CRG Discussion Forum
Camaro Research Group Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: GI JOE on November 29, 2010, 04:37:21 AM
-
I am going to be looking at a clean original 1968 z28 numbers matching car that is driven and garaged. From the photos it appears not in bad shape and only tires, booster and Master cylinder look changed,.. all the rest looks right... So the big question, since there is a big price tag...
Is it worth getting into a non-documented 68 z28, ( i.e. NO POP, invoice, etc...)? I am assuming I will find no questionable parts and all born with items...
-
With the amount of potential fraud, I would suggest inspection by an authority before any signifigant investment.
-
x2
-
All of the drive train stampings and the car can be certified through data analysis in a written report. That is what we do at CHP. So, the answer is if the drive train is real, it's a good car to buy!
Jerry
-
From your observations it appears you have knowledge of what to look for. Jerry's thoughts are right on of course and the main thing I would be looking at is the block stamping to determine if it is in fact the orig. born with one. The trans would be my 2nd major look see. If the car has its born with MO block that in itself is documentation IMHO that the car is in fact an orig. Z/28. Two years ago I found the orig. owner of an early 69 Z/28 (no X code) and reunited him with his born with DZ block that was in our corvette since 1979. He had purchased the 69 Z in 1981 and told me he was questioned over the years many times how he knew it was an orig. Z/28 but now with the born with DZ block he had his documentation as it was a cherry unmolested pad clearly showing his vin. When we purchased our 68 Z/28 in the early 80's I had no documentation but knew the MO block and trans were orig. to the car. Interesting to note that we now have documentation obtained just this past July from the orig. owner who I found a little over two years ago, but not having paperwork would not stop me. And we need to remember there are a lot of cars out there with forged paperwork (documents) as that has happened over and over especially in the Corvette world, i.e. 67 427-435hp When and where was the car built? Can you give some information on asking price? Happy hunting and good luck as 68 Z/28's with their born with engine are not plentiful.
-
Here is the list from the camaro.net group that have 68 Z/28's. Many of those members are also members on this great site.
Good luck again!
http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=182224
-
Well I looked at the 68 Z28. It is a 01A car. Older restoration, fair at best, IM-humble-O. What do you guys think of this stamp?
-
Well I looked at the 68 Z28. It is a 01A car. Older restoration, fair at best, IM-humble-O. What do you guys think of this stamp?
Here is the pad of our 68 01B Z/28. Tough to see the broach part in your picture.
(http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z117/1-2-b-67L89/68%20Camaro%20Z28/100_4704.jpg)
-
Well I looked at the 68 Z28. It is a 01A car. Older restoration, fair at best, IM-humble-O. What do you guys think of this stamp?
It's not the best photo, but IMO, it's a restamp.
Paul
-
I'd want better photo of the stamp.
-
I agree there are some things other than not the best of pic for seeing the pad surface that cause some flags to go up, hence the reason I shared our orig. pad. Pretty obvious I believe..... But no expert here!
-
Just my non-expert opinion:
For a pad that looks like it was rusted considerably at some point the numbers look amazingly well defined and deep.
The font for the vin portion looks misaligned and possibly odd.
The picture is taken too far away to detect any decking marks if present.
The font of the application portion (especially the I's) looks wierd and misaligned.
It all could be compounded by the paint still present in the stamping characters and a better cleaning and closer picture might help define the characters and these alignment issues some...
Randy
-
Well, I dont consider myself an expert either. I have owned a couple 68zs, have several original 68 blocks with good stamps. But besides the stamp in
question here for the guy who started this thread, IMHO, the stamp for 68camaroz28's " 1221 Mo " stamp is a restamp also.
-
Well, I dont consider myself an expert either. I have owned a couple 68zs, have several original 68 blocks with good stamps. But besides the stamp in
question here for the guy who started this thread, IMHO, the stamp for 68camaroz28's " 1221 Mo " stamp is a restamp also.
There's nothing wrong with Chick's stamp from what I can tell (again I'm no expert) but it is stamped on the location of the pad as most good stamps I have seen are, it has the proper broach marks from what little I know they should look like and the font, stamping depth,spacing, and use if I's for 1's all are valid in appearance and match what my engine stamp looks like...
To make such a statement as you have - care to elaborate on why you consider it has problems?
Randy
-
Chick's pad looks fine to me. Need a closer/higher-resolution photo of the other one to make any sort of judgment, but from what I can see it appears suspect.
-
Joe,
Do you have a larger version of that pic that you can send me?
I agree, it's not looking good so far. But hard to tell for sure.
-
Well, I dont consider myself an expert either. I have owned a couple 68zs, have several original 68 blocks with good stamps. But besides the stamp in
question here for the guy who started this thread, IMHO, the stamp for 68camaroz28's " 1221 Mo " stamp is a restamp also.
Wow, for a person who has owned a couple 68 Z's I'm taken back by your comment. Any person of genuine knowledge I'm confident would agree this is the real deal, i.e. broach marks and stamp configurations. If I may ask what do you find is incorrect? Sorry Joe, as I do not wish to hijack your thread. And thanks Randy and John for the support...... ;D
-
Don't get too worried about it. I posted a stamp of an original 69 302 and people thought it looked funny too. It wasn't and it was a huge picture with the broach marks as obvious as any. Some people are always going to say something looks suspect, but they may be looking at things that aren't the tell-tale items that need to be looked at.
-
Anyone who thinks Chicks v1221mo stamp is not original is nuts! John
-
But we know what to look for john. And before people ask, it's not Kosher to put this on the net as the crooks will have an idea on how to make better forgeries.
-
Anyone who thinks Chicks v1221mo stamp is not original is nuts! John
thanks John!
-
Chicks stamp is fine and original. The other one is an obvious fake. NG. Move on.
Sorry to be the grim reaper here. I seem to be this a lot over the past couple of years.........
Jerry
-
The other one is an obvious fake. NG. Move on.
Sorry to be the grim reaper here. I seem to be this a lot over the past couple of years.........
Jerry
Jerry
I'm sure you will agree that it will probably only get worse as time goes on...
I'm sure also from a buyer's point of view, I would much prefer to hear the bad news from experts like yourself and Kurt now, rather than later after its too late!
Randy
-
Hi everyone,, and thanks for all the help... I was on military duty over the weekend so I am just now able to reply. Here are some close ups of the pad.
-
another close up
-
Thanks for confirming what I was suspect of but I am no expert so I asked you guys... Jerry, I would rather you told me the grim news.. thanks my friend. I was so hoping i would find enough correct components that I would be hiring you to inspect and verify this car...
The heads, valve covers, carb, and air cleaner were not OEM... The Alt is # 110077? 6 blank blank with a correct deep groove pulley which appears OEM and not a re-pop.... but I think this is not the OEM Alt...Decal is AY E70 x15... the rear axle stamp is BU 0702G....Block date is H 10 7 CAST 3914678,... Dist is 1111266 7G 20... all the other other items appear correct... So is it a Z28???
and lastly I agree... we should be careful with how much we post so as to not educate the bad guys on making better fakes...
-
and lastly I agree... we should be careful with how much we post so as to not educate the bad guys on making better fakes...
I completely agree with the above statement. And I'm sorry, but that is why I can not type what I believe is wrong with
"Chicks" stamp. I just wanted to help GI Joe out and not let him throw good money at a non original car. GIJOE - you mis-typed
yahoo, please re send.
Chick, I did not put that out there to disgruntle you, but just FYI. Of course, since Jerry says its good, whats my .02 worth??
NUTS - what they called a common man named chris, who stated that the world was round.
-
I have other date stamps on the same date as Chicks. Very easy to verify.
About 20 years ago, I wrote an article for one of the Camaro mags on the '68 Norwood and early '69 Norwood vin stampings. Looking back, I had wished I hadn't wrote it as it helps the counterfeiters but these vin stamps are the hardest to restamp and fake and I have been studying these stampings now for over 25 years.
You'll notice that the block surface is actually distorted around the ones from who ever stamped this block. The numbers were stamped here one by one, thus distorting the block surface. This is not the way the plant did it.
Jerry