CRG Discussion Forum

Camaro Research Group Discussion => Decoding/Numbers => Topic started by: william on June 17, 2020, 03:56:32 PM

Title: Caveat Emptor...block stamp
Post by: william on June 17, 2020, 03:56:32 PM
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1969-Chevrolet-Camaro-Z28/274400052006?hash=item3fe3848326:g:f9oAAOSweNle6iCo&vxp=mtr

124379N598397

From the ad:

X33 CODE ** DZ302 ** NUMBERS MATCHING MOTOR **

Car was final-assembled on or about February 14, 1969. Engine is stamped V0230DZ. Even if there was such a date, it would be 16 days after the car was built.
Title: Re: Caveat Emptor...block stamp
Post by: bcmiller on June 17, 2020, 05:04:17 PM
Pic of the engine pad isn’t very good. I can’t really tell from what is posted in the add. I don’t think that is a known stamping date error.
Title: Re: Caveat Emptor...block stamp
Post by: Zedder on June 17, 2020, 05:39:46 PM
Feb 30th is actually pretty funny!
Title: Re: Caveat Emptor...block stamp
Post by: z28z11 on June 18, 2020, 04:11:58 PM
1969 was a double leap year, apparently. We had to catch up from 1968 - funny I can't recall that.

The car is a good 50-footer; 50 feet away at 50 mph and it looks good. I hate the rust bubbles, lot of parts missing. Pretty color combo, though -

Regards,
Steve
Title: Re: Caveat Emptor...block stamp
Post by: william on June 18, 2020, 05:09:25 PM
Wrong color combo. 71 71 would have had white stripes. A very poor cosmetic restoration.

Ask price is insanity. A bud just bought an original everything Z/28 with docs for about 10% more. The equally nice 71 B Z/28 on SYC was even a bit less.
Title: Re: Caveat Emptor...block stamp
Post by: bcmiller on June 18, 2020, 09:03:45 PM
V0203DZ is a valid date, so very very small chance V0230DZ is an error. But pad pic too fuzzy for me to say one way or the other.
Title: Re: Caveat Emptor...block stamp
Post by: z28z11 on June 18, 2020, 11:13:01 PM
Wrong color combo. 71 71 would have had white stripes. A very poor cosmetic restoration.


Agreed - my X77/71-71 has white stripes. I just think it looks like a good combo -

Lot of the rest of the car needs help -
 
Regards,
Steve
Title: Re: Caveat Emptor...block stamp
Post by: william on June 19, 2020, 12:50:54 AM
V0203DZ is a valid date, so very very small chance V0230DZ is an error. But pad pic too fuzzy for me to say one way or the other.

Still a re-stamp. None of the font matches a real V0203DZ stamp.
Title: Re: Caveat Emptor...block stamp
Post by: z28z11 on June 20, 2020, 03:30:39 PM
On closer look, I've seen worse attempts at restamping, Two possible scenarios - 1) Accidental misplaced "0" and "3" characters by the engine tech on the production line (Feb 3rd, 1969 was a Monday - can you say hangover ?), or 2) Accidental misplaced "0" and "3" characters by a restamper. I'd like to see the casting dates on heads and block as supporting evidence before we entirely rule it fake.

I wonder if the Chevy dealer that is selling this took it on trade.They have a lengthy disclaimer in their ad -

Regards,
Steve
Title: Re: Caveat Emptor...block stamp
Post by: 69Z28-RS on June 20, 2020, 06:23:28 PM
Someone has attempted to 'reproduce' broach marks, but using a much more coarse material... (broach marks are much finer than that!)...  that indicates the original stamps were machine milled away, they 'faked' the broach marks to do way with the mill marks, then did a restamp!
Title: Re: Caveat Emptor...block stamp
Post by: 169INDY on June 20, 2020, 09:16:12 PM
Tag Legit? (X33)
Asking price about Double going market  LB & White looks great when done right, esp with colored front bumper.
Title: Re: Caveat Emptor...block stamp
Post by: william on June 22, 2020, 04:28:18 PM
Tag Legit? (X33)

I see no reason to question it.

Have to wonder what they are thinking here. Displayed on the showroom floor at a Chevrolet dealership. Junkyard spare tire/wheel, rusted muffler shop exhaust, blistering front fender, poor incorrect re-paint. 

Be sure to read and understand the Vehicle Warranty statement.
Title: Re: Caveat Emptor...block stamp
Post by: bcmiller on June 22, 2020, 05:18:54 PM
Broach marks will somewhat vary - depending on how new the cutting “grinders” are. :)
Title: Re: Caveat Emptor...block stamp
Post by: 69Z28-RS on June 22, 2020, 05:30:23 PM
Bryon,  are you saying you'd accept that stamp pad as 'original'?????
Title: Re: Caveat Emptor...block stamp
Post by: z28z11 on June 22, 2020, 06:08:50 PM
If someone can pull a higher resolution pic from the ad, it would be better to speculate from. Bare pad with no paint would be better yet to show the presence or absence of broaching marks, or the feed lines of a deck milling machine. The casting number and date would help -

Byron's correct - depends on how dull the broach bar segments were, really how long the tool had been in service or the life cycle before replacement. Even with a lengthy bar, the rate at which the engines went through the line and the linear length of the head deck likely meant a few days to a week or so before indexing had to take place. A local plant here with an Xcello Lapointe flat broach segmented bar (12 foot X 12" rough and finish twin setup) ran about 2 weeks life, 800 ductile iron parts a day, three shifts 7 days a week. Drag lines in the part result from cutting edge height and nicks/dings in the cutting edge of the bar itself. A lot of modern engine production uses a milling cutter nowadays -

Regards,
Steve

Title: Re: Caveat Emptor...block stamp
Post by: bcmiller on June 22, 2020, 06:11:39 PM
Bryon,  are you saying you'd accept that stamp pad as 'original'?????

Nope. I defer to others for their opinions in this one. I can’t tell based on the extremely poor pics. I like good clear pics. But if William says it is not good, I accept that.

Just saying that I have seen a lot of variation in original broach marks.

Here is an example of fairly deep broach marks. But I have seen some deeper.