CRG Discussion Forum

Camaro Research Group Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: jim28607 on March 12, 2017, 12:31:24 PM

Title: 1967 NICKEY or NOT ?
Post by: jim28607 on March 12, 2017, 12:31:24 PM
https://orlando.craigslist.org/cto/6014127325.html
Title: Re: 1967 NICKEY or NOT ?
Post by: HOT3O2 on March 12, 2017, 03:13:01 PM
Got to love that velvet interior.
Title: Re: 1967 NICKEY or NOT ?
Post by: Mike S on March 12, 2017, 03:33:31 PM
I've heard of 'Pimp My Ride' but the interior is something reminiscent  of the late 60's-early 70's style in Harlem.

Mike
Title: Re: 1967 NICKEY or NOT ?
Post by: 69Z28-RS on March 12, 2017, 03:42:00 PM
Not just in Harlem... :)    that style was seen all over the country and was apparently highly thought of by people subscribing to the theory of ...  'Anything to be DIFFERENT'...   :)

Sorta turned my stomach then and now.. :)
Title: Re: 1967 NICKEY or NOT ?
Post by: 169INDY on March 12, 2017, 03:54:18 PM
Nice tribute car. The inserts were very common mods in the past. I was a big fan of 'crushed velvet diamond tuck' esp in 62-64 impalas.
Title: Re: 1967 NICKEY or NOT ?
Post by: arocars on March 12, 2017, 04:22:16 PM
I cant see how that is a Nickey Camaro. The Revell model has a better claim to Nickey heritage than the car for sale does. And obviously, cutting a ads out of magazines and adding door stickers do not provide provenance.

That car reminds me of so many 'built' cars back in the day. 12 bolts, big blocks, 302's, and associated speed parts were easily available and relatively inexpensive. Owners that wanted to, could buy the performance parts and upgrade their ride. The velvet interior suggests this car was revamped in the early 80's. The RS option looks original, but there's been so many changes to this car, and they look to have been so long ago, that it's tough to tell.

The body and undercarriage looks fairly straight and clean. The seller should have provided more pictures of the undercarriage and less pictures of old advertisements.

Without any real proof to the contrary, I would assume that car started as a plain jane, had everything added onto it, and price it accordingly.


Title: Re: 1967 NICKEY or NOT ?
Post by: 69Z28-RS on March 12, 2017, 04:31:47 PM
I cant see how that is a Nickey Camaro. The Revell model has a better claim to Nickey heritage than the car for sale does. And obviously, cutting a ads out of magazines and adding door stickers do not provide provenance.
...

Without any real proof to the contrary, I would assume that car started as a plain jane, had everything added onto it, and price it accordingly.


X2 ...
Title: Re: 1967 NICKEY or NOT ?
Post by: jim28607 on March 12, 2017, 11:05:58 PM
I thought the stinger hood was a Nickey trademark?
Title: Re: 1967 NICKEY or NOT ?
Post by: KurtS on March 13, 2017, 12:42:21 AM
I thought the stinger hood was a Nickey trademark?
Nope.

No real claim as to what it is, not one scrap of evidence, just stickers on the car. A real car would be worth more that $36K.......