All, The mysterious "emblem" (closer to the front) appears simply to me to be a reflection from the center cap. Remember that airbrushing techniques were pretty primitive, and the photo could have easily been slightly enhanced prior to publication. That would easily explain the added emphasis (or shine, if you will) where there was little originally. Just my two cents... --- NVSAAC <info (AT) nvsaac (DOT) com> wrote: > There was no "Bronze" 67 GT500 made. > Per the Registry.... > It just an imposter... GT350 car... > > Jim > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Shelby6t7 (AT) aol (DOT) com > To: tjinsa (AT) yahoo (DOT) com ; > shelbymustang (AT) carmemories (DOT) com > Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 5:41 AM > Subject: Re: Early GT500 Cover Photo (The Mystery > Deepens) > > > That's defnitley a head scratcher Tom............ > > However, I believe the car is Bronze Metallic, I > have a Motor Trend magazine from April of 67 and the > color cover shot shows a Bronze 67 Shelby and the > color looks the similar. And no, it's not the same 2 > cars because the Motor Trend car does not have > running lights in the upper scoops. > > Now here's where it gets interesting.............. > > For 67 Shelbys, the paint code for Bronze > Metallic is # 1, and lets say for argument sake, > some list members believe the car is Yellow, then > the paint code is letter "S". > > Now, after studying the registry, there were NO > cars produced in either color as a GT-500 early > enough to have had running lights in the upper > scoops. > > So, either the registry information is wrong, or, > possibly (just a thought) Shelby took a GT-350 or > two and from the outside, dressed them in emblems > and stripes to promote the new GT-500 for magazine > shoots when in fact the car hadn't been produced yet > by the time the photos were taken? > > That may explain the 2 emblems? > > > Kenny > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com