CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 01, 2014, 01:11:11 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Forum registration problems: Make sure you enter your email correctly and you check your spam box first. *Then* email KurtS2@gmail for help.
104975 Posts in 12266 Topics by 4728 Members
Latest Member: MartySS
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CRG Discussion Forum
|-+  Camaro Research Group Discussion
| |-+  General Discussion
| | |-+  is a non-doc 68 Z28 worth buying???
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]  All Print
Author Topic: is a non-doc 68 Z28 worth buying???  (Read 4935 times)
KurtS
CRG Coordinator
*****
Posts: 3228


View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2010, 03:03:43 PM »

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.
Logged

Kurt S
CRG
68camaroz28
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 964



View Profile Email
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2010, 05:34:19 PM »

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...... Grin
Logged

Chick
68 Z/28 NOR 01B Orig motor/trans/rear
69 Z/28 NOR 07A Orig Block & GM Cross-ram/carbs
69 L34 Rest. Nova Father/Son Car
69 L78 Surv Nova Purch 4/69 31K miles
67 L89 Corv Tribute
68 Corv 427/400 Orig motor
07 Corv Z06
R 68Z build- http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=182584
68Zproject
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1624



View Profile Email
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2010, 09:51:31 PM »

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.
Logged

68Z28
john302
Member
***
Posts: 186


View Profile Email
« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2010, 01:06:51 PM »

Anyone who thinks Chicks v1221mo stamp is not original is nuts! John 
Logged
68Zproject
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1624



View Profile Email
« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2010, 08:56:42 PM »

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.
Logged

68Z28
68camaroz28
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 964



View Profile Email
« Reply #20 on: December 06, 2010, 09:38:40 PM »

Anyone who thinks Chicks v1221mo stamp is not original is nuts! John 

thanks John!
Logged

Chick
68 Z/28 NOR 01B Orig motor/trans/rear
69 Z/28 NOR 07A Orig Block & GM Cross-ram/carbs
69 L34 Rest. Nova Father/Son Car
69 L78 Surv Nova Purch 4/69 31K miles
67 L89 Corv Tribute
68 Corv 427/400 Orig motor
07 Corv Z06
R 68Z build- http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=182584
Jerry@CHP
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1445



View Profile Email
« Reply #21 on: December 06, 2010, 10:04:35 PM »

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
Logged
dutch
Member
***
Posts: 293

Documented Canadian 1968 Z/28


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2010, 10:51:38 PM »

Quote

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
Logged
GI JOE
Member
***
Posts: 198



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: December 07, 2010, 12:22:24 AM »

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.
Logged

SFC GI JOE - Airborne Paratrooper
68- L-78, M22, BV
69- L-78, M22, BV, Conv
GI JOE
Member
***
Posts: 198



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: December 07, 2010, 12:25:47 AM »

another close up
Logged

SFC GI JOE - Airborne Paratrooper
68- L-78, M22, BV
69- L-78, M22, BV, Conv
GI JOE
Member
***
Posts: 198



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2010, 02:00:06 AM »

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...

 
Logged

SFC GI JOE - Airborne Paratrooper
68- L-78, M22, BV
69- L-78, M22, BV, Conv
kinsmd69
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2010, 07:35:07 AM »

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.
Logged
Jerry@CHP
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1445



View Profile Email
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2010, 01:58:53 PM »

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
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.082 seconds with 17 queries.