They then state the '65's are a direct interchange when supplied with the kingpins (which is correct, IME). Ford doesn't help the situation since the suffix may indicate two "mirrored" applications, but often represent the order of revisions. My situation is worse since I don't always mark removed parts nor often accurately remember what the original application was. In this situation one would have a heck of a time distinguishing a '65 from a '66, especially since the base engineering number remains the same. In reality, if replacing a set of beams, it wouldn't mean doodly until one went to order replacement pins. Even with original owner fleet vehicles, I have found the (apparently) '65 beams on other year applications, so even knowing the exact year of the donor sometimes is of no help. In response to a FB post, I made an incomplete list of the various inconsistencies of the slicks through the years; I could have added much more, and I suspect Ice could expand well beyond my knowledge.
J.L.; hopefully these comments will help the understanding as to why these situations occur. As I previously stated, that is the big concern in buying from sources who don't specialize in our vehicles; there is an immense amount of incorrect information bandied about. No vendor knows it all; Tom has proven to be at the top of the class as to knowledge, probably due to the immense volume he works with.
Again, these are just my thoughts, as they say, your mileage may vary!
Paul
Kathy 