CRG Discussion Forum
Camaro Research Group Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: dannystarr on August 28, 2023, 05:35:40 PM
-
My friend is looking at this car to purchase/restore. He sent me some pictures. I don't have the knowledge. Block looks sand blasted and re-stamped? My luck it's all original and a FACTORY re-stamp. Either way, I don't like it... Opinions... Danny
-
124378N399798 HBC Link (https://www.heartbeatcitycamaro.com/store/content/20701/1968-Chevrolet-Camaro-RS-Z-28-302-290-HP/)
-
Looks OK. Sandblasted or such.
-
Mr. Kurt,
Any reason why the last 3 of the VIN are WAY bigger and WAY deeper? Why is the "M" virtually invisible? Are there other known stamps from this time period that duplicate this? Just trying to learn... D
-
124378N399798 HBC Link (https://www.heartbeatcitycamaro.com/store/content/20701/1968-Chevrolet-Camaro-RS-Z-28-302-290-HP/)
Heartbeat links says the engine is stamped V0308MO, this engine is V0302MO . maybe a typo?
-
Interesting note is I have other P8C06 stamps with the extra "c" character. All good stamps.
-
Zooming in, it looks like other numbers are already under the last 4.
-
Interesting note is I have other P8C06 stamps with the extra "c" character. All good stamps.
My contention for a long time has been that the extra small c at the end has either been
1. A shift code or some way to track a different set of test parts or a different internal parts source.
2. Possibly an inspection stamp of sorts, so it did not have to be stamped once for the assembly date and again for inspection.
-
Certainly possible. I'm still in the camp that it was just a damaged/broken "E" stamp used for a place holder for the upcoming addition of the A, B, C.. Although we didn't see them until Oct (forgive me going off memory) so idk. I need to look but I don't believe I have any early 69's with the "c" on them.. As you said it could have been a quality check also.?. But why only do it for a few months in production.. Definitely a head scratcher.
-
DW, do you see the other numbers on the engine pad?+
-
Yes. It appears to be a factory double stamp to me. Assy date is correct but I need to compare again to be certain.
-
That’s not even close to being a double stamp. The numbers underneath don’t match up. Hard pass.
-
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Double stamp I am saying it was hit twice. You can see the extra 9 bleeding into the second "9". But you are the expert here, Dr.
-
Please don't ever accuse me of being an expert, as I take offense to that. Let me clarify me statement laddy.....I believe the original stamped numbers (under the heavily stamped numbers) are different.
-
I can't make that statement. So agree to disagree. My expert comment was in humor but I agree with you. ;) FWIW I never claimed to be an expert either. Always learning.
-
I know you're joking...but still am curious what others think...
-
Mr. Kurt,
Any reason why the last 3 of the VIN are WAY bigger and WAY deeper? Why is the "M" virtually invisible? Are there other known stamps from this time period that duplicate this? Just trying to learn... D
We don’t discuss things like this in the forum which is open to the world.
-
I have to admit - this is the first time I ever saw this. Sandblasting the block and doing away with the original broach marks was not the smartest thing to do IMO. Would I buy it - hell no.
-
So lets put a twist on it. If this car had a "MacNeish Cert" then everyone would be good with the stamping (of the ones that have commented against the stamp)? Or is it just the fact it was a screwup and it would always cause people to question? Human beings aren't perfect in either scenario whether its today or 50+ years ago. Everything has to be taken into consideration.
-
So lets put a twist on it. If this car had a "MacNeish Cert" then everyone would be good with the stamping (of the ones that have commented against the stamp)? Or is it just the fact it was a screwup and it would always cause people to question? Human beings aren't perfect in either scenario whether its today or 50+ years ago. Everything has to be taken into consideration.
Its just the first time I've even seen this. You have a point - if JMN said it was good, then maybe I'd have a differing viewpoint. Its just not the normal we've all been led to believe is correct in these days of fakes / clones.
-
Its just the first time I've even seen this. You have a point - if JMN said it was good, then maybe I'd have a differing viewpoint. Its just not the normal we've all been led to believe is correct in these days of fakes / clones.
So lets put a twist on it. If this car had a "MacNeish Cert" then everyone would be good with the stamping (of the ones that have commented against the stamp)? Or is it just the fact it was a screwup and it would always cause people to question? Human beings aren't perfect in either scenario whether its today or 50+ years ago. Everything has to be taken into consideration.
-
Here's the thing not everyone knows. Jerry's report is a detailed documentation of the car, supporting documentation, and notes of correct/matching/non original/ date coded/time period correct parts/oddities not consistent with production assembled parts/procedures and such. It's not just a certificate. He would absolutely document what he sees, which is what we see.
-
I believe Kurt and others have already said stampings are OK. What else are you expecting? It doesn’t need a JM blessing.
-
That is my point. People hang their hat on a cert when the knowledge is out there. All you have to do is your research and ask questions. Unless you don't care about cost and just want a piece of paper that acknowledges such. To each their own I guess.
-
Ok.........no matter what happens or who buys this car - there's always gonna be that "Ehhhhhh - I think there's something suspicious here" moniker over it when its time to sell it to the next person. Like I said - this is a first for me. And DW, you're absolutely right - humans make mistakes too........even 50 yrs ago, it's just that I've never seen this subject appear in any book written by the experts or judging manuals.
-
If you put too many details out there it just helps the restampers and scammers.
-
I know the car and the stamp, both are good!
-
Here's the thing not everyone knows. Jerry's report is a detailed documentation of the car, supporting documentation, and notes of correct/matching/non original/ date coded/time period correct parts/oddities not consistent with production assembled parts/procedures and such. It's not just a certificate. He would absolutely document what he sees, which is what we see.
He documents what he can see, compares it to what he knows, and forms an opinion. An expert opinion, but that is all.
-
To answer your original question, it does not look OK, it looks funny. It also looks like a collection of near matching parts that only an expert in the field with many connections would be able to assemble if not real.
-
If you put too many details out there it just helps the restampers and scammers.
I think we just did. lol.....
-
Ok.. This is directed at no particular person here or on other sites in particular so please do not be offended, as this applies to all forms of knowledge.
I feel the experts that say this stamp is good, this stamp is bad should, if asked explain how they came to that particular conclusion. The adage that this information can't be shared, or give away trade secrets of how they came to a conclusion is antiquated. The reason most commonly used to justify this is to keep one step ahead of the "fraudsters". Who does this thought process actually benefit? Potential buyers / hobbyist? Or the fraudsters? If this trade secret information was available to a potential buyer, it may prevent him / her from making a $20K-$200K mistake. If we were all armed with the proper information, fraudsters would think twice about trying to intentionally misrepresent cars. As it stands now, scammers are aware that there are far more uninformed buyers than informed. This is their motivation. For decades now scammers have scammed and will continue to do it or we wouldn't be discussing it here so frequently. So in my opinion, not sharing information has changed nothing. However the stakes are much higher now than they were 30 years ago.
I'm far from a Camaro expert and am always learning like the other 99% of the people in our Camaro hobby. That's why I come here.. to learn. This is the premier resource to learn about our cars and their history. Rather than keeping certain knowledge close to the vest, I think it should be made available to whoever wants to take the time to look for it. Current owners or potential buyers of Camaros would have the knowledge or at least a good idea what to look for in fake stamps / tags to avoid a costly mistake. The benefit of sharing the "secret" information to owners /potential buyers far outweighs how it may benefit fraudsters. It all comes down to "buyer beware" which is acquired by being informed.
"Knowledge is power, knowledge shared is power multiplied." Robert Boyce, Economist
-
Ok.. This is directed at no particular person here or on other sites in particular so please do not be offended, as this applies to all forms of knowledge.
I feel the experts that say this stamp is good, this stamp is bad should, if asked explain how they came to that particular conclusion. The adage that this information can't be shared, or give away trade secrets of how they came to a conclusion is antiquated. The reason most commonly used to justify this is to keep one step ahead of the "fraudsters". Who does this thought process actually benefit? Potential buyers / hobbyist? Or the fraudsters? If this trade secret information was available to a potential buyer, it may prevent him / her from making a $20K-$200K mistake. If we were all armed with the proper information, fraudsters would think twice about trying to intentionally misrepresent cars. As it stands now, scammers are aware that there are far more uninformed buyers than informed. This is their motivation. For decades now scammers have scammed and will continue to do it or we wouldn't be discussing it here so frequently. So in my opinion, not sharing information has changed nothing. However the stakes are much higher now than they were 30 years ago.
I'm far from a Camaro expert and am always learning like the other 99% of the people in our Camaro hobby. That's why I come here.. to learn. This is the premier resource to learn about our cars and their history. Rather than keeping certain knowledge close to the vest, I think it should be made available to whoever wants to take the time to look for it. Current owners or potential buyers of Camaros would have the knowledge or at least a good idea what to look for in fake stamps / tags to avoid a costly mistake. The benefit of sharing the "secret" information to owners /potential buyers far outweighs how it may benefit fraudsters. It all comes down to "buyer beware" which is acquired by being informed.
"Knowledge is power, knowledge shared is power multiplied." Robert Boyce, Economist
Think as you wish.
People with decades of experience and knowledge aren’t going to explain everything in extreme detail just because you want us to.
-
Ok.. This is directed at no particular person here or on other sites in particular so please do not be offended, as this applies to all forms of knowledge.
I feel the experts that say this stamp is good, this stamp is bad should, if asked explain how they came to that particular conclusion. The adage that this information can't be shared, or give away trade secrets of how they came to a conclusion is antiquated. The reason most commonly used to justify this is to keep one step ahead of the "fraudsters". Who does this thought process actually benefit? Potential buyers / hobbyist? Or the fraudsters? If this trade secret information was available to a potential buyer, it may prevent him / her from making a $20K-$200K mistake. If we were all armed with the proper information, fraudsters would think twice about trying to intentionally misrepresent cars. As it stands now, scammers are aware that there are far more uninformed buyers than informed. This is their motivation. For decades now scammers have scammed and will continue to do it or we wouldn't be discussing it here so frequently. So in my opinion, not sharing information has changed nothing. However the stakes are much higher now than they were 30 years ago.
I'm far from a Camaro expert and am always learning like the other 99% of the people in our Camaro hobby. That's why I come here.. to learn. This is the premier resource to learn about our cars and their history. Rather than keeping certain knowledge close to the vest, I think it should be made available to whoever wants to take the time to look for it. Current owners or potential buyers of Camaros would have the knowledge or at least a good idea what to look for in fake stamps / tags to avoid a costly mistake. The benefit of sharing the "secret" information to owners /potential buyers far outweighs how it may benefit fraudsters. It all comes down to "buyer beware" which is acquired by being informed.
"Knowledge is power, knowledge shared is power multiplied." Robert Boyce, Economist
You are missing the point of CRG (at least in my opinion). This is a forum and website used to help arm people with knowledge. It is done on a daily basis. It comes from years of experience from everyone. We as a whole are always learning and should continue. The information is out there if you are willing to put in the work and research. I do it as/for the hobby. I have helped anyone that has reached out privately but I will only give opinions based of data collected. It is not always cut and dry when looking at one thing or another and its the accumulation of said data that helps make educated decisions. I would much prefer me ask the people here if something looks ok vs having it plastered it all over the net; as Bryon has mentioned, to make it even harder to tell fake cars/parts from real. You are missing the forest due to the trees. But that is only my opinion.
-
After looking at thousands of stamps over many years you can kind of tell what looks normal and what does not. That is what most people use to form an opinion. Of Course, there are stamp anomalies that only the most experienced people can form an expert opinion on, and I am not one those people. My comment about it looking funny, means just that. It looks like something happened to this stamp after it left the factory to disturb the stamp and pad finish, and possibly at the factory to cause the last 3 digits to be deeper.
Here are some good pads and stamps, and you can see the last 2 digits on one of them look deeper, so that could happen.
Bottom line is, does someone want to but all that time and effort in on this car, and have a funny looking stamp? In my opinion, its way overpriced for what's there, what it will take to get it finished, and what the final product will be worth. For some unfair reason, the 68 model year is worth less than the 69, and is harder to prove than the 67 and 69 due to trim tag information missing.
-
Boomer, plain and simple; information is held in order to not arm the mischievous. I for one appreciate that.
-
Well, as the original poster, that turned into something I didn't expect. I understand both sides of this discussion. I got hammered for asking about cars too often. And expecting that it only takes 10 seconds to check the DB, I was wrong. So I have and will continue to curtail my requests. I figured the stamp was deeper on the right, like the samples above, and lighter on the left, because the gang holder was held at a slight angle. Maybe that is partially true at times. What I don't understand is what looks like sand blasting, and the removal of the factory broaching for a number's repair/change. Maybe there are some samples of that being done at the factory. I, and it seems MANY other people, had never saw that before. My friend has decided to pass on this car due to the stamp, and partially because of the price. Thanx for all the info that CAN be released. D
-
The sandblasting or shot peening on the pad of this block is not factory. Why was it done? I don’t know.
The database is a research tool used by some of the core members. It was never meant to be something that somebody could ask questions about a particular car and get responses. I have helped collect data on hundreds of cars. Some of that data was obtained with the owner being told the data would be kept confidential. We are always looking for and adding new datapoints.
-
I personally think its not sand blasting on the block, its exposure to the elements from being apart for a long time. You have to look at all the other parts with that car in that link that look like it has been apart and stored badly for a long time.
A lot of things without a complete context can get you to the wrong conclusion.