "product". I also am reminded of the dealings in a court room, where an "expert" is brought in to add credability to a certain aspect of the trial, only to have the opposition, bring in their "Expert" to refute the other. I also understand both of you men are "Prideful", as the old addage states...."Pride goeth before the Fall"....as I believe at the ineveitable conclusion, "1" will stand, whilst "1" will Fall"...Please excuse any spelling errors, as I attended the same school system as Roy....Mark
Here is how I operate: if I am brokering a car under Private Treaty terms, it remains just that: private. That's very important to the parties I work for, so, I don't start threads about most of the specific cars I work with. On the other hand, if I start a thread on one specific car, I am well-known for posting any & all documents and images I have on file. In my opinion, if you start a thread about a very historic vehicle along with claims being made, you are under obligation to give full disclosure. If you didn't want the car to be subjected to scrutiny, you shouldn't have started the the thread, and should have kept it private. However, we all understand by now that you don't agree with this.
That works for me as a useful contribution. One can never underestimate how the simpler things in life bring both balance & perspective!
I realise that the angles are not precisely the same.... In the blue pic I have assumed that the wheelbases are the same. The bodies appear to be the same length but the catches above the rear wheel are mis aligned. In the green pic I have aligned the catches, shortening the wheelbase, but the bodies are now of different lengths. I think this might mean that the rear body sections are the same length but have the arch in a different position ........but frankly I am just confused! Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
The catches won't align as they are in different locations on the two cars. Perhaps the best way to visualize the difference between the two trucks is to measure the distance between the front of the rear wheel and the back of the rocker panels.
So... What part of this Cheetah are you saying was in Geneva? Because from what I can see I'd say nothing.
ROFLOL.. Photos same lens? NO Photos same distance? NO Color and Black and White, one photo with a light paint job the color dark. Which is going to wash out more? B&W with a tan paint job will wash out more detail for sure. The car on the top is clearly turning. So how are you measuring the wheelbase exactly here on the photos? Joe you have openly admitted you use shills to do bidding for your own gain. So please if there is any reason to blast Roy its because he opened his trap before Quail. Joe it sounds like sour grapes you did not get the car and now your going to poo poo it til the cows come home rather then say Roy good job on out bidding me or out whatever. But out documenting now is getting absurd. I respect you greatly and I respect Roy greatly agree to disagree and have some fun with the only Cheeta known to exist before you both piss in your own Wheaties here. Lamborghini produced and distributed literature that the Cheeta was / is in fact a Lamborghini product. No matter who did the design and who did the prototype coach building. So who are we to say its not? Please pass the popcorn here the tit for tat match is getting good.. When it should have been over with WOW cool I tried to buy the same car and gee I was not given the same data in the same timely fashion you received it. One point here is Joe if you were not given the documentation, where do you come up with all this really cool documentation now? I mean really Roy has not used last names and your able to pop up 40+ year old scans of documents you said you did not get? I do not understand how that works.
Dude, what are you talking about? Those are Roy's documents that he posted as PDFs, joe simply reposted them.
The vertical lines through the wheel centres might provide a clue. If you can suggest a better method of making a quick comparison i'd be happy to hear it.
Do not think there is a way to do it quickly given the variables that are unknown on both photos, one L@@ks to be taken from a low angle the other not one is turning the other is static its hard. . I need to go back through the thread but for some reason I think we are seeing more than one set of documents.
Your eyes can always see what you want to see...those are two very different pictures, you are comparing them incorrectly.
abolfaz what page of the 20 pages of drivel here were those posts by Roy in PDF? I will go back and look some more. Thanks!
What I want to know: What was the asking price? 2nd, those Geneva vehicle documents...once that thing was back in the US, those papers could have been put with any other the other 4 or 5 or so vehicles. That wheelbase is so off you have to be drunk not to see it. We all have been looking at pictures of cars for decades now. Don't we all know when something is off? And lastly, Roy is showing it a Quail. Joe said to Jim G..I'll see you there. ME, almost worth the flight and hotel to take a picture of Joe looking it over as Roy stands on the other side! That was some light humor for all of us.
Just as you posted the link I found it LOL. I would pay to see Roy and Joe go over the car at Quail as well.
