Not to be a dick, but that is not the case. All of the SPF GT40s registered in Cali to date have that MSO. And to my knowledge all were accepted and titled.. Do you think Lance has a business model that has his customers NOT being able to use his product?
Same qualifier...
And just to be clear, the
motivation to call it "incorrect" is because it allows the manufacturer a wide open door to help the end user out of the jam that Ron is in. They just have to admit to a typographical error in an insignificant field.
As for facts...
Rick, you are using bad logic, or you mean "invalid" not "incorrect". I am referring to
factual correctness. Just because up until now the MSO "worked" doesn't make that particular field on the MSO
factually correct; it can be wrong but the referees ignored it (as they should have based on the state documentation quoted above).
Also, the MSO did not need to state the year of the replica. But assuming a need to do so, to be
factually correct is should have stated a
range of years (for Mk Is), since there is nothing (other than certain paint schemes) that ties a GT40 Mk I
replica to a particular year, and Mk Is were made for several years. To put it another way it is
factually incorrect to call a car a replica of a 1966 when it is just as accurately a replica of a 63 or a 64 or a 65.
So to give an example that illustrates the issue of
factual correctness: the most common paint scheme for an SPF is "Gulf Livery" with a number "6", that of P1075 which was
not built in 1966, right?. So if we're going to write a single year on the MSO, is that a replica of a '66 GT40 or of a '68 GT40?
It can't be both.
By the way, it looks like another method for making a "correction" (OK, Rick, how about "enhancement?") to the MSO would be an MSO extension. From the CA DMV industry manual chapter 7 at
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/reg_hdbk/main_toc.htm
MSO Continuations
- Any continuation to an MSO must clearly state “Continuation” on the face of the document and contain the same security features as the original.
- A “continuation” MSO must be used in conjunction with the original MSO.
Or, maybe that's just for additional transfers....
As for the Lance business model rhetorical question... of course not, and isn't that a bit theatrical? People make mistakes. Filling out the MSO the way they did was a mistake. What's the big deal? Just admit it, do what you can to fix it, and move on. Same as the handbrake, etc. :laugh: