[C2] Unusual Rear End Date Stamp
#1
Advanced
Thread Starter
Unusual Rear End Date Stamp
I am new to the Forum and have been able to find answers to almost every question I have had by searching past threads. Thanks to the community for all the great help. But now I am stuck on decoding an apparently unusual rear end date stamp. The stamp reads AZ 7 C 10 (the casting shows K 4 6). Other posts show the AZ decodes as a 1967 3:55 posi. No problem with this portion of the stamp. But according to other posts, the date portion of the stamp should be all numeric and not contain any letters. Is the 7 C 10 an alternate stamp for March 10, 1967? Photo is attached.
#2
Race Director
First, welcome to the Corvette Forum! My understanding of rear end date stamps that all are numeric (numbers, not letters). Maybe someone with more specific knowledge will chime in. Here is the date stamp on my 1967 3.36 rear end, which aligns correctly for my cars build date (June 21,1967).
Rick
Rick
Last edited by ricks327; 02-25-2017 at 08:47 PM.
#3
Drifting
It is also my understanding that the differential assembly date stamping used numbers only, not letters. Here is the stamping from my car, FB 1 17 66 (Big Block 4.11, Jan 17, 1966). The photo OP has posted above does not appear to me to be a factory original stamping, JMHO
#4
Advanced
Thread Starter
Thanks for the comments. So is this maybe the work of a not so bright restorer attempting to make it look correct for a March 31, 1967 final assembly date? Maybe an epoxy cover up of something else underneath? The rear end casting date of K 4 6 (November 4, 1966?) seems to be a bit early but maybe still ok for the March 31, 1967 final assembly. Anyone care to offer their thoughts on how or why a 7 C 10 stamp would be here? I'm ok with bursting my bubble on not having an original rear end.
#5
Race Director
Member Since: Jun 2006
Location: Inverness FL
Posts: 17,891
Received 727 Likes
on
621 Posts
St. Jude Donor '07
Thanks for the comments. So is this maybe the work of a not so bright restorer attempting to make it look correct for a March 31, 1967 final assembly date? Maybe an epoxy cover up of something else underneath? The rear end casting date of K 4 6 (November 4, 1966?) seems to be a bit early but maybe still ok for the March 31, 1967 final assembly. Anyone care to offer their thoughts on how or why a 7 C 10 stamp would be here? I'm ok with bursting my bubble on not having an original rear end.
Bill
#6
Team Owner
Member Since: Feb 2003
Location: Sitting in his Nowhere land Hanover Pa
Posts: 49,016
Received 6,946 Likes
on
4,785 Posts
2015 C2 of Year Finalist
#8
Le Mans Master
I agree with most here and would call it suspicious at best.
When you look at the area of the casting close to the numbers and then move your eyes to the surrounding area, that portion of the casting just doesn't seem the same as the rest of the casting. The casting around the AZ in particular doesn't seem normal, almost as if it was roughed up to "look" normal before stamping.
Having said that and if there are no other concerns, I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over it.
Good luck... GUSTO
When you look at the area of the casting close to the numbers and then move your eyes to the surrounding area, that portion of the casting just doesn't seem the same as the rest of the casting. The casting around the AZ in particular doesn't seem normal, almost as if it was roughed up to "look" normal before stamping.
Having said that and if there are no other concerns, I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over it.
Good luck... GUSTO
The following users liked this post:
RocketDNA (02-27-2017)
#9
Team Owner
Member Since: Feb 2003
Location: Sitting in his Nowhere land Hanover Pa
Posts: 49,016
Received 6,946 Likes
on
4,785 Posts
2015 C2 of Year Finalist
I agree with most here and would call it suspicious at best.
When you look at the area of the casting close to the numbers and then move your eyes to the surrounding area, that portion of the casting just doesn't seem the same as the rest of the casting. The casting around the AZ in particular doesn't seem normal, almost as if it was roughed up to "look" normal before stamping.
Having said that and if there are no other concerns, I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over it.
Good luck... GUSTO
When you look at the area of the casting close to the numbers and then move your eyes to the surrounding area, that portion of the casting just doesn't seem the same as the rest of the casting. The casting around the AZ in particular doesn't seem normal, almost as if it was roughed up to "look" normal before stamping.
Having said that and if there are no other concerns, I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over it.
Good luck... GUSTO