SKU: 40865688148

Ford GT40 - 1969 Le Mans Winner - Race Weathered

Sale price$12543.75 Regular price$13937.50
Save 10%

Pay in installments of $3484.38 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Aug 31 - Sep 5

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

Ford GT40 - 1969 Le Mans Winner - Race WeatheredLimited to just 40 pieces Based on chassis #1075 as raced to victory by Jacky Ickx and Jackie Oliver in the 24 Hours of Le Mans at Circuit de la Sarthe on the 14th and 15th of June 1969 Model accompanied by an A1 archive quality Gicle print of the car cruising down the pit lane after its victory on track Weathering details precisely applied by artisans in Bristol using archival imagery 1: 8 scale model, over 50 cms 20 inches long Each model hand built

  • Limited to just 40 pieces
  • Based on chassis #1075 as raced to victory by Jacky Ickx and Jackie Oliver in the 24 Hours of Le Mans at Circuit de la Sarthe on the 14th and 15th of June 1969
  • Model accompanied by an A1 archive quality Giclée print of the car cruising down the pit lane after its victory on track
  • Weathering details precisely applied by artisans in Bristol using archival imagery
  • 1:8 scale model, over 50 cms/20 inches long
  • Each model hand-built and assembled by a small team of craftsmen
  • Made using the finest quality materials
  • Complete with opening trunk and removeable engine cover
  • Over 4000 hours to develop the base model
  • Over 450 hours to build and weather each model
  • Thousands of precisely engineered parts: castings, photo-etchings and CNC machined metal components
  • Built with the assistance and cooperation of the Ford Archive and Heritage department, and Gulf Oil International
  • Officially licensed 24 Hours of Le Mans product
  • We’re delighted to introduce the most recent in our ever-expanding series of Race Weathered models: the Ford GT40, as raced to victory at the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 1969. This unique edition of just 40 models will be meticulously hand-painted and detailed by our master model makers to show every detail of the race dirt as the car was driven to victory by by Jacky Ickx and Jackie Oliver at Circuit de la Sarthe on the 14th and 15th of June 1969. Each edition will be accompanied by an archive quality A1 portrait size Giclée print of the car after its race victory, selected by Amalgam from the Motorsport Images collection.

    One of the most iconic racing cars of all time, the Ford GT40 was born out of motorsport’s most infamous grudge. After failing to secure possession of Enzo Ferrari’s much celebrated company, Henry Ford II returned to America empty-handed and declared his desire to crush Ferrari at Le Mans. The result was a car that was to defeat all before it.

    Produced for five years between 1964-69, the development of the GT40 was particularly improvised. Despite their tremendous wealth and production capability, Ford as an organisation had precious little racing expertise. Ford negotiated a deal with UK-based Lola Cars owner and chief designer Eric Broadley and dispatched British engineer Roy Lunn back to the UK to take a key role in the project. Overseen by American designer Harley Copp, the team of Broadley, Lunn and ex-Aston Martin team boss John Wyer began working on the new car at the Lola Factory in Bromley. At the end of 1963, the team moved to Slough, at the newly established Ford Advanced Vehicles HQ, under the direction of Wyer. Bruce McLaren, of McLaren Automotive, was hired to evaluate a prototype in August 1963 and then work progressed swiftly, though it was barely finished in time for its unveiling. The first GT40, the GT/101 (the “GT40” moniker came later and was taken from the car’s height: it stood at 40 inches tall at the top of the windscreen), was revealed in England on 1 April 1964 and soon after exhibited in New York. Purchase price of the completed car for competition use was £5,200 (or £103k in today’s money).

    Le Mans testing a few weeks later revealed severe instability issues at high speed; the GT40 could do 200mph (321km/h) but wanted to get airborne above 170mph (273km/h). It’s first outings at the Nürburgring, Le Mans and Reims, despite its incredible reputation, were all DNFs. By the end of the year, Wyer, though still building GT40s, handed the job of racing them to the legendary American ex-racer Carroll Shelby. Shelby replaced the 4.2L engine with a 7.0L beast that he already used to great effect in the Cobra, matched to a new ZF transmission. Armed with its new power unit, the GT40 scored its first win at Daytona 1965 before claiming second place at Sebring. Le Mans, though, was a disaster, with all five entries failing to finish due to mechanical issues.

    1966 marked the beginning of the GT40 legend. A 1-2-3 victory at Daytona was quickly followed by another victory at Sebring. However, it was the Le Mans crown that Ford coveted. Ford assembled an army for the race that year: nine cars, over 100 personnel with 21 tonnes of spare parts. Ford defeated Ferrari in style, dominating the podium with the top three finishers and becoming the first American manufacturer to emerge victorious at Le Mans. Le Mans wins followed for the GT40 for three more years, establishing the GT40 as one of the most iconic race cars of all time. Ferrari have not won at Le Mans since.

    The models will be accompanied by a Giclée art print of a beautiful Rainer Schlegelmilch photograph shot of the car cruising down the pit lane after its victory at the 1969 24 Hours of Le Mans. The Giclée print will be on archive quality art paper, with an image size of approximately 30x83cm (12x32in).

    This perfect 1:8 scale model of the Ford GT40 is based on the chassis #1075, which was victorious at the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 1969. Driven by Jacky Ickx and Jackie Oliver, the #6 car recorded the real closest-run finish in the history of the Le Mans 24 Hours, and one of the greatest in all of the history of motor racing, beating Hans Hermann’s Porsche 908 by just 120 metres (390 feet) after 372 laps. It was a classic underdog story: Porsche had already wrapped up the World Sportscar Championship with three of the ten races to go and were strong favourites to win Le Mans for the first time. 16 Porsches competed, more than a third of the field, and Porsche did indeed lead for 90% of the race. However, the leading 917's gearbox broke at 11 a.m and the Ford of Ickx and Oliver took over the lead. The race ended in a 3-hour sprint, with the Ford battling exhaust problems whilst being pursued by the Porsche 908 of Herrmann and Gérard Larrousse, who themselves contended with mechanical issues affecting the brakes and engine. Ickx knew if he led onto the Mulsanne straight, Herrmann would pass, but he could slipstream past him back again and then hold a lead for the rest of a lap. The cars crossed the finish line with less than a minute to go and so needed to complete one more lap. The Ford had only ever done 23 laps on a tank of fuel, but now suddenly needed to gain an extra lap. Ickx faked a lack of power from fuel starvation, letting Herrmann pass him early on the Mulsanne Straight, before using the slipstream to pass him again just before the end of the 5km straight. Ickx held off Herrmann to cross the line first, denying Porsche for another year.

    Even more impressively, the car that crossed the line victorious was not a new car made for that year. In fact, it was the exact chassis that won Le Mans the previous year in the hands of Pedro Rodriguez and Lucien Bianchi. Ickx dedicated the team's victory to previous winner Bianchi, who had been killed earlier in the year. Ickx also emerged the victor after starting the race with a one-man protest against the ‘Le Mans start’, after the death of Porsche privateer Willy Mairisse the previous year, by walking to his car and taking his time doing up his belts.

    The Race Weathered edition of the Ford GT40 is limited to just 40 pieces.

    Handling Race Weathered Models

    Please note that Amalgam’s weathered models are incredibly fragile and require careful handling. We recommend you keep handling to a minimum to avoid removing the weathered effects from the model. When handling the model, please adhere to the instructions included with the product when purchased. The brush featured in the gallery is included purely for demonstrating the scale of the model. We do not advise any cleaning of our weathered models as this may remove some of the weathering applications.

    Shipping Notes
    • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
    • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
    • Delivery to the USA:
    1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
    • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
    Exchange/Return Notes
    • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
    • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
    • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
    • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
    SKU: 40865688148

    Discover Niche Categories That Outsell

    Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

    4.4 ★★★★★
    Based on 27 reviews
    Sort
    Highest Rating
    Newest First
    Oldest First
    Product Reviews
    K
    Verified Purchase
    K. K.
    Lexington, US
    ★★★★★ 5
    Classic holder keeps paper towels in place in a breeze.
    Color: 06-bronze
    This classic paper towel holder works perfectly. I had constantly unrolling paper towels in the breeze. This holder keeps everything in place now. So nice. Plus, it has a sleek, uncluttered design. I’m very pleased.
    WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
    Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2026
    T
    Verified Purchase
    Terry Anne
    Bozeman, US
    ★★★★★ 3
    Only holds towels in place when it is full or 1/2 full
    Color: 01-silver
    If you are buying this for the feature of holding the paper towels in place so you can just rip one, I think you will be disappointed. Once the roll becomes smaller (and I tried changing the arm) the arm does not touch the towels. I do like the firm grip on the counter. My other dissatisfaction is the base gets water spots. Being near the sink this happens frequently. It does its job and is attractive.
    WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
    Reviewed in the United States on May 21, 2026
    J
    Verified Purchase
    Jay
    Birmingham, US
    ★★★★★ 5
    Stylish
    Color: 01-silver
    Good sturdy stand for paper towels. Has small suction cups on bottom for stability. Good finish and good fit under the counter. Heavy base and not flimsy feeling. Brushed aluminum matched other appliances well.
    WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
    Reviewed in the United States on January 6, 2026
    T
    Verified Purchase
    The product comes in multiple colors, but the function is terrible
    Lexington, US
    ★★★★★ 5
    Goodbye for the value
    Color: 02-black
    Great value looks wonderful very adorable
    WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
    Reviewed in the United States on May 31, 2026
    J
    Verified Purchase
    J. Thomas Campbell
    Alexandria, US
    ★★★★★ 5
    David Rohl: A "Maverick" in Search of History
    Format: Paperback
    Recently I wrote a review of Peter Enns' book "The Evolution of Adam" in which I made a brief reference to David Rohl's "From Eden to Exile: The 5000 Year History of the People of the Bible." Several friends who read the review emailed me, curious about Rohl's book and encouraging me to follow up on Enns' book with a somewhat detailed review of From Eden to Exile. Hence...this review. From Eden to Exile is Rohl's own "follow-up" to his previous book "Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest." It's important here that I inform the reader of the following: (1) Pharaohs and Kings (in my view) is a far more compelling book than From Eden to Exile; and (2) I would strongly recommend that readers unfamiliar with Rohl read Pharaohs and Kings, prior to reading From Eden to Exile. With these thoughts in mind (and before commenting on Eden to Exile), I believe it will prove worthwhile to focus briefly on Rohl's Pharaohs and Kings prior to moving on to his second book - the two being closely related in terms of subject matter. First, it needs to be stated here at the outset that Rohl (unfortunately) has not received much in the way of either praise and/or encouragment from his fellow Egyptologists, most of whom see him as a sort of "reckless intruder" into the discipline, presenting arguments for a revised chronology (what Rohl refers to as "the New Chronology") that his critics appear to regard as little more than fanciful speculation. This is most unfortunate. Rohl's views are fully deserving of critical assessment; however, the casual (sometimes contemptuous) manner with which his views have been almost entirely dismissed hardly constitutes the "finest hour" in the discipline of ancient Egyptian studies - and this would include the oftentimes quite dismissive attitude of Kenneth A. Kitchen, an Egyptologist and conservative Christian who has written his own book on the subject:"On the Reliability of the Old Testament," Eerdmans, 2003. I clearly am no scholar on the history of ancient Egypt. On the other hand, I have been reading on the subject extensively now for more than 40 years - and this out of sheer love for the subject as opposed to academic profession. And one thing I have learned throughout this reading process is that ancient Egyptian chronology is - for a certainty - in some degree of chaos. (It's not all that difficult to locate comments to this effect from Egyptologists themselves). The standard reference guide for the chronology of ancient Egypt is based foundationally on a chronological history of the ancient pharaohs that dates all the way back to the writings of an Egyptian priest named Manetho, whose written account dates to the third century BC - not exactly what we normally consider "the latest available evidence." Furthermore, Manetho's account itself has not survived; what we do know of it is to be found in the writings of Josephus (first century AD), and the early church fathers Julius Africanus (third century AD) and Eusebius (fourth century AD). Indeed, Egyptian scholar (and conservative Christian) James K. Hoffmeier acknowledges as much in his recent book "Ancient Israel in Sinai" (Oxford, 2005) when he writes regarding Manetho's account: "It is widely acknowledged that names are garbled and that some of the dynasties are not sequential but contemporaneous, and that there are clearly legendary stories preserved... Nevertheless," he continues, "Manetho is taken seriously in historical studies." Indeed he is! Egyptologists have precious little more to go on from the ancient world other than Manetho's account. And yet it is somewhat astonishing to discover the extent to which Manetho's account has been (for the most part) dogmatized into a rigid system that appears to be unyielding. And it is against this rigid wall of Egyptological dogmatism that Rohl must butt his head. (Little wonder that he is not fondly regarded within the discipline). That being said, I would strongly caution all readers (and especially readers of the Old Testament, where a good deal of its chronology is tied directly to Manetho's modernized system) to regard this correlation - between OT chronology and Egyptian chronology - with some degree of appropriate caution. In fact, the very controversy over the date of the Exodus (13th century or 15th century) is related directly to the unbridled confusion surrounding ancient Egyptian chronology. As regards From Eden to Exile I would state the following: (1) Rohl's treatment of early Genesis (Adam to Abraham) is highly speculative and he appears to be connecting dots that were never intended to be contiguous; (2) his book takes on greater promise when he reaches the area of his own particular expertise: Joseph in Egypt. Rohl places Joseph firmly within the 12th dynasty, during the reign of pharaohs Senuseret III and Amenemhat III - and his arguments here (despite the standard protest from his fellow scholars) are highly compelling and fully deserving of something other than "we standard Egyptologists always know best!" (Quite frankly, I've reached the point where I believe a more positive - and more accurate! - understanding of ancient Egyptian chronology will have to await the work of younger scholars (and Rohl has plenty of them!) who are more willing to think outside the box by considering other possibilities. As so often happens, we must simply wait for the 'old guard' to retire so that younger scholars - with fresh ideas and a willingness to engage new evidence - can take their place.) And, finally (3); although much of From Eden to Exile is written in a style reminiscent of historical novels, this should not (in and of itself) cause the reader to think that all we have here is manufactured storyline. On the contrary (certainly beginning with Joseph), Rohl weaves his factual history into the unfolding story in such a way as to make the history not only real but filled with life and event. Furthermore, Rohl fully acknowledges in his Introduction that he will be telling a narrative story as he seeks to "fill in the gaps" where hard evidence from ancient historical sources is plain and simply unavailable. And because Rohl distances himself from any particular religious affiliation it means that both evangelicals and fundamentalists should be able to read his account to great profit, without becoming unduly disturbed by some of his conclusions (e.g., the first five chapters). Indeed, his astonishing defense of the historical integrity of the biblical account displays enormous objectivity, far surpassing (in many ways) various books on the subject that have been produced by Christian publishers throughout the past 25 years. I would like to conclude my comments here by strongly urging all evangelical OT scholars to thoroughly familiarize themselves with Rohl's writings - Pharaohs and Kings in particular. Despite his critics this book is entirely deserving of serious reflection. His defense of a 15th century date for the Exodus is (in my view...and the view of many others) highly compelling and by no means easy to dismiss. (I fully understand that most evangelical scholars opt for the later date of 1250 BC during the reign of Rameses II). One continues to wonder, however, why the reference to Rameses in Genesis 47:11 is so easily regarded as an anachronism while Exodus 1:11 somehow places one firmly within the reign of Rameses II. Or why the clear reference to 480 years in 1 Kings 6:1 is so easily dismissed as most likely merely symbolic as opposed to actual - this despite the additional support for a literal understanding of these years that one gets from Joshua 11:26. But then we already know why: standard Egyptian chronology places Rameses II in the mid-thirteenth century BC, all of which "harmonizes" so well with Exodus 1:11. Thus, ipso facto, the Exodus occurred @ 1250 BC. I find myself far more persuaded by Rohl's account of the Hyksos invasion of Egypt (very likely the Asiatic Amalakites of Exodus 17) following upon the Exodus, when Egypt was almost disemboweled and severely weakened by a God named Yahweh, then any other account of the Hyksos invasion I have ever read from any standard Egyptian historian. (By the way: a quick perusal of ten books in my own library on ancient Egypt displays an enormous amount of diversity and subjective opinion, a rather clear indication that (voices to the contrary) there is precious little overall harmony and understanding amongst the scholars themselves when dealing with numerous aspects of ancient Egypt and its pharaohs.) Perhaps all of Rohl's conclusions are entirely bogus. Nonetheless, the massive amount of information he offers the reader for serious consideration needs to be offset by responsible Egyptian historians who can demonstrate (clearly and persuasively) the error of his ways, and do so with strong and powerful evidence that will illustrate the point. (Ad hominen arguments are worthless as a retort.) I have yet to see such a detailed book (with good, solid evidence as opposed to preferred dogmatism) written in response to the growing body of historical evidence that Rohl and his staff of young investigators are busy compiling. This fact alone only raises more unsettling questions regarding the overall integrity of an Egyptian chronology that rests almost entirely and uncritically on a now lost document that dates back to several centuries before Christ. Rohl, via his own admission, is clearly outside the Christian faith...or any other faith. However, in terms of defending the historical integrity of scripture, he may well be the best friend any believer ever had. All the more, therefore, is the pity that OT scholars either have chosen to ignore him entirely...or (the more likely alternative) have never even heard of him. Hopefully...this will change in the very near future.
    WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
    Reviewed in the United States on January 21, 2012

    recommand products