Topic: 68 GT500 antenna

[ruppstang]

I recently judged a 68 GT500 fastback with the antenna on the front fender. The owner had no documentation so we had to make a deduction according to the MCA rules. We could not find any sign of a patched hole or antenna wire in the rear quarter. I understand that on Mustangs the antenna was installed by the dealer. Were they also dealer installed on Shelby's? If so did the dealer have to run the wire to the dash?

[Bob Gaines]

I recently judged a 68 GT500 fastback with the antenna on the front fender. The owner had no documentation so we had to make a deduction according to the MCA rules. We could not find any sign of a patched hole or antenna wire in the rear quarter. I understand that on Mustangs the antenna was installed by the dealer. Were they also dealer installed on Shelby's? If so did the dealer have to run the wire to the dash?

It is a early late thing with 68 Shelby's . Early 68 Shelby's had the antenna installed on the front fender just like a regular Mustang. It was determined that the repositioning of the antenna to the rear quarter helped with radio interference cause by the lack of shielding in the all fiberglass hood. If in fact a early car ,hopefully the deduction was not the difference between gold and silver  . As far as I know the dealer had to install the long extension as well as the regular antennas portion.

[ruppstang]

Bob our GT350 is 602 and has the rear antenna. This car was latter. How early would the cars have to be to have the front antenna?  The current rules make no mention of the early late only to deduct for a front antenna with out no documentation. Thanks for the information.
Marty

[Bob Gaines]

Bob our GT350 is 602 and has the rear antenna. This car was latter. How early would the cars have to be to have the front antenna?  The current rules make no mention of the early late only to deduct for a front antenna with out no documentation. Thanks for the information.
Marty

I would guestimate under #350 or so. A information revision to consider when we get a chance to make revisions again. In the recent past a lot of hard work in revisions was not incorporated into the newest sheets and the revision work was lost. That took a lot of wind out of my sails because of that mistake but I am over it and stand ready to work on them again to help make them more accurate.   

[ruppstang]

A information revision to consider when we get a chance to make revisions again. In the recent past a lot of hard work in revisions was not incorporated into the newest sheets and the revision work was lost. That took a lot of wind out of my sails because of that mistake but I am over it and stand ready to work on them again to help make them more accurate.

Surely someone with the initials Jeff Speegle would still have what you worked on? 
We will see what the future holds the winds may be blowing in a new direction. Stay tuned.

[Coralsnake]

I respectfully disagree with Mr Gaines. The long cables were installed by AOSmith on all cars. The Shelby assembly manual and my personal observations confirm this. I have seen the very first cars built and they have rear mount antennas with original extension cables. In at least one case, I can actually prove it was installed by Smith.

Dealerships were responsible for installation of the mast, so it entirely depends on where the car was sent.

If you are unsure, you might hunt for other cars from the same dealer to provide clues.

I would say when judging, the extension cable should be present and either location should be accepted.

You can also see some owner observations here:

http://www.thecoralsnake.com/SUD

http://www.thecoralsnake.com/McCollum

[TLea]

I respectfully disagree with Mr Gaines. The long cables were installed by AOSmith on all cars. The Shelby assembly manual and my personal observations confirm this. I have seen the very first cars built and they have rear mount antennas with original extension cables. In at least one case, I can actually prove it was installed by Smith.

Dealerships were responsible for installation of the mast, so it entirely depends on where the car was sent.

If you are unsure, you might hunt for other cars from the same dealer to provide clues.

I would say when judging, the extension cable should be present and either location should be accepted.

You can also see some owner observations here:

http://www.thecoralsnake.com/SUD

http://www.thecoralsnake.com/McCollum

I would agree with Pete's observations. Cables went in at Smith, dealer could have installed antenna at either location but vast majority on rear.
Also going by Shelby #'s to determine early late is no conclusive as we see all kind of variances. For example 350 convertibles didn't even start production until #301 and other than 301/302 the rest started 12/1/67.

[TLea]

  The current rules make no mention of the early late only to deduct for a front antenna with out no documentation. Thanks for the information.
Marty

I think this rule should stay as is. Documentation could be owner presenting his case before judging starts even explaining what they found. Judges should be looking at fender date and for evidence of 1/4 panel repair to confirm/deny

[Coralsnake]

The Smith documentation is dated October 1967, before regular production started. The directions include attaching one end of the cable to the radio.

 

[Bob Gaines]

I respectfully disagree with Mr Gaines. The long cables were installed by AOSmith on all cars. The Shelby assembly manual and my personal observations confirm this. I have seen the very first cars built and they have rear mount antennas with original extension cables. In at least one case, I can actually prove it was installed by Smith.

Dealerships were responsible for installation of the mast, so it entirely depends on where the car was sent.

If you are unsure, you might hunt for other cars from the same dealer to provide clues.

I would say when judging, the extension cable should be present and either location should be accepted.

You can also see some owner observations here:

http://www.thecoralsnake.com/SUD

http://www.thecoralsnake.com/McCollum

I said as far as I knew not that I knew for sure  . 00140 was a original paint previous unrestored 68 GT500 convertible when I purchased it 25 years ago. It did not have any evidence of having the typical 68 antenna extension run to the rear or rear mount hole etc.  Some of the early features were that it had the antenna on the front fender and bare metal front backing backing plates. It had the early fiberglass but the front had been bumped and much of that was unrepairable. Some of these things started me looking at those details on other cars.I have seen other early cars the same way. I don't know how many but I know some were. 

[Bob Gaines]

I would agree with Pete's observations. Cables went in at Smith, dealer could have installed antenna at either location but vast majority on rear.
Also going by Shelby #'s to determine early late is no conclusive as we see all kind of variances. For example 350 convertibles didn't even start production until #301 and other than 301/302 the rest started 12/1/67.

Tim , I agree with the VIN not being conclusive for determining a particular build technique etc. but as a general guideline it is commonly used . Not the best way for sure. I very much agree that the vast majority of antenna installs were in the rear quarter. By the same token If you are determining the start of production (as when a specific car started to be built ) by the build date you may get a false reading also IMO. At the risk of getting flamed by you and Pete , the build date or production date is when the car was finished not when it was started.  We unfortunately don't have start dates for given cars just the build date /production date which is when it was finished.  I believe the cars were intended to commence to be built in sequentially order by Ford but can be held up from being completed by any number of problems allowing other cars to pass them by and getting completed first . This can explain sometimes why a later build techniques or items can be found on early cars that the items seem to be out of order. It might mean that by the time the early vin car got back on track and arrived at the next station that station my be using different variations of parts by then. In those case factory documents indicating a hold up or the context found is the best way to decide what is proper for a specific car.   I think this hold up scenario is the case why 301/302 where completed before others . At least until more compelling evidence suggests otherwise to change my perspective.

[TLea]

. At the risk of getting flamed by you and Pete ,

Not in a million years 

By the same token If you are determining the start of production (as when a specific car started to be built ) by the build date you may get a false reading also IMO.
I totally agree. When it comes to the antennas them selves its even more relevant not to use production dates because often antennas were installed on the date sold to customer which could have been 6 months later

[Coralsnake]

I don't want to publicly beat up Mr. Gaines.

I will point his observations regarding some early unrestored cars without cables does not prove they were absent from the factory. They might have been, but since they were attached to the radio, it is possible they were removed when the dealer installed a front mount antenna. They also could have been tucked up under the dash.

Additionally, if it is an early / late theory, he will need to address how many KRs, built late in production,  have front mount antennas and account for the dozens of cars built before # 300 that have rear mount antennas. I personally have information on at least three dozen. Now, it is possible they were all changed after they were built, but I find that unlikely.

If we agree they were dealer installed, there should be no deduction and the owner should not have to "prove" anything.

I think its rigidness like this that turns participants off to judging. It also reflects poorly on judges that need to have everything spelled out for them, because they are unable to use their own judgement.  Too many judges are afraid to admit they don't know something. When you don't know, the benefit should go to the owner. I certainly would not be afraid to admit that up front. Judging should be a sharing and educational process for the participant and the judges. That doesn't mean you can't give your opinion based on your experiences.

[jwc66k]

If we agree they were dealer installed, there should be no deduction and the owner should not have to "prove" anything.

That is the responsibility of the sanctioning body, MCA, SAAC, etc, to modify their rules. In the case of the MCA, rule changes can be easy and difficult at the same time. Ask Charles and Jeff.
Jim

[Bob Gaines]

I don't want to publicly beat up Mr. Gaines.

I will point his observations regarding some early unrestored cars without cables does not prove they were absent from the factory. They might have been, but since they were attached to the radio, it is possible they were removed when the dealer installed a front mount antenna. They also could have been tucked up under the dash.

Additionally, if it is an early / late theory, he will need to address how many KRs, built late in production,  have front mount antennas and account for the dozens of cars built before # 300 that have rear mount antennas. I personally have information on at least three dozen. Now, it is possible they were all changed after they were built, but I find that unlikely.

If we agree they were dealer installed, there should be no deduction and the owner should not have to "prove" anything.

I think its rigidness like this that turns participants off to judging. It also reflects poorly on judges that need to have everything spelled out for them, because they are unable to use their own judgement.  Too many judges are afraid to admit they don't know something. When you don't know, the benefit should go to the owner. I certainly would not be afraid to admit that up front. Judging should be a sharing and educational process for the participant and the judges. That doesn't mean you can't give your opinion based on your experiences.

+1 on the highlighted comment.  Kid gloves appreciated my brothers  . I have always thought it was a very early produced car anomaly . I do think the antennas were dealer installed but think that the dealers were directed to install them on the rear quarter on all but a very few early cars. It might be that the dealer network was not instructed properly initially on what to do given the desired placement was foreign given all past Mustangs/Shelby's. Those are the only ones I think should be given a "benefit of the doubt " not later ones where there is overwhelming evidence for typical placement. I am in agreement about judges not being rigid but do think that the rules in some cases give the judging staff no choice when there is known variables. Those are the type of rules that need to be tweaked further.  A large majority of MCA judges out there are seasoned enough to work with variables . I am for trying to make it easier for those judges who are not so seasoned to feel more comfortable about being flexible about there decisions.  I think judging class's help fresher judges know how to conduct themselves and to remind more seasoned veterans of the same things. I am on the same page with "benefit of the doubt " if you are not for sure .