Lobzila

How many idiots have ruined perfectly good cars by trying to turn them into and sell them as something they are not?
[/QUOTE]

That is the deal right there. After researching, looking, and finally buying mine, I ran across so many cars that claimed to be the magical "Numbers Matching" that were obviously not. And trying to sell them at a premium for it. There are "Numbers Matching" cars out there to be had and I would love to own one and keep it original if I did. But these are 40+ year old performance cars that have gone through a lot of change and upgrades, or downgrades depending on how you look at it. I love the early C-3 body style and the headlight doors and even the dreaded WW door, and would never think to change that out with an extended hood or the Monza style headlights.
But those seats can use some improvement as mine are not real comfortable, and the interior is getting much better insulation and sound proofing. Not original, but if and when I ever sell it, it would not be advertised as original. The original was great, but we all like to make things better, and at what point is it not considered original?
I am with you on this, really. Sounds and looks like the OP got a true "Numbers Matching" car.

jr9170

Looks good to me...

CanadaGrant

Here is mine.


I just wanted to keep it original. I had to change the carpet and seat foam as the foam was like yellow sand and the carpet looked perfect but smelled like somebody ate the transmission out of a skunk.....
You have to be kind of realistic. I took the pan off to do the gasket and rear seal and you can still see the crosshatch in the cylinders and the numbers on the original pistons.
I'm not a numbers guy but that is pretty cool since my first Corvette was a 69 427 and I bought it in 1970 when I was 21 years old.

Bad Bird

Just gorgeous, CanadaGrant!

Here is mine:



Not an original N14 car, but I like the pipes too much to change.

emccomas

Here is a 69 factory grind out on a big block car. Same engine suffix (LM), and dated 1126 (Nov 26).

Note that this is Nov of 1969, based on the late VIN of the car. I can't recall the date code on the block, but it was definitely inline with the engine assembly date and the rest of the car.

Mike Ward

Many people don't know there's a macro function on just about every digital camera these days. That function makes it difficult to take a bad photo.

LeMans Pete

Exactly, or stand back, use your zoom and crop. All digital cameras seem to sport 12 MP these days. But, people seem to think they'll get a better photo the closer they get the camera to it. All cameras have a minimum focusing distance. If you get inside that distance it'll always be a blur, and this is usually the cause for blurry stamp pads.

Of course, I cheated. I pulled the motor and popped the head.

CanadaGrant

With a 69 big block it's a bit of a chore if the smog pump and return type fuel filter are in the way....

Eljay

As I mentioned earlier in this thread I like looking at engine pads. The more you see the more you know. So while I had my engine semi stripped down for some detailing I took a pretty good cell phone pick of my pad. I think there should be a dedicated engine pad thread so you can just look at lot of pads good or bad all in one place.

The picture when viewed on my phone really enlarges like a microscope and the broachmarks are very clear.

BBCorv70

I'm not sure you'd really want to do that. When I asked an expert what tipped him off on a stamp which looked pretty good the response was something to the effect he didn't want to let the restampers know as well. It's a cat and mouse game.