Author Topic: Original stamp or not? (Read 14376 times)

rspallina · « **on:** May 22, 2015, 07:13:41 PM »

Guys so happy site is back up. Let me know what you think of this stamp. I compared to the stamp in Jerrys book and thought things looked good with the month code and DZ part of stamp. Not sure of VIN PORTION. Let me know. I am considering partnering up with a guy on a car. Thanks. I have the original window sticker and protecto plate if that will help. Thanks

rspallina · « **Reply #1 on:** May 22, 2015, 09:18:12 PM »

here is window sticker as well along with the protecto plate...original? As some of you guys may know I originally wanted a yellow car and posted the pics of the links of those yellow cars that were vetted here as not the real deal. Trying to figure out what could be bad here. Hate having to go through this process. Have a great MDW everyone!

z28z11 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 22, 2015, 10:43:29 PM »

Stamp looks pretty good - character size looks O.K. for both VIN and engine code. Position appears O.K.

POP looks genuine. From what I can make out, at least the exception code appears correct for the special performance package to denote a Z in this time frame, plus it appears to be the early option price to match. Fakes sometimes miss that. One thing for sure - this one is loaded up if it's for real.

I know these are pretty easy to fake, but the patina on the POP looks spot on, unless I miss my guess.

Just my opinion -

Regards,
Steve

z28z11 · « **Reply #3 on:** May 22, 2015, 10:46:46 PM »

Quote from: rspallina on May 22, 2015, 07:13:41 PM

Guys so happy site is back up.

Me too. Site clock is off - if not I finally hit the time warp (but it's going the wrong way !).

Steve

rspallina · « **Reply #4 on:** May 22, 2015, 10:53:01 PM »

Thank you Steve. I thought the stamp looked good too. Darell said that perhaps someone would have a close stamp date to compare. Interestingly the stamp date in Jerrys book was close and the 2 in the month code matches exactly as does the D height in relation to the Z. One of the stamps he shows is only a couple weeks difference and the angle of the VIN and the rest of the stamp is consistent with the car I'm looking at. Still waiting on pics of the rest of the drivetrain. He said Tuesday and I will share when I receive. If anyone has a Dec 68 stamp please share. Thanks

rspallina · « **Reply #5 on:** May 22, 2015, 10:55:33 PM »

Yes clock is off and all of the pics I posted to my thread on my car are gone

Here is pic of Trim Tag:

1968RSZ28 · « **Reply #6 on:** May 22, 2015, 11:06:17 PM »

Quote from: z28z11 on May 22, 2015, 10:46:46 PM

Me too. Site clock is off - if not I finally hit the time warp (but it's going the wrong way !).

Steve

Quote from: rspallina on May 22, 2015, 10:55:33 PM

Yes clock is off and all of the pics I posted to my thread on my car are gone

You both need to reset the time format and time offset (use auto detect) under your "Profile" tab.

Paul

rspallina · « **Reply #7 on:** May 22, 2015, 11:24:10 PM »

Thanks Paul - is there something i need to do to get my pictures back on my thread?

ko-lek-tor · « **Reply #8 on:** May 23, 2015, 02:51:56 AM »

Within 3000 of my car, of course my car is not a Z though.

z28z11 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 23, 2015, 03:57:39 PM »

Quote from: 1968RSZ28 on May 22, 2015, 11:06:17 PM

Quote from: z28z11 on May 22, 2015, 10:46:46 PM
Me too. Site clock is off - if not I finally hit the time warp (but it's going the wrong way !).

Steve

Quote from: rspallina on May 22, 2015, 10:55:33 PM
Yes clock is off and all of the pics I posted to my thread on my car are gone

You both need to reset the time format and time offset (use auto detect) under your "Profile" tab.

Paul

My guess a bunch of us are off ?

Thanks for the heads up. While we're on the subject of the redo, does the new format not have a spell checker anymore ? One of my pet peeves is posting a reply, and then discovering a spelling error -

Regards,
Steve

KurtS · « **Reply #10 on:** May 24, 2015, 03:08:06 AM »

It appears to have changed the time offset on our profiles.
> Modify Profile
> Look and Layout
Click auto detect.

Spell checker is enabled. Works fine for me.

rspallina · « **Reply #11 on:** May 26, 2015, 02:40:22 PM »

Guys - I am trying to make a decision about buying this car. I posted to the motor stamp above and here are the rear axle and transmission stamps. I am not crazy about the rear axle stamp. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, Rob

My68SS · « **Reply #12 on:** May 26, 2015, 04:13:57 PM »

All looks pretty good. What has you worried about the axle code? If it's because the BU is not in line with the rest of it, it's probably neither here nor there.
At a guess, I'd say that they're in separate gangs? otherwise it's too many characters for one gang - too hard to stamp or gangs weren't that big? just speculating - JohnZ, Kurt - help

Some more speculation - given that the axle tube is a convex surface, were the characters for axle stamps slightly concaved? The depth of impression looks too even [top to bottom] for it to be a flat faced character stamped onto a curved surface?

rspallina · « **Reply #13 on:** May 26, 2015, 04:32:17 PM »

Thanks Rob - a few things that stand out to me...the B looks more vertical than stubby like the other B's I have seen, including mine and the ones posted under the axle thread. Additionally, the 2 looks to start its curve much earlier as it comes down than the others I have seen. Finally, the G appears to have a cross line that extends beyond the outside of the curve and the inside appears to go too far in?? Maybe I am nitpicking but I am curious to see what the experts think. I will tell you that the seller has invited me, MacNeish or anyone of my choosing to come and inspect the car. Anyway, just wanted to confirm with everyone here that the stamps for the motor, transmission, axle and the protecto plate and window sticker (all posted in this thread) all look good. Thanks again.

rspallina · « **Reply #14 on:** May 26, 2015, 07:08:24 PM »

Also, my VIN stamp on the transmission is straight and above the transmission code. THis one is at an angle and to the left. Can someone please opine on this as well. Thanks

KurtS · « **Reply #15 on:** May 29, 2015, 05:23:32 AM »

I have other versions of these stamps. I don't see issues.

rspallina · « **Reply #16 on:** June 23, 2015, 05:53:14 PM »

Thanks Kurt. Still considering this car and would like to hear from others regarding the authenticity and totality of the documentation posted on this thread and whether the driveline items look authentic as well. Thanks in advance

rspallina · « **Reply #17 on:** June 23, 2015, 06:24:22 PM »

Technical question related to this thread. What is the relationship between body number and VIN number? Based on MacNeish's book and the window stickers contained therein, the body number on the TT posted above for this car is way out of sequence with the VIN number. The window stickers in Jerry's book go in production order and a car with this VIN should have a body number in the 200000 plus range not 159270. Please let me know your thoughts.

william · « **Reply #18 on:** June 23, 2015, 07:57:59 PM »

There is NO direct relationship between VIN and body numbers.

The best examples are the Gibb ZL1 Camaros. All 50 were ordered on or about December 6, 1968. The orders were assigned confirmations #222001-222049; 1 order was messed up and later re-issued. The first Gibb ZL1 was N569358 / NOR222002 built December 30, 1968. N609238 / NOR222001 is the 14th ZL1, built March 5, 1969. Gibb needed the #1 car quickly and his contacts at Chevrolet moved it up the schedule.

The first ZL1 Camaro ordered [different dealer] was N608193 / NOR211785. Despite being ordered almost two weeks prior to Gibbs cars it was built much later. Why? The body number had nothing to do with production scheduling. Chevrolet scheduled production based on a number of factors: equipment availability, dealer location, paint color. How much clout the dealer had also came into play.

There is nothing unusual about cars built within minutes of each other having body numbers thousands apart.

rspallina · « **Reply #19 on:** June 23, 2015, 08:22:36 PM »

Thank you William for your response. The reason I raised the issue is that in Jerry's book although there is no direct correlation between the two (pages 109 and 110 being the best example, VINs 215 numbers apart and body numbers only 1 digit apart), there appears to be a sequential correlation in that as VIN numbers increased body numbers did as well (see pages 100-119). I would imagine there are anomalies such as the one you have pointed out for special order cars (and a couple in his book), but based on the window stickers in his book (specifically pages 103 and 104), the body number (159270) for the car I am referencing in this thread has a VIN number (560077) that does not fall between the VINs on these two pages where the body numbers are on either side of the one in this sentence. My suspicion is that body numbers and VIN numbers increased but not directly. Do you see the correlation I am trying to make?

william · « **Reply #20 on:** June 23, 2015, 09:48:15 PM »

The shipper copies mentioned came from the same dealer, Martz Chevrolet. I have copies of all the paperwork for the 99 cars Martz ordered and even they were not built in body number order. Here's a sample for the VIN range N554xxx-N559xxx: 183170 187782 183171 187781 141394 195834 202838 195835. The Z/28s you mentioned were ordered together with a standard Camaro NOR 307026. It was built 8 days prior to the Z/28s.

So in general, yes body numbers do increase over time. But as stated cars built the same day can have body numbers miles apart. There really isn't a direct correlation even at the same dealer.

rspallina · « **Reply #21 on:** June 23, 2015, 09:57:17 PM »

Quote from: william on June 23, 2015, 07:57:59 PM

There is NO direct relationship between VIN and body numbers.

The best examples are the Gibb ZL1 Camaros. All 50 were ordered on or about December 6, 1968. The orders were assigned confirmations #222001-222049; 1 order was messed up and later re-issued. The first Gibb ZL1 was N569358 / NOR222002 built December 30, 1968. N609238 / NOR222001 is the 14th ZL1, built March 5, 1969. Gibb needed the #1 car quickly and his contacts at Chevrolet moved it up the schedule.

The first ZL1 Camaro ordered [different dealer] was N608193 / NOR211785. Despite being ordered almost two weeks prior to Gibbs cars it was built much later. Why? The body number had nothing to do with production scheduling. Chevrolet scheduled production based on a number of factors: equipment availability, dealer location, paint color. How much clout the dealer had also came into play.

There is nothing unusual about cars built within minutes of each other having body numbers thousands apart.

William I just realized what you meant by order confirmation. That would make sense and would account for why some cars body numbers are not in sync with most of the cars produced during the same time frame. This car does have a host of special options that may have held up its production. Thanks

X33RS · « **Reply #22 on:** June 24, 2015, 01:13:39 AM »

Isn't this car too early for the cowl hood??

william · « **Reply #23 on:** June 24, 2015, 01:27:23 AM »

It is not on the w/s.

X33RS · « **Reply #24 on:** June 24, 2015, 01:48:12 AM »

It's not on the w/s?? Not sure what that stands for (first thing that comes to mind is windshield, lol) but if you are referring to paper work, none of those pictures are large enough for me to read any of it. That's why I asked.
So I guess your answer means it's too early in production to have the hood?

rspallina · « **Reply #25 on:** June 24, 2015, 02:08:26 AM »

The cowl hood was added. It is not on the window sticker.

X33RS · « **Reply #26 on:** June 24, 2015, 02:26:48 AM »

Ah 10-4. I was curious as I didn't see Jerry mention it on his review of the car. Mine is a 12D build and I was told it was right on the verge of the ducted hood introduction, what ever that might be.
Just trying to understand more.

Thanks

69Z28-RS · « **Reply #27 on:** June 24, 2015, 03:35:02 AM »

Another thing which affects scheduling which wasn't mentioned here in this thread, is that 'sold cars' (ie. customer ordered) got priority on scheduling (when parts are available) over 'standard internal production orders'.

william · « **Reply #28 on:** June 24, 2015, 12:00:06 PM »

Quote from: 69Z28-RS on June 24, 2015, 03:35:02 AM

Another thing which affects scheduling which wasn't mentioned here in this thread, is that 'sold cars' (ie. customer ordered) got priority on scheduling (when parts are available) over 'standard internal production orders'.

Appears to be correct. In this string of confirmation #s [by VIN] 231653 241249 226652 241250 243528 the one in the middle was a customer car but it was a Z/28. Engine availability was likely the primary factor; then production slot due to the time required for striping. 'Fleet' was another scheduling consideration.

At Norwood the earliest known ZL2 car is ZL1 #1 N569358 built Dec 30. The ZL1 engine and BE axle were in stock prior so component availability for the hood may have held up the build.

News:

Author Topic: Original stamp or not? (Read 14376 times)