CRG Discussion Forum
Camaro Research Group Discussion => Decoding/Numbers => Topic started by: kenmerr80 on September 28, 2018, 02:29:46 PM
-
I know we are all human, but i have the following Dash VIN and hidden VIN 559929 Trans is 559729
-
Can't seem to get the pic to resize correctly...
-
one of 69,s has a digit missing on the hidden but there on the dash and the trans. Not faint, just not there.
-
Mis-stamps are certainly not "quite common" and I wouldn't even say they are common.
They have been known to occur is an accurate portrayal.
-
Trans stamp
-
Bad angle and lighting on the pic but from what I see, seems OK.
I agree with william on how common they are. Seems to me (general impression, not based on solid numbers) that mis-stamps were just a bit more common in 69. More common in 69 than 67 or 68 that is.
-
Bad angle and lighting on the pic but from what I see, seems OK.
I agree with william on how common they are. Seems to me (general impression, not based on solid numbers) that mis-stamps were just a bit more common in 69.
My understanding of William's post was that mis stamps are UNCOMMON; I agree with him!
If there are more '69's with mis-stamps, it's likely purely a function of the VOLUME; Many more '69 Camaros built than the previous years for a multitude of reasons!
-
I never said they were common. When I agree with someone, that means I have the same opinion on the topic as that person. Geeeeezzzzz.....
-
I have a 1968 without a hidden VIN by the blower box. There is just a panel date there
-
I have a 1968 without a hidden VIN by the blower box. There is just a panel date there
Is that a LOS car?
-
Well i did not intend for arguments to get started, and forgive me for using the phrase “quite common” or even “common”. But like i stated in another post that i am young and trying to learn as much as i can about 1st gens and the 2 that i have. Alot of you are a wealth of knowledge and quick to snub us that do not know it all, or quick to point out ny dash is not original when i was asking about something else...Was wanting to get a little knowledge and opinions about this “mis-stamp”. Or you can simply say that the stamper was hungover that day or had some hippie chick on his mind. Vin is 559929. Trans is 559729. Maybe you wanted in your database. From what i have concluded the car is an LM1.
-
It’s probably a legitimate error. I see no reason to think otherwise.
Thanks for posting!
-
My car is a Norwood car.
-
To the original poster....here is an example of a mi-stamp on my 67 LOS car. Not only is there one VIN digit wrong (1 vs. 7)but the positioning of the start-of-VIN sequence (L7 instead of 7L). The correct VIN is 7L153767 and it is stamped L7153761
See my reply #38 here: http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=10311.msg77958#msg77958
Mike
-
My understanding is the trans an engine were done at the same time using the same gang stamp. Is this correct? If so, I would think it very unlikely that someone would remove one of the characters and replace it with another, but I suppose not impossible. Seems more likely a mis-match between the dash VIN and the engine-trans combo..
Never mind...Re read the OP and it is a mis-match between the dash VIN and trans VIN. Original engine must be MIA.
-
Thanks for the info. Yes original engine is gone and a CE block is there now.