BaT - Bill Noon's 1989 911 Turbo S Auction

[JMS935]

This thread is in reference to this auction (link below) on Bring a Trailer, as I feel the need to correct the fiction being pushed by this seller.

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1989-porsche-930-turbo-s-a-real-one/

What he is stating is wrong, Porsche did not make only 10 1989 911 Turbo S’ during this model year. I have attached below the production numbers for all to see, something the seller will not do because it will confirm the BS he is pushing in this auction. As you can see from these numbers on page 3, that 55 left hand drive coupes were built, and they were all classified exactly the same way - “1989 1911 Turbo S-WLS Coupé”. It even goes further to break down what countries they went to:

Germany: 42
France: 10 (these are the 10 Sonautos, of which this car is one of them)
Italy: 1
Belgium: 1
Arab States of the Gulf: 1

ALL 55 of these cars got the same model designation from Porsche, as there is literally no differentiating factors at all between the Sonauto 10 and the other 45. If there were then it would be obvious to see in the production data. We would all be able to easily see that these 10 are the only 10 911 Turbo S’ if that were the case, but it is clearly not the case.

Here are some of his quotes with absolutely nothing in terms of actual proof to back them up…

Bill states: “Today only eight are known to still exist. One was completely destroyed and another stolen and never recovered.”

While this isn’t a critical point, it is still a bizarre claim to make when it would be hard to not only learn of this, but even harder to prove it. Obviously 1 of 55 was nowhere near rare enough for him, but 1 of 10 wasn’t even rare enough either. Most of us know that one of these was stolen, but how does he know it was never recovered? How does he know that another one was ‘completely destroyed’? Where is this proof? 1 of 55, read not high enough hammer price for him. 1 of 10, read he still wants more money. Hmm…

Bill states: “I have had several other WLS cars that we too thought were Turbo S models but it was pointed out by Porsche that just these ten carried the name ‘Turbo S’.”

If Porsche pointed this out to you, which is in contrast to their very own production data, then why not share it with everyone? That would lend credence to this outlandish claim. Hmm…

Bill states: “I will post photos in the morning of some of the ‘mistakes’ we made over the year also misidentifying WLS models as Turbo S models.”

I’m not sure what photos he’s referring to, as the only images posted the next day were for the paint meter readings. He has definitely made some ‘mistakes’ over the years, which is a very clever way of phrasing deception. Here’s another auction (link below) from a few years back that I tried setting him straight on, and yet he never once addressed all of the issues I raised. The car was not a 911 Turbo S, and yet it was auctioned off as one. All he did was deflect and ignore until the auction ended, never once addressing and/or correcting his false claims.

https://www.pcarmarket.com/auction/1989-porsche-930-turbo-s/

Bill states: “I too made similar misconceptions but was very much scolded and corrected by the individuals who built the cars and provided so much incredible documentation on them to help us in the preparation for the auction of this Porsche.”

This is quite comical, he was apparently ‘scolded’ by someone at Porsche because he erroneously thought it was far less rare than it actually is. How convenient is that? Rhetorical. Where is this ‘incredible documentation’ that validates these claims? If it actually exists he hasn’t shared it with the rest of us yet.

With this thread I am merely trying to set the record straight on these production numbers, a record that he is actively trying to deceive the bidders on. Had he just thanked me for pointing out the clarification made in my first and only post that can still be read, then none of this would’ve been necessary. Instead of doing that, however, he has conspired with BaT to censor me from the auction so that he can continue pushing his propaganda, which is obviously meant to induce a higher final bid than may otherwise would have hammered for. The last time I checked that was literally the definition of fraud. This is a super rare car, and I am not slighting the car in the least. It is one of the most desirable variants during the entire 930 generation, and will command top dollar. But the seller is trying to induce an even higher sales price with all of his embellishments than it might otherwise would receive standing on its own merits, because of course a 1 of 8 will command more money than a 1 of 55.

[NYNick]

All well and good, but why aren't you telling this tale on BaT?
You can be cordial and nice about it. Food for thought type comment.

[juanbenae]

there is one in the SF Bay Area in guards red if I am considering the correct model. a shop in sunnyvale does maintenance on it. the shop owner once when taking it out for a post work test drive parked it in my driveway and took a few pictures of it like it was mine.....

[JMS935]

Originally Posted by NYNick

All well and good, but why aren't you telling this tale on BaT?
You can be cordial and nice about it. Food for thought type comment.

Good question NYNick, 3 reasons:

1.) It is very difficult to be cordial and nice while essentially calling someone a liar. I had already cordially stated the facts, and he rebutted me with - let's call it fiction - to be kind.

2.) I can’t attach anything on BaT like I’m able to do here, which just makes it my word against his. The seller would never publish this production data himself to the auction, and I felt it had to get out somehow, even if only a few people that are following this auction see it here on Pelican.

3.) Because I’m being censored, my posts aren’t being published. Most likely because I am calling this dealer’s ethics into question, and he is a consistent seller on BaT. So when BaT’s revenue stream is at risk they will apparently take measures to silence any members that risk that, whether what those members are posting is 'constructive' to everyone else but the seller, or not. Risking their money machine seems to be what they mean by 'non-constructive', facts and truth be damned.

My next 2 posts were both 'flagged as non-constructive', and it happened in what seemed to be record time too, so they couldn't be read by others. I was not allowed to rebut Bill’s response to my first comment, and while I originally thought it got flagged by Bill and his minions, I.E. the community; I learned that was not the case on my next post, as I watched that one more closely after posting it. My 3rd post vanished shortly after posting it, not flagged, but removed entirely like I never posted it. It was, however, put back later in the day showing 'flagged as non-constructive' so nobody could read it. It was at that point I realized Bring a Trailer was actually conspiring with this seller to hide my posts from consumption by the BaT community. They were taking their own measures to suppress my comments, as these weren’t getting flagged by the BaT community, but by BaT itself. BaT obviously thought twice about deleting the post entirely after doing so, which is when it got put back and flagged so as to make it look like the BaT community flagged it - not BaT the business.

Here is my 3rd post that vanished after posting it, then reappeared as flagged later in the day so it could not be read by the community.

[JMS935]

Originally Posted by NYNick

All well and good, but why aren't you telling this tale on BaT?
You can be cordial and nice about it. Food for thought type comment.

Trying again to attach the image of the post...

[JMS935]

Originally Posted by NYNick

All well and good, but why aren't you telling this tale on BaT?
You can be cordial and nice about it. Food for thought type comment.

The irony of all of this, I can't attach an image of the post here either. It shows attached prior to posting, yet it's not attached.

[Matt Monson]

Originally Posted by JMS935

The irony of all of this, I can't attach an image of the post here either. It shows attached prior to posting, yet it's not attached.

It’s likely too big or in the wrong format. It must be a jpeg.

[JMS935]

Originally Posted by Matt Monson

It’s likely too big or in the wrong format. It must be a jpeg.

After checking it appeared to have been saved as a png file, not jpg. I just resaved it as a jpeg, now trying again...

[juanbenae]

is mr. noon a member here? the way his name was dropped seemed like we should know of him.

im a devalued member and did not update my BAP password when they sai I should have on bat. im your puppet JM... feed me and I'll post some junk...

[NYNick]

Originally Posted by JMS935

The irony of all of this, I can't attach an image of the post here either. It shows attached prior to posting, yet it's not attached.

Maybe you should try contacting BaT directly with your facts instead of posting them on the auction. If they see an irregularity and they still let the auction continue, there would be a chain of evidence for any potential lawsuit down the road, and they'd know it.

[JMS935]

Originally Posted by NYNick

Maybe you should try contacting BaT directly with your facts instead of posting them on the auction. If they see an irregularity and they still let the auction continue, there would be a chain of evidence for any potential lawsuit down the road, and they'd know it.

I’ve been around BaT long enough commenting on 930s that they and everyone else knows that follows 930 auctions, that I know what I’m talking about when it comes to any rare variants of the 930. This isn’t about facts at all, they are trying to protect one of their consistent revenue streams, who has unfortunately put them in a tight spot. These over embellishments will eventually catch up to Symbolic International, and maybe BaT gets pulled into it too, who knows. Liars eventually get their comeuppance.

BaT already has this information, I provided them with this info from model years 1987, 1988 and 1989 back in September of 2021 when I listed my 1987 M505 on their site. They never posted it to the auction, and I didn’t need all of this info for my listing, just the top portion of each page, so I posted images of it myself in the auction, see my post from 9/4/21.

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1987-porsche-911-turbo-75/

Bottom line is that this is not about honesty and transparency, this is about money. If BaT lets me expose this seller for the fraud that he is, that will cost them money. He’s got 70 listings and counting on his personal account, and 13 listings already on the business account that just started back in May. There are some very high dollar cars he moves, that revenue stream is obviously worth silencing a few of their community members over that call him out on his BS. BaT is just lucky that there are very few guys like me on their site, for the most part it’s a community of cheerleaders who could care less about facts.


https://bringatrailer.com/member/bill_noon/

https://bringatrailer.com/member/symbolic_international/

[911heaven]

Originally Posted by NYNick

Maybe you should try contacting BaT directly with your facts instead of posting them on the auction. If they see an irregularity and they still let the auction continue, there would be a chain of evidence for any potential lawsuit down the road, and they'd know it.

Maybe Nick, yet I somehow agree with JMS935 that if he was already censored, why wouldn't that continue? Then ask yourself how many times, how long has this been going on? If BAT is running bus. like this and can get away with it they will continue to do so indefinitely. I don't think this thread is irrelevant. JMS935 is simply raising an alarm bell and that is good. Maybe he just loves the car, wants to buy it, but cannot without any transparency.

[JMS935]

Originally Posted by 911heaven

Maybe Nick, yet I somehow agree with JMS935 that if he was already censored, why wouldn't that continue? Then ask yourself how many times, how long has this been going on? If BAT is running bus. like this and can get away with it they will continue to do so indefinitely. I don't think this thread is irrelevant. JMS935 is simply raising an alarm bell and that is good. Maybe he just loves the car, wants to buy it, but cannot without any transparency.

I already have one of these in my collection, I would be better suited staying quiet and letting this shyster push his 1 of 10 or 1 of 8 crap so as to induce a much higher sales price, that would benefit me more from the high comp. This is ALL about transparency, that’s it. I don’t like watching people get taken advantage of, and that’s what he’s trying to do to bidders on this car.

A quick search of the internet and you’ll find another 1989 911 Turbo S for sale, this is even a better car than what’s on BaT, it just doesn’t come with the cute 1 of 10 plaque. Yet according to Symbolic International, though, this car doesn’t actually exist.

https://suchen.mobile.de/fahrzeuge/details.html?id=351955152&

[Matt Monson]

Bill Jackson used to have one here in Denver. I bet it wouldn’t take more than 5 minutes to come up with more than ten on the internet. Such a farce.

[JMS935]

Originally Posted by Matt Monson

Bill Jackson used to have one here in Denver. I bet it wouldn’t take more than 5 minutes to come up with more than ten on the internet. Such a farce.

Bring a Trailer and most of its members tend to forget that there’s an entire internet out there beyond their own URL. You’d think they would’ve spent the ten seconds it took me to do a quick google search to find this car before they deleted my post indicating that there actually are others out there, and my post was spot on.

[JMS935]

Originally Posted by juanbenae

is mr. noon a member here? the way his name was dropped seemed like we should know of him.

im a devalued member and did not update my BAP password when they sai I should have on bat. im your puppet JM... feed me and I'll post some junk...

He used to sell here, it appears that he hasn’t done so since early 2020. This is actually the perfect venue for him since comments aren’t allowed on the for sale listings.

Pelican Parts Forums - Search Results

[NYNick]

Sad that this happens on the most successful auction site ever. Just goes to show you things are never what they appear, especially on the internet. Buyers beware.

[JMS935]

Originally Posted by NYNick

Sad that this happens on the most successful auction site ever. Just goes to show you things are never what they appear, especially on the internet. Buyers beware.

It appears that he's seen this thread, and now trying to figure out how to explain some of his previous BS, which is the wrong font and size of the 'S' stamped on the engine block from the pcarmarket 930 he tried pushing as a 911 Turbo S. I've got to admit, he does have a knack for this storytelling, he's actually spun it in a way that to the uniformed it would make sense if you actually believe his nonsense that only 10 911 Turbo S' were ever built throughout the entire 930 generation. I really doubt Porsche changed their engine stamp dye for the last 10 911 Turbo S' built during the 930 generation as he claims, that is another farce. Fact of the matter is that the 'S' stamp on the Sonauto 930 he is currently selling is legit, nobody would question it, and it matches all of the previous 'S' engine stampings that I've seen, both for the WLS' prior to 1986 and for the 911 Turbo S' after that.

It's his previous embellishments now catching up with him in the current auction, however, and thus adding confusion to it. I seriously doubt a potential buyer questioned the current engine stamping during an inspection of this car as he states. The questions were from the pcarmarket listing, not the currrent BaT listing. He was asked multiple times about all of the issues surrounding his claims, yet he never once addressed any of them until now - almost 3 years later, and only because this thread is putting heat on him and his antics. This is what happens when you embellish yourself into a corner over many years and mutliple listings. Why can't the guy just concede that he is wrong and bring some integrity back to this current BaT auction? That's rhetorical since we know it won't happen. It's as easy as saying: After doing further research, it appears that JMS935 is correct. This car is 1 of 55 911 Turbo S' built during the 1989 model year. The differentiating factors on the 10 Sonautos are the 959 style seats and the glove box plaque, that is what makes them unique to the other 45.

I don't get it why people double down on their lies, it just keeps making that corner they've painted themselves into that much tighter.

[juanbenae]

Originally Posted by juanbenae

there is one in the SF Bay Area in guards red if I am considering the correct model. a shop in sunnyvale does maintenance on it. the shop owner once when taking it out for a post work test drive parked it in my driveway and took a few pictures of it like it was mine.....

I stand corrected. I thought the 89 would have been a 964 based car, which was the one i reference in the bay area.

[mspell]

So, you've worked yourself into a lather because this guy slighted you on an internet comment? Your quest to save the uninformed, though noble, seems quixotic.