CRG Discussion Forum
Camaro Research Group Discussion => Decoding/Numbers => Topic started by: m22mike on January 15, 2016, 01:27:54 PM
-
:(
For re;
124379L505413
BDY#
125673LOS
For sale on ebay. item# 272104245633
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1969-Chevy-Camaro-Z-28-Vin-Tags-/272104245633?hash=item3f5aad4981:g:be4AAOSwHaBWkuLT&vxp=mtr
This is a set of vin tags with title and partial build sheet from a 1969 RS Z28 camero vin code shows this to be
Hugger orange with white stripes .
Rear spoiler.
Cowl hood with flipper.
White standard interior.
This is a true Camero enthusiasts collectors item !! Good luck bidding !!
-
So you would really have to know your codes on that build sheet to make the connection that this was a Z/28 right? I don't know the codes all that well, but i do see the PS under the front shock code which would be correct, and the paint code matches, so it is probably the same car. I don't see the VIN on that partial build sheet.
I guess the best thing to do is note down the Vin, because this car will be re-created at some point
-
That is one super rare Camero.. ::)
This is a set of vin tags with title and partial build sheet from a 1969 RS Z28 camero vin code shows this to be
Hugger orange with white stripes .
Rear spoiler.
Cowl hood with flipper.
White standard interior.
This is a true Camero enthusiasts collectors item !! Good luck bidding !!
-
I don't think I have appropriate words to describe such a ... seller...
-
Clue me in, Tag says 10D and he claims it came factory with cowl hood. Now is this a 10D 68 car? Were they putting the hoods on that early at the LOS plant? That's hard to believe considering that would be 2 months before Norwood even started doing it.
Or....is he getting that hood information from that partial build sheet?
-
I compared the posted Broadcast Copy to remnants from my old LA built RS Z (built a couple months later than this one) and the data seems to line up consistently.
I'm guessing the sheet and the tags all came from the same car.
Not sure where the Cowl hood info comes from, since it is an early '68 built car, but I don't know all the BC codes? Maybe he parted the car out and it had a cowl hood on it?
Charlie
-
He is probably remembering what the car had on it, or embellishing what the car could be, (selling a dream to somebody).
Way to early for the ZL-2 hood, and they didn't make any late 69 LA cars....so there you go. ;D
-
Tag is early style and VIN is early, so it is definitely 10D of 1968.
I will check the codes. They seem OK from what I could see with a quick glance.
9L505413
LOS 125673
-
Aha, okay then I'm not loosing my mind yet ;D Thanks for clarifying that for me.
-
Too early for cowl hood, if that's what you are talking about.
-
Yup, that's what I was thinking.
Thanks
-
Shame the rest of the broadcast copy didn't make it. Bet it was on top of the tank, being an VN build ?
Regards,
Steve
-
It is illegal to sell VIN tags; so report the listing!
Here's how...
In the listing click on "Report item",
Under "Report Category" choose "Prohibited and restricted items",
Under "Reason for Report" choose "Vehicle and vehicle parts and accessories",
Under "Detailed Reason" choose "VIN plates and VIN rivets"
Click on "Continue" and then "Send Report"
Thanks! :)
Paul
-
For discussion, my 10D Los car is 505849 partial VIN and my trim tag is 132383 so while the VIN's are only 436 apart, the trim tags are 6,710 apart . It just seems odd to me that there is that wide a difference in VIN and trim tag numbers for the same week of 10D. Just something to think about... maybe Mark or Kurt can help explain those spreads? :)
-
For discussion, my 10D Los car is 505849 partial VIN and my trim tag is 132383 so while the VIN's are only 436 apart, the trim tags are 6,710 apart . It just seems odd to me that there is that wide a difference in VIN and trim tag numbers for the same week of 10D. Just something to think about... maybe Mark or Kurt can help explain those spreads? :)
The VIN difference is about 1/2 day of production, whereas the BDY NO difference is 7-8 days (week and a half) apart. That is not difficult for me to believe at all given that BDY NO is assigned on order (whether it be an internal GM order, dealer order, or customer SOLD order). Customer Sold Orders got assigned for production ASAP, ahead of internal or dealer stock orders. Other reasons for a slippage of one order over another are parts availability to satisfy an option specified in the order (which might not be immediately available). I've special ordered several cars in my life, and some were assigned into production within a week or so, whereas others had to wait 3-4 weeks to begin production. Mark, William, or Kurt may have other reasons for such a difference.
-
Body number seems OK for that VIN.
-
Aside from the advertisers' words.. and the hand scribbled notes on the paper (saying Z28.. RS..etc).. Is there ANY hard evidence on any of the provided GM information that confirms the car was a Z28, OR that it had white stripes (other than the white interior)... The only thing I noticed was on the 'partial build sheet' was a CZ under the fan clutch (but I don' tknow that was unique for Z28)... - and did that partial build sheet show any confirmation to be from THAT specific car??
That entire ebay ad just screamed SCAM to me....
-
Gary,
The only hard evidence that I see is on the Chassis BC. There ARE several broadcast codes that reflect Z/28.
Block 155 is a (G) that represents 302 Z/28
Block 159 is a yes for posi axle
Block 161 is an R = Rally Sport
Block 196 is CV = Z/28 fan clutch
Block 198 is FP = Chambered ??
Block 213 is DV = 456 DV deep groove
Block 217 is CG = 668 CG deep groove
Block 269 = ?H = possible UH Z28 radiator
etc., etc.
There is nothing that I see that ties the car to the Chassis sheet except the Hugger Orange and especially the P code in Block 147, which has shown to be Ivory/Blk. 727 standard interior!!! Luck?, Nah. Turn his ass in, somebody!
Bryan
-
Thanks Bryan, so based on that, the partial broadcast sheet DOES indicate an orange (with white interior) Z28/RS... but the only facts on the broadcast sheet which ties it to the car in question is the color and the interior (which matches the Cowl tag codes)... hmmm
Based on that, if I believed that the cowl tag was original and for that car, nothing else was evident that indicated a mismatched or switched car, then I'd tend to believe the claims that the paperwork and tags are for a Z28..
BUT.. his selling this stuff the way he is DOES indicate that he's a crook.. so I'd tend not to believe anything he said...
I HOPE no one buys that stuff and 'builds' another fake 'original Z28 with all the paperwork' (such as the one that was sold via auction a few years ago), but you know that anyone that pays his asking price for the stuff has exactly that intent! UGH...
-
Correct me if I'm wrong. The way I see it, is that this seller dug this cars grave. It is dead! We know the numbers, and now have record of them. If this car is built, it's dead before it's born again. 124379L505413; LOS125673; 10D, TR 727, 72 72.
If the rally green Z would have been exposed before it was built, would it have brought 100k plus? Would it have sold at all?
Thoughts?
Bryan
-
No sale 1-20-16...
Reserve not met = ? (> $3500.00)
Seller id: smd7228
Seller location: Billings, MT
Paul
-
Correct me if I'm wrong. The way I see it, is that this seller dug this cars grave. It is dead! We know the numbers, and now have record of them. If this car is built, it's dead before it's born again. 124379L505413; LOS125673; 10D, TR 727, 72 72.
That car was *dead* when someone removed the VIN and cowl tag...
-
For discussion, my 10D Los car is 505849 partial VIN and my trim tag is 132383 so while the VIN's are only 436 apart, the trim tags are 6,710 apart . It just seems odd to me that there is that wide a difference in VIN and trim tag numbers for the same week of 10D. Just something to think about... maybe Mark or Kurt can help explain those spreads? :)
For '69 Norwood and Van Nuys were on the same order entry system. Since Norwood built 87% of production there are going to be large gaps between VN body numbers. For every Camaro VN built NOR built 7.
The number on the body tag is the order confirmation number. It is unrelated to the VIN and was not a factor in production scheduling. A group of orders placed by a dealer may not have all been confirmed at the same time in sequence; they could be thousands apart. But they may have been built at the same time to facilitate shipping.
Many orders were cancelled; the highest body number through July '69 is in the 377,xxx range but by then only approximately 201,000 Camaros had been built. The first body number was probably 100001.
To demonstrate I checked our '69 VN db. There are 18 pair of consecutive VINs; the body number gaps are as follows: 3,179 2,055 2,406 24,329 1,872 1,027 355 3,706 369 38,361 55,372 7,468 1,114 11,897 12,589 3,839 8,503 5,508. There are also 3 consecutive VINs; gaps are 12,971 10,999 23,970. Worthy of note: in 10 of the 18 examples the higher body number was built prior to the lower one.
There were several factors involved in scheduling production: color, equipment, dealer status, ship to location, stock/customer/fleet order. Which was first among equals at a point in time is impossible to determine.
-
That is very interesting information, William.. both the large gaps in bdy no for consecutive VINs, and the huge number of 'canceled/unbuilt' bdy nos...