Interesting
A friend is currently examining this car. He sent a pic of the VIN stamping by the oil filter. Looks real to me; it's a 618 casting. Asked him to get the casting date.
I still think the pad is a re-stamp; the V0314 part looks convincing but does not quite match up to other known March 14 dates.
Thoughts?
The misalignment of the D and the Z plus the spacing is what caught my eye. I agree with V0314 part, hard to make out any broach marks. Can you post the picture of the VIN? Car is right in my back yard.
Hard to read as usual
The VIN stamping appears consistent with factory stamps in that location but of course even so the VIN doesn't indicate the car was a Z28 from the factory unless he has the original (legitimate) documentation and warranty book (P-t-P) matching the VIN, and even that wouldn't prove that the engine is the born with engine...
I've never seen a real DZ engine stamping as 'odd' as that one.... so that is VERY doubtful! It doesn't seem it was done with a gang holder.
I thought re-stamped also but wanted other educated opinions. No one disagreed.
He has accepted that. Still a great car; untouched real 10 10 X33 tag, pop, owner history.
The ad has been removed. William, did your friend purchase it? Can someone post the VIN?
Thanks, Doc.
Yes he did. 124379N620600.
Within a very few cars of my Z11 - makes sense. They were within a few days of each other - less than 375 cars. TO312HB, 03D build. Close to the same date on the tag ?
Regards,
Steve
Reviving this old thread as I bought the car. Was not told it was a restamp and the pad was painted over so I cleaned it off. A earlier pic posted of the pad tells me the pad got repainted since this thread started. Killer car with great docs that based on the paperwork and condition of weatherstrip etc I believe the low miles but a bunch of the car has been restored.
Usually when someone does a restamp they get stuff close. There was no attempt to get the Z close
March 14, 1969 was a Friday. Sometimes unusual stampings show up on days that are OT.
It's definitely out of the norm.
With the other history of the car I would just not be overly concerned. It is what it is.
Better pic of vin stamp after more cleaning.
Danzo. Where did you get that pic of the unpainted pad ? When I got the car it was painted.
My burgudy 03D is 83 vin numbers after this one and my body number is 9 before.
Do you have a pic of the pad to compare characters ?
The 1, 4, D and Z are different.
Interesting - i have a client that has a 69Z, the block got decked and then restamped to the original stamped dates (however inspection indicated a restamp) . HOWEVER, VIN at the side of the block was original to the block and matched the VIN to the car.
So orig block, just restamped due to decking.
Charlies does not look like it was decked??
I assume the casting date on the block aligns with the assembly date? How does it compare to Bill's 03D car?
My personal opinion is that the block has been restamped but that it's the original for the car.