Hobbyist Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,447 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This article was in Fast Fords and Muscle Mustangs... Don't even know 63 from 64 Ford... What a shame... Pictured is a 63 Galaxie, title is 64 Galaxie 427 !!!



This is 63 !!!







This is 64 !!!





 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,561 Posts
Close enough. I didn't grow up around these so I have to admit even after I've seen your photos I really can't tell the difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,260 Posts
Big difference between 63 and 64 Fords. Really liked the 63 but didn't much like the 64.

I thought, optimistically, at first, that maybe the 64 was just a typo and they meant 63, but they repeat the error in the article, so guess not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,425 Posts
I caught it right away. The elongated "C" moldings are a very distinct feature of the '63.

Nice Galaxie models, too. I do believe the white and black '64s are customized Hot Wheels, but who made the '63s and the red '64?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,447 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Nice Galaxie models, too. I do believe the white and black '64s are customized Hot Wheels, but who made the '63s and the red '64?

The red 64 with the blacked out glass is an old Racing Champions Racing Legends NASCAR Ford customized a bit... The other two 63s are JLs !!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,260 Posts
Well, one way or another, a 63 Ford must be a very popular model. My family owned like 4 of them in one model or another, including a beautiful metallic blue wagon and I've been wanting to get a model for nostalgia's sake but so far either the price or sheer number of bidders have made acquiring one slip out of my grasp so far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
308 Posts
If the magazine published, the wrong info, I'm sure they would appreciate a letter telling them . You might even see it in print!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,324 Posts
Unless the author refers to this car specifically as a '64 in the article, this was most likely a mistake made in the graphics department - who's possibly non-car minded staff may not know one year from the next. And who's possibly asleep art/photo editor let it go to print.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,260 Posts
I thought, optimistically, at first, that maybe the 64 was just a typo and they meant 63, but they repeat the error in the article, so guess not.
That's is why I mentioned I hoped it was a typo but you can see in the article where they refer to it again as 64 Ford 427. Think it's more than a typo, although I suppose it could still be an error as to which photo was chosen to run with the article.
 

·
FnF: Fords n Ferraris
Joined
·
7,829 Posts
I could see a non-Ford guy making that mistake. Not a big deal. I am sure you will see a correction in next months edition
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top