Prove It (VIN-TAG CHARGER) – Mopar Action Article Extra

The Last Hemi

1971 Dodge Charger R/T

CONFIDENTIAL

Final Report

February 18, 2013

DO NOT DISCUSS, COPY, OR DISTRIBUTE

WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM
PROVE IT.

Interested Party:

Tim Wellborn

Wellborn Auto Museum

Alexander City, Alabama

Prepared by:

David Burroughs

Prove It.™

Prove It. ™

Research & Analysis

Bloomington/Normal, IL

HOW IT WORKS

Prove It is a research service designed to determine the validity of claims
made about collector vehicles of all types.

Each
project begins with a request from an interested party who wants to
determine the likelihood of one or more specific claims being true or
false. Prove It is not a primary research firm or a single source
authority. Prove It is a publisher of witness testimony, evidence,
and data leading to a deductive conclusion. The conclusion(s)
is stated in a hierarchy of certainty, scaled according to the depth
and credibility of the evidence presented. The range of certainty
is as follows:

• Definitive
• Highly Probable
• Probable
• Indicative
• Inconclusive
• Improbable
• Highly Improbable
• Definitively Improbable

Prove
It interviews parties that may agree or disagree with a specific claim
and asks them to produce documents, photographs, testimony, or data
that substantiates their claim or counter claim. Additional witnesses
or references are usually discovered during this process and they, too,
may be interviewed for their contributory input. Of unique importance,
Prove It’s approach is not adversarial and does not represent either
side of a controversial claim. Prove It makes it clear to the
client or interested party who commissions the study that the findings
may or may not support the interested party’s desired outcome.

Once
the situation analysis is completed, a narrative is written complete
with a summary of witness findings, exhibits, and initial summary conclusions
and then submitted as a Draft Report to 3-5 independent analysts for
their review.

The
independent analysts are selected according to their professional critical
thinking skills and arms length association with the subject vehicles
or interested parties. The analysts are not a collaborating panel, but
instead solely independent and unaware of the other analysts assigned
to the case. Each analyst is responsible to read the Draft Report’s
findings, evidence, and conclusions and indicate the degree to which
they concur.

If
any or all analysts do not concur with the conclusions, they are asked
to provide their reasons why not and Prove It will attempt to further
research the witness pool to determine if that issue can be resolved.

The
Final Report to the interested party simply publishes the findings based
on the research and how many analysts agree or disagree with the published
conclusions. The client or interested parties may wish to provide
more compelling testimony, evidence, photography, etc. in order to present
new information that may change the minds of the analyst(s). Until compelling
new evidence is presented to alter any or all conclusions, the report
is considered complete.

The Last Hemi
___________________________________________________________________________________________

February 18, 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Case:

On September 10, 2012 Prove It Director David Burroughs and Investigator
Frank Pope initiated research regarding two contradictory claims relative
to “The Last Hemi” vehicle built / assembled / produced (synomous
meanings) by Chrysler Motors Corporation. The effective date of conclusion
was February 1, 2013.

The Claim:

On May 21, 2012 in a video entitled The Last Hemi Arrives at RK Restoration,
the owner, Joe Angelucci, states on camera, that he is the owner of
a 1971 Dodge Charger VIN 192238 that is “The very last 426 hemi to ever be built by
the Chrysler Corporation; the very last one ever to roll off any assembly
line, anywhere.” Throughout the period of research relative
to this project, RK Motors, of Charlotte, N.C. was conducting its restoration
and their website claimed, “This Charger has two remarkably well-preserved
broadcast sheets and a fender tag showing that it is indeed the last
HEMI car produced by any Chrysler plant.”

The Counter Claim:

Tim Wellborn, of the Wellborn Auto Museum, Alexander City, Alabama,
claimed to have original paper work indicating that the 1971 Dodge Charger
he currently owns, VIN 190774, is the last Hemi Charger built by Chrysler
on July 30, 1971. Because of the confusion about which car may actually
be the last one built, Wellborn commissioned Prove It to research both
claims for probable accuracy.

The Final Conclusions:

1. Neither vehicle can be definitively claimed to be The Last Hemi vehicle built.

2. VIN 192238 is definitively among a group of year-end Hemi Chargers; however, it is definitively neither

the Last Hemi vehicle nor Last Hemi
Charger produced, built, assembled, or released by Chrysler Motors.

3. VIN 190774 is definitively the Last Hemi Charger completed by Chrysler Motors and evidence is indicative to

probable that it may also be the
Last Hemi vehicle completed by Chrysler Motors.

SUMMARY FINDINGS

1. A limited number of Hemi’s were produced in 1971. According to records
   assembled by Galen Govier plus records obtained from Chrysler, about 400 Hemi vehicles were produced between
   four assembly plants—Hamtramck and Lynch Rd in Detroit, St. Louis, and Windsor, Canada. Charger R/Ts and Super Bees accounted
   for about 100 (25%) of all U.S., Canada, and export sales.

2. The “The Last Hemi” is a nearly meaningless
   statement without a qualifying definition. There are at least 40 different variations what
   this could mean. (See page 8) The only one of implicit value is, “The Last Hemi Charger or Last Hemi vehicle to be
   produced or completed to the public by Chrysler Motors”.

3. Another
   Hemi Charger VIN 195362 was discovered that is 3,000 units higher than
   VIN 192238.

4. Although counter intuitive, VIN sequence is not
   necessarily a reliable predictor of Mopar production sequence. It is definitely possible for lower VIN vehicles to be produced,
   completed, or released later than higher VIN vehicles according to a
   consensus of independent Mopar witnesses.

5. A vehicle’s final production date
   cannot be determined by either factory broadcast sheets (build sheets),
   stamped fender tags, or door tags. The official production date is coded
   on the bottom of the vehicle’s window sticker, referred
   to as the Monroney sticker. Scheduled production dates (SPD) or order
   dates are assigned by the Chrysler assembly plants once it is confirmed
   that needed components are in stock. Assembly of the vehicle customarily
   begins on or after the SPD.

6. Once on the assembly line, vehicles were customarily
   completed within 2-10 days and the window stickers were customarily applied
   right before being driven off the assembly line according to Mopar authorities.

7. A six week gap exists
   between the 611 (June 11) SPD date code on the vehicle
   order number and the 0730 (July 30) date code printed on the Monroney window sticker for
   VIN 190774—a significant deviation from the customary 2-10 day period vehicles are on the assembly line.

8. Although the Vehicle
   Order Number on the broadcast sheet may indicate a June scheduled production date (or order date), evidence exists
   that proves some vehicles may not actually go on the assembly
   line until much later. (e.g. 1970 June order, August SPD, October Monroney)

9. According to documents, published data, and customary
   automotive production schedules, it appears highly probable
   that Friday, July 30 was Chrysler
   Motors last official day
   of 1971 production.

10. According to a 1976 Letter from Chrysler
    Motors, VINs 190771 and 190774 respectively “were
    next to last and the last Hemi Chargers built” .

11. Due to so many complexities of the Chrysler production
    process, multiple assembly plants, and lack of documents or authorities
    with arcane knowledge of either, it is the consensus
    of numerous Mopar witnesses that there is likely no way (they know of) that such claims as Last Hemi vehicle “built” can ever be definitively documented
    for any Mopar. However, compelling circumstantial evidence
    exists that 190774 is that vehicle.

p style=”margin-left:27pt;text-align:justify”>

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS

1. The six week gap between the June broadcast dates
   and July Monroney dates for 190771 and 190774 does not appear to
   be due to the cars being “pulled off the line” after assembly was begun. The more plausible
   scenario is that end-of-year Hemi orders (likely a very low quantity)
   were all held and batched together for assembly at the end of the production
   run in late July 1971 in order to gain production efficiencies. Since
   VINs are not necessarily predictive of assembly line sequence, it appears highly probable that 190771 and 190774 were randomly located as the last two on the
   line behind other year-end batched Hemis— even though they were ordered six weeks earlier
   than the other two subject Hemi Chargers, both with higher VINs.

2. No compelling testimony or evidence has yet been discovered, presented or
   deduced that VIN 192238 is either the Last 426 Hemi vehicle produced
   by Chrysler Motors or even the Last Hemi Charger produced. Due
   to evidence discovered pertaining to not only VIN 190774, but also to
   two other Hemi Chargers VIN 190771 and VIN 195362, it is definitive that VIN 192238 is neither the Last Hemi vehicle, the Last Hemi Charger, the Charger with the highest VIN, the last to be ordered, nor last to be produced, completed, or released. The historic significance of this vehicle appears
   to be limited to being among a batch of late production Hemi’s.

3. Based upon three Chrysler Motors documents, vehicle photography, credible testimony, the unrestored condition of the vehicle
   and lack of compelling evidence to the contrary, it is probable that VIN 190774 may be the Last Hemi vehicle built and
   released by Chrysler Motors. However, based upon the evidence,
   official Chrysler paperwork, and witness understanding of the 1971 Chrysler
   production process, it appears definitive that 190771 was the next to last and 190774 was the Last Hemi Charger “completed” by Chrysler.

4. Based on the testimony and evidence presented to
   date, it appears improbable that any other Mopars will have more compelling documentation than the
   1971 Dodge Chargers VIN 190771 and 190774 that they are either the Last Hemi Chargers or Last Hemi vehicles completed by Chrysler Motors.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Analysts Opinions

Five out of five independent analysts reviewed
this report

and concur with the published conclusions.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

LIKELIHOOD OF CLAIMS

It will be unlikely that any definitive statements can be made about
the claim The Last Hemi “Produced”. Therefore, based on the
evidence, documents, testimony, and deductive logic presented to date,
the preponderance of evidence (or lack of it) leads Prove It to the
following conclusions until/unless more compelling evidence is presented.

Potential Claims The Likelihood The Reason

The Wellborn Hemi

190774
the Last Hemi Charger ordered Definitively Not Unequivocal Certainty

190774 the Last Hemi Charger produced anywhere Highly Probable Virtually Certain But With Limited
Data

190774 the Last Hemi Charger produced at Lynch
Highly Probable Virtually Certain But With Limited Data

190774 the Last Hemi Charger completed at Lynch Definitive Unequivocal Certainty (Letter and Monroney)

190774 the Last Hemi Charger completed anywhere Definitive Unequivocal Certainty (Letter and Monroney)

190774
the Last Hemi completed anywhere Indicative/ProbableSome Supporting Evidence. No Refuting Evidence

190774
the Last Hemi produced anywhere Indicative/ProbableSome Supporting Evidence. No Refuting Evidence

The Cheshire Hemi

190771 the next to Last Hemi Charger produced Highly Probable Virtually Certain But With Limited Data

190771 the next to Last Hemi Charger completed Definitive Unequivocal Certainty (Letter and Monroney)

190771 the next to Last Hemi completed anywhere Indicative/ProbableSome Supporting Evidence. No
Refuting Evidence

190771 the next to Last Hemi produced anywhere Indicative/ProbableSome Supporting Evidence. No Refuting Evidence

The Kanellis Hemi

195362 the Last Hemi Charger ordered Highly Probable Strong Supporting Evidence. No Challenging Evidence

195362
the Highest VIN Hemi Charger produced
Highly Probable Strong Supporting Evidence. No Challenging Evidence

195362
the Last Hemi produced Highly Improbable Some supporting evidence. Stong Challenging Evidence

195362
the Last Hemi Charger produced Highly Improbable Somesupporting evidence. Strong Challenging Evidence

195362
the Last Hemi Charger completed Definitively Not Unequivocal Certainty

195362
has the Highest fender tag date Probable Some supporting evidence; Some Challenging Evidence

The Angelucci Hemi

192238
the Last Hemi Charger ordered Definitively Not Unequivocal Challenging Evidence

192238
the Highest VIN Charger produced Definitively Not Unequivocal Challenging Evidence

192238
the Last Hemi Charger completed Definitively Not Unequivocal Challenging Evidence

192238
the Last Hemi completed Definitively Not Unequivocal Challenging Evidence

192238
the Last Hemi produced Highly Improbable No supporting evidence; Strong challenging evidence

192238
the Last Hemi Charger produced Highly Improbable No supporting evidence; Strong challenging evidence

192238
has the Latest fender tag date (618) Highly Improbable No supporting Evidence. Strong challenging evidence

To date, 190774 is the vehicle with the greatest
Chrysler documentation as the Last Hemi Charger “officially produced”.
However, officially produced or completed does not necessarily equate
to the last one actually assembled. (e.g. A vehicle could be mostly
assembled in one month and the final 1% completed weeks later).
Although it appears highly likely the subject vehicles were all assembled
in roughly the same time period, the certainty is unknowable.

DEFINITIONS
OF CONFIDENCE LEVELS:

Definitive Unequivocal Certainty

Highly Probable Virtually Certain But With Limiting Factors

Probable Strong Evidence
to Support

Indicative Some Evidence to
Support

Improbable Little evidence
to Support and Some to Refute

Highly Improbable Strong Challenging
Evidence

Definitively Not No Evidence to
Support and Unequivocal Evidence to Refute

Indeterminate No evidence to
Support or Challenge

DETAILED FINDINGS & EXHIBITS

Researching the Angelucci Claim / VIN
192238:

On May
21, 2012 in a video entitled The Last Hemi Arrives at RK Restoration,
the owner, Joe Angelucci, states on camera, that he is the owner of
a 1971 Dodge Charger VIN 192238 that is “The very last 426 hemi to ever be built by
the Chrysler Corporation; the very last one ever to roll off any assembly
line, anywhere.” Exhibit 1 VIDEO:
Google- The Last Hemi, Segment 1. (Quote is located between :47-:55
in the video.)

As of
this date, RK Motors, of Charlotte, N.C. is conducting its restoration
and their website claims, “This Charger has two remarkably well-preserved
broadcast sheets and a fender tag showing that it is indeed the last
HEMI car produced by any Chrysler plant.” Exhibits 2 & 3

From Prove
It interviews along with other published documents, RK Motors appears
to have based their claim on inductive (rather than deductive) logic
relative to four assumptions. The first assumption is that since
the 1971 Dodge Charger VIN 192238 is higher than VIN 190774 (which had
already been “claimed” by Chrysler to be the Last Hemi Charger)
it would follow that the higher VIN should be the Last Hemi Charger
built. The second assumption is that the “official build date” is
indicated on the factory broadcast sheet and vehicle fender tag. The
third assumption is that the last Hemi Charger would also be the last
Hemi vehicle produced by Chrysler. The fourth assumption is that there
is only one definition of “The Last Hemi”.

Assumptions appear flawed

1. According
to Mopar enthusiasts, historians, and factory production personnel present
in the 1970’s, it appears that VIN sequences do not necessarily jibe
with actual production sequences. In other words, for Mopars,
the VIN is not a highly reliable formula for determining production
sequence. As Frank Badalson explained, “VINs are assigned prior to actually taking
a position on the assembly line. Also, cars may be pulled out
of line for various reasons such as heavy damage, paint or engine problems,
option shortages, etc. and can therefore postpone final production of
an individual car until the problem is resolved off-line. This
explains why it is not uncommon for lower VIN vehicles to be completed
after higher VIN vehicles.” Multiple assembly plants also created
different “sets” of VINs. Unfortunately, even if the RK assumption
was correct that “the highest VIN wins”, the RK Charger would ironically
be trumped as the last one, because Prove It was made aware of another
1971 Dodge Charger Super Bee with VIN 195362 –over 3,000 units higher
than the RK Charger. This vehicle, located in Ottawa, IL has impressive
credentials, local ownership since day one, and an unbroken provenance
of only three owners.

2.
The second flaw in the RK theory is the assumption that the date on
the broadcast sheet and fender tag is the actual production date. It
is not. According to a May 21, 2012 article published on the RK
website, it states, “On June 18^th, the Bright White
Charger left the Lynch Road assembly plant.” Exhibit 4. The 618 (June 18) date code printed on the vehicle’s broadcast
sheet (an internal factory document) and also stamped into the fender
tag is not the actual date of production; it is the scheduled production
date (SPD) assigned when the order/production process begins-not ends.
Here again, even IF the RK assumption was correct, the date on the fender
tag of a recently discovered Charger VIN 195362 is 628 (June 28^th)–
ten days later than June 18^th. Further, since this vehicle
is equipped with a sun roof, it would have been shipped to American
Sun Roof for installation and then back to the Lynch Road assembly plant
for final assembly and shipping. Therefore, Charger VIN 195362
would have been likely produced long after VIN 192238. However,
this still is not enough evidence to claim Charger 195362 is either
the last Hemi ever produced or that it was even the last Hemi Charger
produced. However, the odds appear higher for this vehicle than
for VIN 192238. Numerous other Mopar witnesses are familiar with
the Charger with the highest known VIN 195362.

Most Mopar
witnesses agree that the Monroney window sticker is the only document
that specifies a MOPAR vehicle’s actual production date. Unfortunately,
neither vehicle VIN 192238 nor 195362 appear to have either document.
Both Hemi Chargers VINs 190771 and 190774 each have two documents; the
Monroney window sticker and a letter from Chrysler documenting a July
29 and 30 production dates respectively.

3.
The third flaw is within the inductive logic that assumes the Last Hemi
Charger is also the last Hemi vehicle of any model. Until credible documents
are presented that codify the final day of Hemi Charger production,
the number produced that day, the VINs of each, along with corresponding
data from all the other Hemi assembly plants, that assumption is unsupported
speculation at best and is likely unknowable—regardless of which car
makes the claim.

4.
The fourth flaw lies within the ambiguity of the words “Last Hemi”
and interpretations of dates and VINs. The illustration below illustrates
40 different possible interpretations of the claim “The Last Hemi”.

The Last Hemi Charger

1. to be ordered to be built at a specific
   assembly plant—e.g. Lynch Road, et al?
2. to be ordered to be built at a any assembly plant?
3. to roll off the assembly line of a specific assembly plant?
4. to roll off the assembly line of any assembly plant?
5. to be completed (but not the last mostly assembled) at a specific
   assembly plant?
6. to be completed (but not the last mostly assembled) at any assembly plant?
7. to be fully assembled from beginning to end at a specific assembly plant?
8. to be fully assembled from beginning to end at any assembly plant?
9. to receive a window sticker at a specific assembly plant?
10. to receive a window sticker at any assembly plant?
11. to be released from a specific assembly plant?
12. to be released from any assembly plant
13. to be shipped from a specific assembly plant?
14. to be shipped from any assembly plant?
15. to be sold from a specific assembly plant?
16. to be sold from any assembly plant?

The Hemi Charger with

17. the highest VIN from a specific assembly plant?
18. the highest VIN from any assembly plant?
19. the latest Scheduled Production Date from a specific
    assembly plant?
20. the latest Scheduled Production Date from any assembly plant?

The Last Hemi Vehicle of ANY Model

21. to be ordered to be built at a specific assembly plant—e.g. Lynch Road, et al?
22. to be ordered to be built at a any assembly plant?
23. to roll off the assembly line of a specific assembly plant?
24. to roll off the assembly line of any assembly plant?
25. to be finished (but not the last fully assembled) at a specific
    assembly plant?
26. to be finished (but not the last fully assembled) at any assembly plant?
27. to be released from a specific assembly plant?
28. to be released from any assembly plant
29. to be fully assembled from beginning to end at a specific assembly plant?
30. to be
    fully assembled from beginning to end
    at any assembly plant?
31. to receive a window sticker at a specific assembly plant?
32. to receive a window sticker at any assembly plant?
33. to be shipped from a specific assembly plant?
34. to be shipped from any assembly plant?
35. to be sold from a specific assembly plant?
36. to be sold from any assembly plant?

The Hemi Vehicle of ANY Model with

37. the highest VIN from a specific assembly plant?
38. the highest VIN from any assembly plant?
39. the latest Scheduled Production Date from a specific
    assembly plant?
40. the latest Scheduled Production Date from any assembly plant?

Joe Angelucci,
the owner of Charger VIN 192238, states on camera, “This is the very
last 426 hemi to ever be built by the Chrysler Corporation; the very
last one ever to roll off any assembly line, anywhere.”

To the
owner’s credit, he leaves no doubt about his definition. He
claims definition #30. Although his claim clearly offers the largest
bragging rights, it presents a daunting challenge to prove ANY of these
claims. The dynamics of 1971 Chrysler production processes compounded
by the vagaries of multiple assembly plants and the currently unknown
existence of many/any credible Chrysler records makes claim #30 a very
steep hill to climb, indeed. Prove It studied the claims of both
owners and conducted in-depth interviews with the owners and subject
matter witnesses to separate data from opinion.

After
completing a situation analysis to understand existing data and process,
research began on Mr. Angelucci’s claim. In the May 21, 2012
article on the RK Motors’ Website entitled The Last Hemi – Segment 1, it was printed
in the third paragraph that their claim was verified Mopar expert, Galen
Govier as “the final HEMI car ever produced”. Exhibit 4 Through an email
exchange between David Burroughs and Galen Govier between September
28, 2012 and October 4, 2012, Mr. Govier was asked to comment on any
relevant data he had that would contribute to a conclusive determination
that 192238 was the Last Hemi. Mr. Govier’s October 3 email
response provided a short but rather ambiguous answer. Therefore, in
a final letter to Mr. Govier on October 4, Burroughs wrote, “Is there any way you know how to remove this uncertainty or is it
unknowlable? Please let me know your charges for your services
or research.” No further communication has since been forthcoming
from Mr. Govier. Exhibit 4A

When interviewed
on November 28, 2012, RK’s Joe Carroll was asked by Frank Pope and
David Burroughs how he concluded June 18, 1971 was the last day that
any Hemi car was built. He responded, “We did exhaustive research and Galen Govier wrote
an article in 1998 and said it was.” Mr. Carroll was asked
if Mr. Govier gave him any written report to support what he is stating.
Mr. Carroll said, “He (Govier) indicated that he would not get
involved.” Mr. Carroll then recanted the claim that Mr. Govier
verified the car as such. July dated window stickers from Chargers 190771
and 190774 clearly contradict the claim that June 18 was the last day
that any Hemi was built.

In an
immediate follow up call after being briefly disconnected, Pope again asked how RK concluded VIN 192238 was the Last Hemi.
Mr. Carroll stated to Pope and Burroughs, “Cliff Gromer (Mopar Action Magazine), has friends
at the plant that have access to the records and told me that we had
the Last Hemi built”. However, when Cliff Gromer was
questioned by both Pope and Burroughs the next day on November 29, Mr.
Gromer stated unequivocally, “I never told them that they had the Last Hemi
built. I agreed to do a story, but nothing definite.” Gromer
added, “It was RK that sent me information stating
it was the Last Hemi.”

As of
January 3, 2013, no other documentation, evidence, data, or testimony
had yet been discovered or forthcoming from either Mr. Angelucci, the
owner, RK Motors the restorers, or any other sources to substantiate
the claim that 1971 Charger #192238 is either the Last Hemi vehicle
or even the Last Hemi Charger produced.

Therefore,
in an effort to provide the owner and restorer of Charger 192238 the
courtesy to present newly discovered facts or compelling documentation,
Prove It (Frank Pope) contacted RK Motors on January 3 requesting that
Mr. Angelucci call him to discuss. No call was received, so on January
4, Pope placed a second call to RK Motors with a request for Mr. Angelucci
to call. On Monday January 7 Frank Pope called RK once again and spoke
to Jennifer Pullen (713-855-9312). Hearing no response after three attempts
to contact Mr. Angelucci, Frank Pope and David Burroughs once again
called RK Motors on Tuesday, January 8 requesting to speak with Mr.
Carroll in order to offer (for the fourth time since November 28) the
opportunity to produce compelling data or testimony from credible production
sources to substantiate their claim or to point out any data errors
regarding the four subject vehicles. Prove It assured Mr. Carroll that
his evidence would be respectfully considered along with any data or
testimony from other sources lending to the credibility of their claim.
Mr. Carroll alleged Charger VIN 195362 as being a fake and thereby countered
that it was not a later production Hemi. Upon being told that the owner
would sign a legal affidavit certifying it was not a fake, no further discussion
ensued from Mr. Carroll relative to that vehicle. Mr. Carroll then mentioned
that Rick Ehrenberg (a writer for Mopar Action magazine) stated that
VIN 192238 was the Last Hemi produced; however no other evidence was
mentioned in this final conversation with Mr. Carroll. Within minutes
after the conversation with Mr. Carroll on January 8, Pope and Burroughs
contacted Mr. Ehrenberg to corroborate the statement that he had data
proving 192238 was the Last Hemi produced. Mr. Ehrenberg stated, “Well, that’s not really true. I don’t know how anyone could
do that due to the lack of any significant Chrysler records post-1967.”
Mr. Ehrenberg clearly and repeatedly denied any knowledge to support
that claim whatsoever. Ehrenberg did suggest two other people who may
be able to help. He first suggested Galen Govier who he believed to
be very knowledgeable about production data. The other person he suggested
was someone he believed had more experience on Dodge Chargers than anyone
else. Ehrenberg stated, “You need to call the guy who owns 50 of these
Mopars in Alabama ; he’d be the guy I’d ask—his name is Tim Wellborn.”
(Note: Mr. Wellborn is the owner of Charger VIN 190774—one of the
subject vehicles.)

Therefore,
based upon contradictory testimony from each of the sources referenced
by Mr. Carroll (Govier, Gromer, and Ehrenberg), no further interviews
with RK Motors or the owner appear productive to continue. However, Prove It
will gladly revise this report upon receipt of compelling data or other
evidence supporting Mr. Angelucci’s claim if and when it is discovered.

Researching the Wellborn Counter Claim
/ VIN 190774:

Although
not yet forensically documented, VINs 190771 and 190774 have broadcast
sheets Exhibit 5 & 6
and window stickers Exhibit 7 & 8. The date code on the bottom of the window sticker indicates
a build date of 0730 (July 30, 1971). Exhibit 9 In
addition, a 1976 letter from Chrysler signed by W.C. Tiahrt states that
the last two Hemi Chargers built by Chrysler were VIN 190771 and 190774
built on July 29 and July 30, respectively. Exhibit 10

The W.C.
Tiahrt letter from Chrysler and its statements have been corroborated
by David Burroughs in an October 4, 2012 phone interview with Mr. Warren
C. Tiahrt. Mr. Tiahrt affirmed that he remembered writing the
letter and stated, “I got this information calling a guy in (Chrysler)
production with the records”. As of this date, Chrysler’s
retiree, Mr. Tiahrt, has not changed his story over the 36 years since
writing the 1976 letter to Mr. Charles Cheshire, owner of Charger VIN
190771. Neither of the other two subject Chargers have documentation
that challenges these Chrysler documents. However, such documents
as Mr. Tiahrt’s letter can still be subject to internal anomalies
in both production processes and administrative record keeping that could make them accurate by definition, but inaccurate in reality.
Although Prove It has no reason to suspect a Chrysler error, it is unclear
exactly what data (or lack of it) within the Chrysler production records
triggered “a guy in production” to report that 190771 and 190774
were built on 7/29 and 7/30 respectively and that they were the last
two Hemi Chargers built. Mr. Tiahrt’s later quote, “…these are the last ones we have any record of”
has not been credibly challenged by any other data, witness testimony,
or evidence after 4 months of research nor 36 years of history.

The Mystery of Order Dates (scheduled production dates) vs. Production
Dates

The code
printed within the Vehicle Order Number on the “build sheet”
for Chargers 190774 and 190771 is 611 or June 11 Exhibits 5 & 6
and is also stamped into the fender tag of all vehicles. Exhibit 11 illustrates this stamp in the second line from the bottom
of the tag. A commonly perceived interpretation of this code is the
date that Chrysler expected to begin production on these vehicles. On
December 27, 2012, David Burroughs interviewed Walt Redmond, a retired
Chrysler computer programmer who coded the build sheets in 1971.
Redmond confirmed that production would not be started nor would a scheduled
production date be assigned until the factory was certain it had all
the components/options in stock to build the car. Once the inventory
was in stock, then the production date would be scheduled and the car
produced. According to Redmond, “…95% of the cars were produced between 2-5
days of their scheduled production date (or once they were on
the line). Occasionally a car may take up to 10 days.” Mr. Redmond
further stated, “Six weeks would be an extraordinarily long
time.” Redmond could not think of any reason why a car
(let alone two) would be delayed so long. Therefore, why would two cars scheduled
to be built in early June not be completed until the end of July; a
full six weeks later?

In December,
2012, David Burroughs emailed the same question to Patrick Krook, an
associate of the owner and representative of Charger 190774. “Why would two cars with such comparatively lower VINs (vs.192238 and
195362) and with early June scheduled build dates take six weeks (until
July 30) to complete when according to Chrysler production witness Walt
Redmond, 95% of Mopars were completed within only a couple days of production?”

Mr. Krook’s
December 27 email response submitted the following thesis:

1) “It is most probable that the car was set aside (until it could
be batch painted)due to the high-impact color, FY1 Bannana Yellow–a
common practice for special up charge color options”. Mr. Krook
believes this is a much more likely scenario than a “re-issue” window
sticker that is coincidental with last day of production.

2) Further,
Mr. Krook points to a build sequence number of 190818 on the Chrysler
broadcast / build sheet which is 44 unit numbers higher than the actual
VIN sequential number of 190774. He states, “This means that the unibodies (shells) were being
built faster than the line was putting cars together.”

Both of
Mr. Krook’s theories have merit, however, neither provides adequate
insight or documentation why production would be delayed the extraordinarily
long period of six weeks. Let alone for two cars of totally different
colors; one of which was a non-high-impact color—FE5 Bright Red.

Some theories examined:

Q.
Were both Chargers set aside awaiting batch painting of high impact
colors?

A.
Unlikely, since Chrysler allegedly did not assign SPD if there was a
pending assembly line problem.

Furthermore, since 190771 was Bright Red (FE5) and not a high impact
color, the paint theory seems unlikely

Q.
Were both Chargers damaged within the assembly plant and required extensive
rebuilding before sale ready?

A.
Unlikely, however, it is a possibility and may be a plausible reason,
but highly unlikely for two vehicles.

Q.
Were both Chargers set aside as “unsold” orders and held in
a “sales bank” for end of the year distribution to

either VIPs or internal Chrysler employees if not sold before?

1. 
   Unknown, but this may be plausible scenario. To that end and according
   to the Monroney of Charger 190771,

it was sold to Chrysler Motors Corp with the name J Redmond Field
— printed at the end of all options.

However, 190774 was NOT a company car, so that theory is not wholly
sound, either.

Q. Were
both Chargers actually sold in June but due to damaged window stickers,
Chrysler re-issued Monroney

stickers at the end of July for both cars? And did the re-issued window
stickers carry “print dates” on the bottom

which were different from their original production print date?

A.
Unknown, but strong testimony indicates this is not the case.
Forensic testing may be suggested, however,

forensic testing is probably not sensitive enough to discern a six week
variation in 40 year old paper or ink.

Q. Were
the 190771 and 190774 Monroney stickers reproduced by hobby-vendors
and are they only replicas?

A. No.The
Cheshire Monroney sticker copies are definitively original according
to Frank Badalson who will sign legal

affidavits that he acquired the copy of sticker 190771 long before accurate
reproduction stickers were being
produced. According to Badalson and the documents he retains from the
Lynch Rd assembly plant, the Monroney stickers and the date codes at
the bottom of each are authentic and document the date the vehicle was
released from Chrysler Motors. This is also evidenced by many original
documents corroborated by paperwork in the files of Mr. Norm.

Although
Mr. Krook’s paint thesis “why” the extraordinarily long delay
may be partly or totally inaccurate, his overriding argument shifted
to a letter from W.C. Tiahrt (on Chrysler letterhead). That letter
remains an important corroborating factor of the Monroney dates for
both VIN 190771 and 190774. Mr. Krook paraphrases the Chrysler
letter, “…the build date on 190774 is July 30^th
and is the last they have any record of. Again, refuting any idea
that the window sticker is a re-issue. According to Mr. Krook,
“The letter citing original factory production
records and the window sticker corroborate with one another”.
Mr. Krook’s argument remains more compelling than arguments presented
by any other owners or sources to date.

Reconciling Contradictions

During
an October 24, interview by David Burroughs, Mopar authority and chief
judge for International Chrysler Collector Authority, Dave Wise, suggested
that the ink date at the bottom of the Monroney window sticker is the
“print date” of the window sticker. Extending that logic,
Burroughs asked if the original window sticker was damaged at the dealer
and the dealer requested a re-issued sticker a month after production,
what date would be indicated on the re-issued window sticker; the original
production date or the date the re-issued sticker was printed?
The answer to this question would impact the credibility of the two
window stickers dated 0729 and 0739. Although not definitive,
Mr. Wise believed re-issued Monroneys would indicate the re-print
date rather than the original vehicle production date. However,
when asked again in a subsequent interview with Burroughs on December
21, 2012, Wise still believed this was true but lowered his confidence
level to less than 70% certainty that this was the actual practice.

Conversely,
during a November 16, 2012, interview between Frank Pope and Dave Walden;
the only person licensed by Chrysler to reproduce Monroney window stickers,
Pope asked the same question. “If a dealership requested a Monroney to be
re-issued by the factory, would it have a different date than the original?”
Walden emphatically stated, “Absolutely not! The duplicate would be just that;
a duplicate.” Pope pressed Mr. Walden further and advised
him of a contradiction he had heard. Specifically, another witness
stated that when a Monroney was reissued by the factory, the date on
the bottom would be the print date of the re-issue rather than the print
date of the original issue. Walden stated, “It‘s just not true!”

On January
8, 2013 Frank Pope interviewed Dave Walden for a third time and posed
these specific questions:

“If a Charger was produced on June 15 and the dealer later requested
a factory re-issued Monroney, would the re-issued Monroney carry the
same 0615 (June 15) code on the bottom even if it was re-issued 45 days
later?” Mr. Walden’s response was, “I can’t be 100% certain of anything.”
But it is a fair assessment that Walden was over 95% confident that
his statement accurately reflected the Chrysler process.

Upon further
questioning by Pope, Walden revealed that he believed re-issued window
stickers were printed at a Central Office instead of the assembly plant.

IMPORTANT INSIGHT REACHED IN JANUARY 2013:

After discussing at length with numerous
Mopar authorities, it seems that the most likely explanation of the
mysterious six week gap between scheduled production date and Monroney
date is the following: These cars did not go on the assembly line on
their scheduled production date, but their orders were batched with
other year-end Hemi vehicles and went on the line at the end of the
July production run.

Frank Badalson provided evidence that
clearly documents a 1970 Mopar ordered on July 6 with a scheduled production
date of August 29 and a Monroney date of October 2. This clearly
illustrates that the gap between order and Monroney dates is not a unique
thing for VIN 190774.

Researching the Kanellis
Hemi / VIN 195362:

Frank Pope and David Burroughs inspected a fourth Charger 195362 that
could possibly be the last hemi produced due to its highest known VIN.
All the pertinent VIN stampings under hood Exhibits 12 & 13
and the VIN tag on the left dash Exhibit 14 were
photo documented by Frank Pope, Jr. and corroborated by Mopar authorities
as legitimate. Important to note, the fender tag indicated a scheduled
production date code of 628 (June 28)—significantly later than any
of the other three subject Hemi Chargers. Exhibit 15
With the exception of the Certification Label located on the driver
door, all other stampings and tags including fender tags were claimed
by the owner to be original.

However, several Mopar authorities, Frank Badalson and John Bober
question the authenticity of the 195362 fender tag due to the following
anomalies:

• N96 Fresh Air Pkg (Air Grabber) is not stamped. All Hemi’s should have N96.
• No inspector marks on either tag. Inspector markings are typical.
• 408 needs to be 407. 408 indicates a Hemi engine configured for an automatic transmission.
• VIN repeats on top line. Witnesses have not seen frame line sequence match VIN
• 1/8 space between bottom line stamping and rib. (Typical of early reproduction tag)

Regardless of the anomalies above, Mr. Kanellis stated that he would
sign a legal and binding affidavit relative to his claim that the fender
tags have been neither reproduced nor replaced. Regardless, the
authenticity of the fender tag is not a critical element in determining
whether or not it was the Last Hemi Charger or vehicle.

Although
the Certification Label was reproduced according to Mr. Kanellis, he
stated that he had the Certification Label reproduced per the original
which he claims had the date code 6-71 (June 1971). This would suggest
that the car 195362 was scheduled to have been produced in June-‘71. Exhibit 16 Some witnesses might
speculate that it is a mystery how a vehicle with a June 28 scheduled
production date could be completed before June 30 since it was equipped
with a sunroof option. Such vehicles pose a unique issue. It would
be difficult to complete production within two days for a sunroof equipped
vehicle. According to Chrysler production witnesses Dave Wise
and Walt Redmond, they both maintain that sunroof cars were removed
from the assembly line, transported to American Sun Roof and then returned
to the assembly plant for completion. Could this entire operation
from assembly line to ASR and back again happen within two days? Realistically,
it could not. However, according to Frank Badalson, “It is not unusual to see cars with Certification
Label dates a month before the final assembly month.”
In fact, the original Certification Label date of Charger 190774 is
also 6-71 even though its Monroney sticker is coded July 30. Exhibit
17 As stated earlier in the report, Mr. Badalson supplied Prove
it with examples of other Mopars with door tag labels as much as two
months apart. E.g. July 6 order date, scheduled production date
August 29, door label 8-70 and Monroney sticker date October 2, (1002).

IMPORTANT CONCLUSION

Regardless
of 195362’s Certification Label date or the authenticity of its fender
tag, since Chargers 190771 and 190774 have Monroneys with 0729 and 0730
date codes plus a letter from Chrysler corroborating these vehicles
as the last two Chargers (officially) produced at Lynch Rd assembly
plant at the end of Chrysler production—in July, 1971, it appears highly improbable that 195236 was the Last Hemi released from
the assembly plant. However, it is highly likely that it was one
of the very last Hemi Chargers produced.

CLOSING COMMENTS

Disregarding the Tiahrt letter from Chrysler, how else is it known
that July 30, 1971 was the last day of production?

In response
to this email question posed by David Burroughs on October, 2012, Patrick
Krook quoted Galen Govier’s “Chrysler Corporation Production Option
Code Book 1969-71” Sixth Edition July, 2001.

• Chrysler model year began August 1 and usually ended the 2nd week
  of July.

Mr. Krook
therefore, deduced that since July 30 was Friday, it was highly probable
it was the last day of 1971 production of a very limited number of Hemi
cars in the first place. Accordingly, Mr. Govier’s published statements
lend significant credence to Mr. Krook’s argument and further increase
the probability that no other Hemi Chargers (or possibly Hemi vehicles)
would have been built or finished after Friday, July 30, 1971.
The date printed on the 190774 Monroney.

How is it known how many cars (if any) were produced that day?

Prove
It doesn’t know. However, per an interview with John Bober, who maintains
the best known 1971 Mopar database, he claims that he has never come
across any cars built
in July. Nor over the five months of this investigation (from September
through February) have any documents of July production Mopars been
discovered or presented other than those related to VINs 190771 and
190774. This supports the argument that a very limited number of Hemi’s
were produced in July 1971.

How is
it known that the subject Monroneys are legitimate and not reprints
or replicas with inaccurate date codes?

Evidence
was accidentally discovered which raises the credibility of the Monroneys
by a magnitude. During a December 12 interview with Dave Walden, a re-manufacturer
of reproduction Monroney stickers, Frank Pope asked Walden what he believed
was the last day of production for 1971 Dodge Chargers. Pope asked this
question to corroborate John Bober’s statement that he has never come
across any cars built in July. Walden stated, “I have seen build dates as high as the last
days of July.” When asked if he could provide an exhibit of
a July production Hemi, Walden forwarded a surprising and coincidental
document to Prove It. It was a copy of the Monroney sticker for
Hemi Charger VIN 190771 Exhibit the same Charger referenced by the Chrysler
letter written by W.C. Tiahrt. The Monroney supplied by Mr. Walden
corroborated the date quoted by Mr. Tiahrt; July 29–indicated by a
0729 ink code on the bottom line of that Monroney. It is important to
note that Prove It had never disclosed to Walden that this VIN Charger
was one of the four subject vehicles being researched. It is also important
to note that this Monroney has unique visual characteristics that match
the Monroney sticker for 190771 on file with Frank Badalson.

This is
compelling evidence leading to a conclusion that not many (or possibly
any) other Hemi Chargers have Monroney published build dates later than
VIN 190771 and 190774; even if other vehicles may have higher VINs.
This piece of corroborating evidence from a totally independent witness
(Dave Walden) who had never seen the Monroney for VIN 109774 (The Wellborn
Charger) creates a very compelling case that the late July dates printed
on both 190771 and 190774 are authentic. Rationale:
The fact that re-issued window stickers are not only uncommonly ordered,
but also the odds that two would be ordered by two different dealerships
(one in Knoxville, Tennessee and the other in Welch, West Virginia)
for two cars with identical SPDs seems unlikely. Further, that
they would have been reprinted almost exactly at the same time (six
weeks after their production) seems highly improbable. Furthermore,
since 190771 was sold by Chrysler Motors to Chrysler Motors, why would
Chrysler Motors need yet another Monroney re-issued? They sold it to
themselves, not to a retail customer. Therefore, deductive logic leads
to a reasonable conclusion that Monroney’s for both vehicles are not
re-issues. Since it is likely that production was delayed six weeks
for numerous year-end Hemi orders, two existing original Monroney stickers,
plus a corroborating letter from Chrysler Motors, it appears Definitive
that Chargers 190771 and 190774 were the Last Hemi Chargers officially
“released”. It appears Indicative to Probable that they were
also the last two Hemi vehicles officially “released” by Chrysler
Motors. The 1976 Chrysler letter from W.C. (Warren) Tiahrt lends convincing
corroboration.

It is
important to understand that completed or released are not necessarily
synonymous with the last assembled or produced. For example, the cars
may have been 95% produced (assembled) in June and not completed or
released until July. However, the consensus of witnesses believes
that it is much more likely that the year-end Hemi orders were delayed
(or batched) until the end of the production run in July, 1971. Therefore,
deductive logic would interpret the July 29 and July 30 date codes on
both Monroneys and the 1976 Chrysler letter as “the last officially
produced” vehicles since the Monroney sticker is applied to the vehicle
before it rolls off the final assembly line. Although Prove It understands
this implicit public interpretation, Prove It is unable to make that
claim because it is unknown if any non-Charger Hemi’s were released
from any other assembly plants on or after July 30, 1971