1969 Z/28 Cowl Tag, Weird looking

[dannystarr]

Why do some of the letters and numbers seem much lighter in depth? And sort of blurred compared to other numbers RIGHT next to them? I don't understand how this can be. Look at the 71 71 paint code and the X77D80. Danny

[BULLITT65]

Well number 1 those rivets or screws holding on the tag look incorrect, leading one to believe that this tag has been modified. Also it looks as if the pertinent info was perhaps stamped in from another tag. I would guess this to be a fake tag, SO BEWARE. I would be open to hear the opinion of anyone else to see their point of view.

[william]

It's a genuine tag, just has a lot of paint on it.

[BULLITT65]

a lot of paint, but only on the important info? How could that be?

[william]

Blank tags were pre-stamped with ST NOR BDY TR PNT. Unit-specific info was added when Fisher released the production order to fabricate the body. The secondary stampings were often not as crisp as the first. 

[BULLITT65]

I agree with the blank tags, I just haven't seen a real one that has the other info so softly imprinted, and it looks like possibly a phillps screw mark on one of the rivets. Am I seeing that correctly?

[dannystarr]

Thanx Guys...Yes it does look like a baby phillips screw on the right side. What are the chances that the goop to fill the hole molds up like that?? Funny how JUST inside this red line, the info is a different shade of black. I know sometimes if it is really cold while painting, paint will do this exactly. I don't know. Is this car in the data base and certified by Jerry M. or ??......Danny

[BULLITT65]

well what is this car claimed to be? there could be other signs, this plate would raise suspicions, now a days you have to check out everything with these cars. Give us some more info on the car in question, and definitely more pics. thanks

[dannystarr]

Here it is on eBay

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Chevrolet-Camaro-1969-Chevrolet-Camaro-Z28-302DZ-Muncie-4-speed-LOW-MILES-Great-Color-/190650300107?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2c63a4b6cb#v4-38

[BULLITT65]

low miles, but NOM motor. Clean looking car, but I think overpriced considering it is not the original motor, even if the tag is correct.

[Mike S]

Could it be a coating of some sort? Even what looks like a screw head for the right side rivet looks covered on the left edge.

Mike

[DavidS]

low miles, but NOM motor. Clean looking car, but I think overpriced considering it is not the original motor, even if the tag is correct.

I think I must have missed something.  The ad states "Behind the cars original motor..................".  

[BULLITT65]

"Mostly original Z/28" he states a "correct 302" in the beginning of the ad, and then later on goes on to describe a X-33 car, when it is clear this is a X-77 car. To many questions I think, surrounding this car, to take a chance everything is ok. It seems you have to thoroughly research and investigate these cars to being with, and then you run across a car like this that raises a lot of suspicion to begin with. This car could be legit, it may take a Camaro expert to look at it, or the protecto plate to prove that it is what it is advertised as. Just like to make sure people get what they are paying for, is all.

[x77-69z28]

any one notice the trans stamp? it clearly says 29N which would be pontiac. master cylinder is wrong. cowl seal is on upside down, the casting date on the rear is F 18 9. kinda late for an 06A car! more questions than answers. he shows alot of pics of the easy stuff like the body and paint. not alot on the good stuff. oh yeah, the carb is an over the counter replacement as well.

[BULLITT65]

Good eye, I noticed the master, cowl, battery cables, but didn't bother looking up the numbers, was already suspicious of the car. Way to go looking up the numbers!