Topic: Warranty door tag 65 Mustang

[CharlesTurner]

I think there is a corrosion line or mark on the plate that is throwing you guys off into thinking it's a 3.

I still say 5.  A pic of the back should put this to rest.

[rodster]

Or a good close up picture. Some cameras have a great macro feature.

[jwc66k]

Here's a blowup. It's a 3.
Jim

[Josep]

I think there is a corrosion line or mark on the plate that is throwing you guys off into thinking it's a 3.

I still say 5.  A pic of the back should put this to rest.

Charles, you are correct, after a closer inspection, I see the scratch that let us think that's a 3 and not the real 5.
It's much stronger than the downward line in the 5 so that confuses us. Agree with you, its a 5 as it has to be.
Let's try this modified pic..

Josep

[67gtasanjose]

Lol What are the odds it it a mis-stamping?
Optical delusion! When in doubt, CALL the people! Probably a toll free number for most who have responded

[awhtx]

Here's a blowup. It's a 3.
Jim

This picture actually confirms to me that it is a 5. The vertical line in a 5 is more apparent than the angular line in a 3. I'm thinking the angular line in Josep's original photo is either a scratch or corrosion.

[jwc66k]

This is fun. I made it a 3 using Adobe Photoshop Elements 10.
Jim

[MattDoscher]

I don't know, I still see 3F and can still see the angular line.  You can see the difference when compared to the 05R.

[jwc66k]

I went back to Photoshop and tried to make the "3" a "5" for about 15-20 minutes using all the bells and whistles available and could not do it.
A better original picture is needed.
Jim

[NEFaurora]

I've seen that tag before...

I guess that the "reverse image" does not lie.... I guess that it is a "3".  Clearly a mis-stamp!

)

Tony K.

[CharlesTurner]

I've seen that tag before...

I guess that the "reverse image" does not lie.... I guess that it is a "3".  Clearly a mis-stamp!

Did you read all the posts?

[GT500KR]

Looks like a 5 to me.

+1  A "5" with a scratch.

[tomtri66]

I think there is a corrosion line or mark on the plate that is throwing you guys off into thinking it's a 3.

I still say 5.  A pic of the back should put this to rest.

Charles is right.  Look closely, looks like specs of corrosion in just the right place making it look like a 3 in this picture.

[Skyway65]

Considering they were well into the '65 year when this car was made I'm guessing the jig, or whatever held the "5" was pretty much locked in place.  The sequential numbers would have changed with each car while the "5" would have no reason to change--why would a random "3" show up?  It wouldn't.  At least not in that part of the VIN.