CRG Discussion Forum
Camaro Research Group Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: BULLITT65 on November 12, 2021, 10:50:17 PM
-
Well what looked like a great restoration and very cool optioned 68Z, with a 4.56 option on the window sticker, disappointed me today. At first glance the tag had been off the car and then looking closer the tag has been replaced :(: And I have also gotten word the window sticker is also a fake. :( :(
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1968-chevrolet-camaro-110/?utm_source=transactionalemail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=bat_tagged_comment#comment-7282442
Currently at 65k, hope buyers research more.
-
Car was for sale in Sept. 2016 and the seller said that the 1968 Z28 has 19K actual miles:
https://rmsothebys.com/en/auctions/af16/auburn-fall/lots/r0996-1968-chevrolet-camaro-rsz28/548166
-
Why do you think the tag has been replaced?
WS just appeared a few years ago.
Car was rusty. Restamped MO.
Always list the VIN for reference.
124378N461605
-
Even the axle stamp looks 'unconventional' to me.
-
Why do you think the tag has been replaced?
WS just appeared a few years ago.
Car was rusty. Restamped MO.
Always list the VIN for reference.
124378N461605
(Sorry CRG is not sending me notifications again for replies to a topic. )
After comparing the tag to others in that time frame I was able to determine it has been replaced. The intake has been debunked by Wayne G., the window sticker debunked by Paul, of course the engine stamp is an obvious re-stamp. As mentioned even the rear end stamp looks questionable.
-
The tag is about the only think that isn’t fake. IMHO.
-
Any thoughts on the protecto-plate?
-
First glance it looks ok but I defer to Kurt & William. They have more in the db than I do.
-
After comparing the tag to others in that time frame I was able to determine it has been replaced.
I have a picture of the tag before the resto - looks exactly the same but now cleaner.
Pad and axle are restamps.
-
Hmm interesting another member had also pointed out that the vin number does not fall in the right time frame for a 06D car. In your pics or info do you question that the tag is original to the car? is there a link or can you post a couple of pics? In placing the tag side by side with another I see very small differences. As you said the tag may be cleaned so that may account for what I am viewing.
-
The vin's are not correct for june cars. Have one vin starts 449 06a car. Second car starts 453 06b. Know off member in club his starts 453 think his 06b also. All these cars have never had tags taken off car. That said that trim plate fall in line with date it should be. Wish we could the vins updated.
-
Sooo many expert opinions being expressed on the BaT site for this car - incredible. Advertiser for this beautiful '68 is defending every detraction; some of the defenses don't hold up, like the comment about the crossram 'how much does it cost to cast one' ? (paraphrased). I can answer that- about $4-$8K for a reproduction unit complete, depending on who you buy it from. With Winter Foundry casting logo and proper part numbers, including date coded castings.
I can see the answer to the trim tag question - likely original, probably R&R'd during restoration (look at the paint behind it). I know it's a "no-no" to remove one, but a lot of shops will remove it to paint the firewall. Some owner in the past should have told them not to, but hindsight won't catch up with this one. I'm one of the guys mentioned with a documented '68 Z, 06B, dealer paperwork, MSO, complete history stretching back to 1968.
The car is really pretty, despite the detractions. Unfortunately, there are are a few on Facebook that don't agree with the facts presented on the originality of the car, including the seller. Caveat Emptor, as the saying goes -
JMO,
Steve
-
I was watching a 70 Z this week and I was pretty sure the block was a restamp and the transmission was obvious with the wrong vin on it. The last morning the seller decided to say when he bought it, the car was represented to him as all original. Passing the buck for his week of saying it was the original engine.