1969 Z28 Trim Tag - Real?

[Speedracer8]

Can anyone help me identify this as a real or reproduction trim tag?  VIN range is N575XXX on this car and best I can tell that range matches this body build.  Partial VIN is stamped on the rough casting near the oil filter, which I think also makes sense for this build.  V1219DZ stamped on the pad.  No further information at this time.

Thanks for the help!

[william]

Tag is ok. I have some old notes on it that indicate the engine & trans may be re-stamped.

[Speedracer8]

Care to share with me?  Maybe you could message me the info?

[william]

That's all I have on it. Someone else took the notes.

[Speedracer8]

Pics of engine stamps.  Any feedback on these?  I don't have the casting date just yet. 

[Speedracer8]

Another

[1968RSZ28]

Here's the eBay listing...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1969-Chevrolet-Camaro-Z28-/192049998029?vxp=mtr&nma=true&si=Mv4IwmxJq7r4Kao39bXW4MpJaSk%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

VIN: 124379N575944

Paul

[Speedracer8]

The data I'm finding so far seems to match up.  These numbers could be re-stamps, but if they match up to the casting date and assembly stamp, and also the right time frame with the trim tag, is it likely that this is the original stampings?  Or at least likely that the pad was restamped for a decked block?  What else can be done to verify that this is a 302, or that it matches the car?

[z28z11]

Casting numbers/date for the block, heads, trans. Difficult to look for things like crank flange (unique 302 flywheel flange), distributor number and date, exhaust manifolds, single 3/8" fuel line, 4 leaf rear springs, 12 bolt rear code and build date prior to car assembly, driver's side rear bracket for dual exhaust in the wheelhouse frame rail, 2418 non-dripper valve covers, and on and on. Documentation/paperwork would be a plus. Carb is a little early, BTW - could be closer to the engine by a few months in my opinion. Get the seller to give you more details if you have the time -

Regards,
Steve

[69Z28-RS]

I agree with Steve; the carb date is a bit early by a few months (but not impossible I suspect??)..  Personally, I didn't like the engine stamps:

1)  engine pad photo was poor; out of focus thus 'broach marks' are not visible...  When I don't see broach marks, I generally suspects deck and restamp..  doesn't mean that it is.. just suspected.

2)  The VIn on the block was VERY DEEP (not at all consistent with the original stampings I've seen).  It's possible from looking at the photo that the Deep stamping was stamped in OVER the original stamping?

I like the general looks of this car (from the photos); it's tempting to go look at it as it's only about 45 min away from me...  Bryan302 is even closer though.

You definitely should get the block casting number and date, as well as head cast no and dates.. see if all consistent and it matches up.. as well as any other parts you can check.

[Speedracer8]

I'm headed there Friday to check it out.  I think that if the engine cast date and assembly stamp line up, then the date puts the vin location near the oil filter. If that's the case, it's hard to fake unless the vin didn't exist there in the first place.  Maybe someone didn't like how faintly visible the original was?  Or maybe other engines that used the same block didn't have a vin there at all, meaning it is easy to fake?

[jdv69z]

Date on carb is earlier than on my 10B Oct 68 Z. Primary metering block stamped with 2 numbers - 4053 and 5583? No 4053 stamp on mine.

[69Z28-RS]

I'm headed there Friday to check it out.  I think that if the engine cast date and assembly stamp line up, then the date puts the vin location near the oil filter. If that's the case, it's hard to fake unless the vin didn't exist there in the first place.  Maybe someone didn't like how faintly visible the original was?  Or maybe other engines that used the same block didn't have a vin there at all, meaning it is easy to fake?

The original VIN stamps on the 'rough cast' part of the block are so difficult to see, many/most people who look *think* it wasn't stamped.  I pulled my engine and spent HOURS; cleaning the surface, trying different light - even moving it outside in full daylight, etc.. before I eventually picked up a character or two...  once you 'see' one ore more characters, it gets easier to find  (see!) the others.  After that, I spent much more time attempting to get a good photograph... (note:  This was in the 80's after reading an article in a car mag (HRM?, or PHR?) telling of this location for later 69 Camaro VINs.)   I had rebuilt the engine in 1976 without knowing (or seeing the VIN at that location, so it's NOT an easy thing to see.   What seems 'wrong' about the VIN stamping on this block is how obvious/legible it is compared to the many others I've seen...   I'd suggest you spend a little time searching here in CRG or on TC and find threads/photos relating to the VIN on the rough casting; I think if you see the 'typical' stamping, you'll see what I'm talking about...

You'd probably have to remove the alternator to get a decent photo of the engine pad; If you can get enough detail to see the existence of (or lack of) broach marks that would be the best means to determine if the engine is original or not. 

Of course, you know which block casting should be valid for Z28s built in the time frame?

[Speedracer8]

As I understand it there is more than one casting number used and they aren't just for the 302.  So, I guess I have to rely on the casting date and stamps.  Is it possible to see the rear of the crank through the Muncie bellhousing?

[KurtS]

These numbers could be re-stamps, but if they match up to the casting date and assembly stamp, and also the right time frame with the trim tag, is it likely that this is the original stampings? 

You are trying to make the data meet expectations. They can't be original and restamps at the same time.

IMO: Engine is not original. Trans stamp has been modified. Axle is not original to the car.

[BULLITT65]

As I understand it there is more than one casting number used and they aren't just for the 302.  So, I guess I have to rely on the casting date and stamps.  Is it possible to see the rear of the crank through the Muncie bellhousing?

I doubt it. You have the flywheel bolted up to it and then clutch/pressure plate, bolted from there. There are many factors (clues) as mentioned previously that you can look for that will help. I would also agree with Gary *most of the original VIN stamps in the block are very faint. I have seen at least one original VIN stamp where it was deep set. Like Gary said maybe this was done because the original was to faint ? Maybe Kurt or someone else can chime in concerning this detail. (The one I saw the 9N was faint but the remaining stamp was deep, with no other faint stamps visible.)

[69Z28-RS]

As I understand it there is more than one casting number used and they aren't just for the 302.  So, I guess I have to rely on the casting date and stamps.  Is it possible to see the rear of the crank through the Muncie bellhousing?

I doubt it. You have the flywheel bolted up to it and then clutch/pressure plate, bolted from there. There are many factors (clues) as mentioned previously that you can look for that will help. I would also agree with Gary *most of the original VIN stamps in the block are very faint. I have seen at least one original VIN stamp where it was deep set. Like Gary said maybe this was done because the original was to faint ? Maybe Kurt or someone else can chime in concerning this detail. (The one I saw the 9N was faint but the remaining stamp was deep, with no other faint stamps visible.)

Austin, IMO a typical rough cast VIN stamping *could* be STAMPED OVER deeply (with a different VIN) and it would make the original stamped no totally indiscernable and unrecoverable.  When I see any part of the VIN stamped deeply I would put that engine in the RESTAMP category...  even if it's an owner restamping the same VIN, I'd still put it in the RESTAMP category, which is what it is...

Original Car Owners:   If you know/believe the car/parts to be original, PLEASE do nothing to make a part stamping or id 'more legible'...  you're ruining the car/part when you do that, and I hope no one would do it...

[BULLITT65]

Gary you made me laugh with that comment. Your logic is spot on. Yes, if the VIN (even if the same number) was stamped over the original it would be a "restamp".
Now that I have seen many examples, I have seen some very light, and I have seen some deep . I have a pics of a VIN stamp upside down, and I also have a pic  where the last 2 numbers were larger than the rest. So I guess what I am saying is there is a norm, and there is a small percentage that vary from that.
( I am not saying the car referenced in this thread is one of those. )

I guess from my perspective and the examples I have seen: It can be hard to see the faint VIN stamp, but then it can be easier to verify it as original. Conversely: It is easier to find the deep stamp but than harder to verify, because there are very few original examples of these variances and even those can vary from one to the next.

So similar to the rear end stamp conversation, while not the norm, there are verified Vin stamps that do not fit the "cookie cutter" idea that all the cars were created exactly the same.

[Speedracer8]

All good points.  I'm going to take a look and see how the car drives, then make a decision from there.  Learned a lot through this process, and I appreciate that. 

[jdv69z]

Interior is not 723 - Midnight green vinyl.

[69Z28-RS]

Bullitt:  from my understanding the VIN derivative stamp on the engine block should have been made with the SAME SETUP on the gang stamp as is on the transmission... so a careful comparison there would help one determine originality. 

I noted on the car in question, only the sequence number digits were DEEP stamped; the prior digits seemed similar to 'typical' (and of course would be the same on any 69 Camaro).  WHY would only the sequence number digits be deeper if all the characters were in the same gangholder?   and.. is it the same way on the softer aluminum on the trans??

PS.  Many original VIN stamps have the last two digits in the VIN be a different (larger) font; mine is that way also, and I'd bet yours is as well.  When the'stamper' is stamping the cars coming down the line, he would likely only change the last character, or last couple, when stamping the next car.  This is true whether the VIN stamp is on the front pad, or the rough cast surface above the oil filter.

[X33RS]

Interior is not 723 - Midnight green vinyl.

I noticed that too.  Since it's missing the clock it's likely not a gauge package car so that may have been added during the interior change over.  It would make me look at other typical add ons as well like hood, spoilers, etc...  If the purchaser cares about that sort of thing.

[69Z28-RS]

All good points.  I'm going to take a look and see how the car drives, then make a decision from there.  Learned a lot through this process, and I appreciate that. 

IMO, he's asking a lot of money for a 'visually nice' car with many questionable components...??

[6667ss138]

The first time I saw the eBay pic of this VIN block stamp I was skeptical. I know there are exceptions to everything but most of the true factory stampings that I have ever seen are very, very hard to see. I had to go to great extents with a bright light and a magnifying glass to see any of the partial VIN on my Z. I almost gave up that it was even there. Granted my engine is still in the car which makes it even more difficult to see but I would be very careful about paying anywhere close to "numbers matching" money for this car. JMHO

Looks like the listing has ended. I sure hope someone didn't get duped!

[bcmiller]

Engine stamps don't look original to me. I did not see a pic of the transmission or axle in this thread or in the eBay listing.

[69Z28-RS]

I posted earlier in this thread, the following:
"PS.  Many original VIN stamps have the last two digits in the VIN be a different (larger) font; mine is that way also, and I'd bet yours is as well.  When the'stamper' is stamping the cars coming down the line, he would likely only change the last character, or last couple, when stamping the next car.  This is true whether the VIN stamp is on the front pad, or the rough cast surface above the oil filter."
------------------------------------

Today, in response to an email from Austin, I went back to photographs I had of these items and now I want to 'retract' or modify what I'd said above.  The last two characters in my VIN derivative stamps look *different*? or more distinct?   but not sure after looking more closely today that they are 'larger'... They may just be made from 'newer, less worn' stamps, which makes them look the way they do...

[bcmiller]

Generally for Norwood cars, the VIN font characters will all be the same size.  Not the case for LOS, where there are variations.

There are known variances to VIN stamps, and axle stamps, but these are generally grouped in blocks of time.  For example, what was going on in 1967, would not be going on in 1969.