www.ebay.com.au/itm/111045376701
Currently $965
Deauville Blue (not Absinth as stated in ad) windowless van with rust in the usuals + gutters are bad
Originally 253 4spd now has blue 253 & auto, chassis matches
Mistake on the Body plate
![]()
www.ebay.com.au/itm/111045376701
Currently $965
Deauville Blue (not Absinth as stated in ad) windowless van with rust in the usuals + gutters are bad
Originally 253 4spd now has blue 253 & auto, chassis matches
Mistake on the Body plate
![]()
Last edited by mr.jones; 06-04-2013 at 08:23 PM. Reason: put in the correct photo
where is mistake on body tag?
"All correspondence must bear these numbers"
Leroy, those tags don't belong together. AHX19978A is off a 1914-60A van with PSN L369456, you can see the Aquarius paint. The other two are OK together. Chassis number on the van is 10/76 AHX13177A.
Hey guys, Im the owner of the Blue panelvan that has caused some confusion. Thanks to Adam who pointed out to me my car was meant to be Absinth Yellow when I thought it was factory Deville Blue to find out that hqgts pointed out to me that their is a problem with the trim and paint code not matching on the compliance has lead me to believe that it is infact a mistake and it was born Deville Blue. I did kind of like the idea that it could have been yellow and personally think it would be better. I am now undecided as to its fate. Should I sell it or keep it , either way would it matter if it was Absinth Yellow or Deville Blue???? Does this manufacturing error give me the choice????? I would be interested in any feedback from anybody as to your opinion....Cheers to the 2 fellows who confused the #!@& out of me and who also taught me I should have already pick the mistake up myself...
Paint combination will never/rarely be wrong as this off this tag is what is on the rolling schedule mainframe printout and broadcast sheet, along with the mech options, model code and BODY number. The Paint code was the line that was most likely to suffer from human error. It also has the metallic identifier of 567 further pointing towards 1898 being correct.
Last edited by HK1837; 06-04-2013 at 09:56 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks