Messages

5761

General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28

« on: October 31, 2008, 04:48:23 AM »

The stamps on the axle and transmission look *TOO* good...      and the photo on the engine stamping is insufficient for analysis, but it's pretty evident that the VIN stamp was not performed in a gang holder...  it *might* be good enough for a 'judging', but I'd be very doubtful that the drivetrain was the original one if I were appraising this car.

PS.  was there any difference in the two versions of the Report other than the note which Jerry placed at the bottom of the latter one?

5762

General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28

« on: October 30, 2008, 09:44:23 PM »

when you 'sign' your name you are *certifying* something...  sometimes it's as simple as 'you are that person'.  At other times, you are certifying that certain information is correct...  ie.. your address, your ownership of an item, or that you are a resident of a state, etc...

When an appraiser 'certifies' his appraisal by signing it, he is stating (certifying) that he believes the contents of the report are true and correct to the extent he has stated it.  Apparently Jerry M believed that car to be correct when he did that report (from reading the report on KM's site).   A judging report on the other hand, simply states what is visible to the eye, and doesn't get so much into 'belief' or subjective knowledge.   It simply reports what the codes say, the colors, if they are correct or not, and then perhaps a subjective judgement as to condition, correctness, etc.   In this case there seems to be some confusion whether this is a 'judging report' (per specific restored Camaro guidelines), or an 'authentic Z28 Certification'.

I have appraised vehicles for 'out of town / out of state' purchasers previously.  I tried to make my report as factual as I could re reading colors, codes, conditions, etc much as Jerry's report does, but I also provided 'My subjective  beliefs' where I believed something to be 'faked'.    I suspect if Jerry had been writing the subject report for a 'prospective buyer' he would have been less reserved in his judgement and statements made in the report.   When I read the report, it *read* more like a detailed 'Judge sheet' than a Certification of authenticity...?

5763

Originality / Re: 'late' '69 Z28 Valve Cover drippers

« on: October 30, 2008, 08:31:03 PM »

When the design changed, the part number should have changed.  I have early Chevrolet Parts Manuals (69-72 dated) at home which I can check, but I  haven't yet done so.  I will check and see if there is a 'date' associated with the change.

5764

Originality / Re: 1968 z28 heads

« on: October 27, 2008, 08:35:43 PM »

I can't say for whatever Camaro organization you are questioning, but it would be very unusual for a judging organization to remove the valve covers for such judging (I've been involved with NNC, CCCI, CNA, and NCRS judging and none of them remove fastened on parts for their judging)..

5765

Originality / 'late' '69 Z28 Valve Cover drippers

« on: October 27, 2008, 06:54:56 PM »

Is there any evidence to show that 'late' (Sept and later 1969) Z28 valve covers had drippers?   I've owned my car since 1976; it has not been restored.   There was no evidence even when I purchased it that any work had ever been done to it, yet it had 'drippers' in the valve covers.  I'm hypothesizing that perhaps beginning at the time of 'normal '70 production' that the valve covers were updated to the drippers.   Current CRG information seems to claim that all '69 Z28 VC's did NOT have drippers?

5766

Decoding/Numbers / Re: really nice car - was this possible?

« on: October 20, 2008, 08:18:20 PM »

John.   Are you saying that the 'documentation', including the PoP (showing the engine stamping?)..  is fake?   Wow...
What are you saying was a Saginaw casting?  the engine?   How can you tell?

5767

General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28

« on: October 20, 2008, 06:13:32 PM »

To follow all this up, and in your defense.  I helped a friend remove a '57 BelAir Convertible from the woods once.   It had leaves, soil, tree parts, etc.. up to the beltline.  The floor was totally gone.   The frame was rotted away except for the (thicker metal) X member.   The roof bows were there, as well as the stainless around the windshield...   My friend got the car for free to haul it away.    He sold the thing (as is) for $2k...  a few weeks later, that buyer sold the car for 15K...  I'm sure NOW the car is a *restored 100K+ '57 Convertible (black with red interior).   I am certain that at least half of the 'Restored '57 Chevy convertibles came from similar backgrounds.   The standard method of *restoring* such a car is to find a decent 2-dr HT car, and *convert* it to a convertible using the special convertible parts.    Lots of them are also done using 4-dr sedans which are cheaper and usually in better condition....   Is this wrong?   I don't know.   but I do know it is WRONG to misrepresent something you are selling for greater financial gain.   It would seem that is what the owner/restorer did in this case...  I doubt after the hulabaloo which will result, that BJ will *rerun* this particular part of that auction!

5768

General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28

« on: October 20, 2008, 05:47:09 PM »

all i know is what the rest of the world knows.that the car is as real as it gets according to the bj show.

And Barrett Jackson is the know all - end all of Camaro's ? Um, no.
and I know it's a rebody, unless they followed me and "dug it up"(many years ago). B/J could only report what was told them by the seller. Hell, even the seller might not have known, I'm thinking he got it from someone else (as an unfinished project) anyway. This VIN is no secret. I was here years ago talking about this car. And with only a little checking anybody could have learned the numbers were "questionable". So, my opinion, (of course those are like belly buttons), (everyone has one), the buyer was not told everything, the auctionier, didn't know everything, the seller MIGHT not have known everthing. (But, if he (the restorer) really is as good as he is supposed to be at restoring cars, I think he should have seen the replaced/missing numbers and maybe got curious and did some checking). As far as Jerry's role (I don't think he needs me to defend him, but), he was probably told only as much as needed, by someone that didn't know everything anyway.
I don't remember the name of the guy I sold the numbers too, but I do remember he had a ralley green ralley sport camaro.
(edit) I should say, he TOLD me he had a ralley green RS camaro.

The MOST likely possibility is that the buyer of your documentation/id/vin/etc... MERGED your information with HIS RS Camaro, and it is now the car that was sold.   The *only feasible* means of doing this is to transfer the VIN plate, hidden VIN's etc to the other body, and do it in a 'mostly invisible' way.     I'm curious...  WHAT did you think someone was going to do with the VIN/documentation you sold??   hang it on a wall as a decoration?

5769

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Found Block VIN on 69 Z... Thanks Jerry

« on: October 02, 2008, 05:41:29 PM »

I'm assuming your car has the original lacquer paint?    and the restored car is MOST LIKELY painted with base/clear...    that would likely explain the lighter color, as shinier paint (ie clear coated) will appear lighter to the eye due to the higher reflection...

PS.  *Most* Z28's got modified to some extent very soon after purchase....    as purchasers generally believed they were buying a 'race car', (and were)..  but they weren't race ready..   Anytime I see one that was NOT modified very early in life, it makes me wonder.