Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - bcmiller

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 164
Possible sources include Ebay, Heartbeat City, Team Camaro classifieds, swap meets, or you could put up a want ad on local craigslist.

General Discussion / Re: Homepage & Feature Car pics
« on: October 04, 2018, 01:31:00 AM »
New pics for October/November have been posted. The 67 and 68 pics were previously used in 2006.

The 67 - at least in 2006, was owned by Russ Adams.

The 68 - at least in 2006, was owned by Lester Dixon.

Currently there are no other cars scheduled to have a full write-up.

General Discussion / Re: Is there any history on this ebay 69Z?
« on: October 03, 2018, 11:45:39 PM »
With any car, if you are serious, do a personal on site inspection BEFORE purchase.  I don't care who the seller is.  That way you reduce the chance of any regrets.

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Is VIN #124378N11653 in database?
« on: October 03, 2018, 11:28:49 PM »
You are missing a digit in the VIN, there should be either a 3 or a 4 after the N. 

But the answer on both is no.

Send me a PM or an email if you would like to have the data added to the CRG database. Please include pics of the VIN tag, cowl tag, engine, transmission and axle code stampings.

General Discussion / Re: Are there any GM employees on this forum?
« on: October 03, 2018, 11:25:09 PM »
Excellent.  I would not have thought you needed to go that far, but now you have absolutely no worries.

1967 - Orphans / Re: POP booklet for VIN 124377N169894
« on: October 03, 2018, 03:37:04 PM »
I moved your post to the Orphans section.

Thanks for posting! Hopefully the owner will see this.

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Were mistamps quite common?
« on: October 01, 2018, 03:47:15 AM »
Itís probably a legitimate error. I see no reason to think otherwise.

Thanks for posting!

Research Topics & Reports / Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles
« on: September 30, 2018, 02:13:36 PM »
I went back and cleaned up / removed several posts not directly tied to the current topic.  This includes removing some of my own posts. 

Thanks for your help and cooperation in this thread.  I do appreciate it. :)

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Were mistamps quite common?
« on: September 30, 2018, 01:59:59 PM »
I never said they were common. When I agree with someone, that means I have the same opinion on the topic as that person. Geeeeezzzzz.....

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Were mistamps quite common?
« on: September 29, 2018, 06:42:03 PM »
Bad angle and lighting on the pic but from what I see, seems OK.

I agree with william on how common they are.  Seems to me (general impression, not based on solid numbers) that mis-stamps were just a bit more common in 69.  More common in 69 than 67 or 68 that is.

68s are kind of like a fine wine or aged Scotch, not always appreciated by everyone. :)

Tag seems ok at first glance, I will try to take a closer look later or tomorrow.

General Discussion / Re: VERY interesting Garage Find Today, NOT a Camaro
« on: September 27, 2018, 11:22:48 PM »
I don't have any RF code stamps for comparison, but that one seems a little odd.  It may be 100 percent correct, I won't say one way or the other.  But for that car, the components will tell the story.

Good luck if you decide to purchase.  My outlook right now would be to not go into debt to buy a car from the 60s. If you have money laying around, that is fine.  But it's your life, I am NOT trying to tell you what to do.

One thing I always try to remember to stay in perspective is that "The most important things in life are not things."


General Discussion / Re: Real Trim Tag?
« on: September 27, 2018, 12:31:10 AM »
Reproduction in my opinion.  No doubt.

Mild Modifications / Re: Replacement hood
« on: September 26, 2018, 03:00:16 AM »
I would never sand blast a hood.

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Caveat Emptor - 124379N5804xx X11 307 car to X77 Z/28
« on: September 22, 2018, 07:32:57 PM »
And I think the first obscured digit in the VIN photo is a '4', making it 124379N5804xx.

I agree.  I edited the first post topic line to reflect that, but not all of the other posts after.

Full floor could save this car.  Not for the faint of heard, but with a rotisserie and dedication, it could be done.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 164