Not a Shelby per se, but do we consider it a Ford Mo Co prototype?

In 1964 I was at Greenfield Village at a sports car show and saw a 1964 1/2 Mustang on display , a two seater fastback that previewed the styling of the upcoming 2 plus 2 of 1965. It was candy apple red. I subsequently found out Vince Gardner designed it and only recently read someone has found it and is restoring it. I vaguely remember DST built it but get it confused with another red Mustang show car built by the Alexander Bros. My question is: is the two seater fastback a Ford prototype or just a custom car built by someone back then of their own volition and borrowed for the Sports Car display? It may have been part of the Ford Custom Car Caravan.

I read that Gardner also did the Mustang Vivace, and an early Mustang III prototype so it makes me think the two seater coupe has equal status, i.e. paid for by Ford, though some may consider it just to be a custom car paid for by Ford and not a Ford prototype.

 

Always curious; I don't see anything wrong with that

I was curious about cars I saw in Detroit well before I was a writer; I don't see anything wrong with asking questions as some forumites are closer to various car companies and because of their employment in Detroit witnessed things "behind the scenes" that the public doesn't know about. Conversely I have been told things by employees that are not that well known but I wonder if others heard the same story. But in regards to the Vince Gardner two seater coupe Mustang, I just want to know if the car is a "custom car" or a "factory prototype" because though Ford was embracing the custom car people at the time (by sponsoring the Custom Car Caravan) there's a difference between letting the customizer do it their own way and the automaker having a car built to their own design. Recently Ford did a replay of that issue by funding the 2002 Thunderbird Sports Roadster prototype. They had a customizer --Chip Foose--do the car but I don't know if it was done Chip's way or if he was following Ford's suggestions.

In the non-Ford area I am also going to answer the same about the one-off Corvette ZR-1 convertible built a few years ago;one was built but unless there was a work order that went to Design Center, I'd have to consider it a custom. I know what category it is in doesn't matter to most people but I cover auctions and it's a big deal there in terms of values....

 

You're right, I missed the footnote question so here's my long winded answer (whew!)

Sorry I missed the main point of your question. I actually do not own a single car book with footnotes among my 100-book library (the best book I ever saw in regard to documenting quotes was a recent one about a prize winning horse) but
I think it's more in academic circles that footnotes are used, or at least the car books I buy are written in a more populist and less academic style. But your question is important in the internet age because it brings up a key point that historians have to think about. Why? Because quoting something from a forum is problematic in a footnote
because any footnotes you read today can be erased tomorrow by the webmaster and no longer recallable on the net, unlike a book where a footnote you see on the page is in print until the last copy of that book exists. I think saying something like "This quote was from a footnote posted Oct. 12, 2007 on a website but , if you look for it, it is no longer there" would get you a downgrade in any English class.
An old rule of journalism is that if two sources confirm it, then it's likely true, if three sources confirm it, even better. I know it sounds casual when I mention something I heard a rumor of but that means I have no confirmation other than my original fleeting memory of it. In the case of the two seater Mustang--I saw the car nearly 50 years ago and at that time didn't ask the question about whether it's a custom or a concept car. I know an editor who wrote about the car in recent years, so I will ask him if he is still alive, but Mr. Gardner--the car's creator-- committed suicide so I can't ask him. Probably the answer will be found by asking any surviving members of the Custom Car Caravan if that particular car was included in their traveling road show and whether the other cars in that show were considered "custom cars" or "factory prototypes." An interesting parallel is the T-bird prototype also built by DST. I only found one story on it so far and will have to find more to see if that car is regarded today now as a concept
car by modern day historians and not a custom. If it's billed as a prototype, I'd lean toward the two seater Mustang being properly labeled a prototype. I haven't read enough about the T-bird yet to make that determination. I hope I answered your fundamental question re footnotes.

Incidentally there is another kind of footnoted book called "annotated. " I do own a book called "The Annotated Alice in Wonderland" but it's not a car book and I was disappointed that the footnotes were too folksy to be in such an expensive book. My opinion is if you go to all the trouble to have footnotes they should not be casual remarks but new information that somewhat amplifies or adds to the information as written originally. As it is the book is more like a comedian being offstage making comments on the original performance.

 

Thank you for pointing me to that site showing the two seater Mustang fastback coupe

I opened that website. I have never seen that view of the two seater Mustang. But the rear window appears much larger than it was in the production Mustang 2 plus -2 hardtop, almost ineptly jammed in and too flat for the rear roofline, so I am inclined to think now that it was not done at Ford but by some outside shop. Still I'd like to know from a Ford designer of that era if they were shown that car before they did the Mustang 2-plus-2 hardtop? Back in those days it took about 3 years to do a ground up new car, so if the Gardner two seater coupe was first seen in '64 it was probably done too late to influence Ford Design.

I am intrigued that Tremulis was involved. I worked on a Car of the Year judging committee with him at Motor Trend, he was a wild guy, almost like a mad scientist, I wish I would have asked him then about the car but as with many historical questions, I don't think of the question until 20 or 30 years after the key man has passed on.