Trim tag decoding help
Thread Starter
Advanced
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte NC
Trim tag decoding help
I'm looking at 2 Rally Red '65 327-365hp convertibles and I'm having some problem with the trim tags. With both cars so similar, I would think the tags should be very similar but they aren't - is one (or both?) of them not correct?
I bought the books "Corvette Buyer's Guide 1953-1967" and the "Standard Catalog of Corvette 1953-2005" but they haven't been too much help with this. If someone could help with these and recommend a good book for me to get, I would appreciate it.
This first one bothers me most. Under style it says 19 437. I thought the first number should be year (65), and convertible should be 467. This looks like the trim tag of a coupe to me and I don't understand why the year isn't included.
The UU (red) and 402 (black leather) seem to be ok. And does A-7181 mean it is an AO Smith body?
This second one looks better I guess. The 65 467 is what I was expecting. The body S5057 is a St Louis body right? I'm confused why the paint says 900UU instead of just UU. I can't fully make out the trim, but the interior is supposedly a red/white combo - does it seem right?
Thanks!
I bought the books "Corvette Buyer's Guide 1953-1967" and the "Standard Catalog of Corvette 1953-2005" but they haven't been too much help with this. If someone could help with these and recommend a good book for me to get, I would appreciate it.
This first one bothers me most. Under style it says 19 437. I thought the first number should be year (65), and convertible should be 467. This looks like the trim tag of a coupe to me and I don't understand why the year isn't included.
The UU (red) and 402 (black leather) seem to be ok. And does A-7181 mean it is an AO Smith body?This second one looks better I guess. The 65 467 is what I was expecting. The body S5057 is a St Louis body right? I'm confused why the paint says 900UU instead of just UU. I can't fully make out the trim, but the interior is supposedly a red/white combo - does it seem right?
Thanks!
Thread Starter
Advanced
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte NC
Thanks, that's what I thought. I emailed the guy with the first trim tag and suggested that he had "accidentally" posted the wrong picture and requested a new picture - one with the VIN tag in the same frame since that picture checked out. We'll see what he says 
Do you know a good reference where I can find this sort of information - like the fact that St Louis puts the 900 before the color code?
Do you know a good reference where I can find this sort of information - like the fact that St Louis puts the 900 before the color code?
Thread Starter
Advanced
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte NC
So the person quickly responded with a new picture of the trim tag and the VIN tag. VIN tag shows 467 (convertible), trim tag is still the same 437. 
I guess someone retagged it at some point, probably to match a new paint job?
Interesting that they didn't know enough to put a convertible trim tag on it.
Thanks for the help!
I guess someone retagged it at some point, probably to match a new paint job?
Interesting that they didn't know enough to put a convertible trim tag on it.Thanks for the help!
Safety Car
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,596
Likes: 8
From: Grosse Ile MI
Originally Posted by woolooloo
Do you know a good reference where I can find this sort of information - like the fact that St Louis puts the 900 before the color code?
Le Mans Master
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,808
Likes: 24
From: Westport CT
Originally Posted by woolooloo
So the person quickly responded with a new picture of the trim tag and the VIN tag. VIN tag shows 467 (convertible), trim tag is still the same 437.
I guess someone retagged it at some point, probably to match a new paint job? Interesting that they didn't know enough to put a convertible trim tag on it.
Thanks for the help!
I guess someone retagged it at some point, probably to match a new paint job?
Interesting that they didn't know enough to put a convertible trim tag on it.Thanks for the help!
Last edited by ctjackster; Dec 1, 2006 at 01:09 PM.
Team Owner
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 38,897
Likes: 1,926
From: Washington Michigan
The second example looks legit - 443BA is a red/white vinyl 2-tone interior for a car without Powerglide or power windows; I can't read the body build date code, but the car was built on December 28th, so it should be E27 or E28.
'65 St. Louis cars all had the "900" prefix on the paint code.
A.O. Smith trim tags didn't show the model year until 1966.
The single best reference for trim tags is the NCRS Authentication Library, Volume One - the "Trim Tag Book"; available from the on-line store at www.ncrs.org. Nothing else comes close.
'65 St. Louis cars all had the "900" prefix on the paint code.
A.O. Smith trim tags didn't show the model year until 1966.
The single best reference for trim tags is the NCRS Authentication Library, Volume One - the "Trim Tag Book"; available from the on-line store at www.ncrs.org. Nothing else comes close.
Burning Brakes
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 825
Likes: 17
From: Rowlett, TX
I would question both of those trim tags. The first one for the obvious reason already stated, the second one for both the build date and body number.
On the second car the build date appears to be L20 which is too late for that VIN number (5323).
I don't know for certain but I also suspect that the body number (5057) is too late for that VIN number. I have a St. Louis built '65 coupe with a much earlier body number and a much later VIN number, so, assuming the ratio of coupes to convertibles stayed the same throughout the year then it should follow that the trim tag on the second car originally came off of a car that was built much later in the production run.
On the second car the build date appears to be L20 which is too late for that VIN number (5323).
I don't know for certain but I also suspect that the body number (5057) is too late for that VIN number. I have a St. Louis built '65 coupe with a much earlier body number and a much later VIN number, so, assuming the ratio of coupes to convertibles stayed the same throughout the year then it should follow that the trim tag on the second car originally came off of a car that was built much later in the production run.
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvette Engines RANKED by Peak Torque (70+ Years of Muscle!)
Joe Kucinski
Corvette ZR1X Will Be Pacing the Indy 500, And Could Probably Race, Too!
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvettes Coming to Mecum Indy 2026!
Brett Foote
Top 10 C9 Corvette MUST-HAVES to Fix These C8 Generation Flaws!
Michael S. Palmer
Instructor
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 160
Likes: 3
Originally Posted by woolooloo
I'm looking at 2 Rally Red '65 327-365hp convertibles and I'm having some problem with the trim tags. With both cars so similar, I would think the tags should be very similar but they aren't - is one (or both?) of them not correct?
I bought the books "Corvette Buyer's Guide 1953-1967" and the "Standard Catalog of Corvette 1953-2005" but they haven't been too much help with this. If someone could help with these and recommend a good book for me to get, I would appreciate it.
This first one bothers me most. Under style it says 19 437. I thought the first number should be year (65), and convertible should be 467. This looks like the trim tag of a coupe to me and I don't understand why the year isn't included. The UU (red) and 402 (black leather) seem to be ok. And does A-7181 mean it is an AO Smith body?
This second one looks better I guess. The 65 467 is what I was expecting. The body S5057 is a St Louis body right? I'm confused why the paint says 900UU instead of just UU. I can't fully make out the trim, but the interior is supposedly a red/white combo - does it seem right?
Thanks!
I bought the books "Corvette Buyer's Guide 1953-1967" and the "Standard Catalog of Corvette 1953-2005" but they haven't been too much help with this. If someone could help with these and recommend a good book for me to get, I would appreciate it.
This first one bothers me most. Under style it says 19 437. I thought the first number should be year (65), and convertible should be 467. This looks like the trim tag of a coupe to me and I don't understand why the year isn't included.
The UU (red) and 402 (black leather) seem to be ok. And does A-7181 mean it is an AO Smith body?This second one looks better I guess. The 65 467 is what I was expecting. The body S5057 is a St Louis body right? I'm confused why the paint says 900UU instead of just UU. I can't fully make out the trim, but the interior is supposedly a red/white combo - does it seem right?
Thanks!
Lets get all the numbers you have about the 2 Corvettes.
Example #1
What it the VIN ?
Build date L 07
Style 19 437
Body A-7181
Trim 402
Paint UU
Example #2
The VIN : 194675S105323
Build date I 20
Style 65 467
Body S5057
Trim 443 BA
Paint 900 UU
Can you confirm all the information stated above? (Add and correct)
Then we all can see the facts.
Thanks,
Drew Papsun
Thread Starter
Advanced
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte NC
Vipermike - wow, I was kind of assuming the 2nd one was aok, but I see your point. VIN 05323 should have been produced in Dec '64, but L20 (if it is L20 - it's a little blurry) is not until July '65 right? And even if we are reading that date wrong, body S5057 certainly seems much later than VIN 05323.
Also, notice the apparent wrinkles on the trim tag just above the rivets, as if it had been pulled off.
Also, please look closer at the rivets. The set of rivets on the trim tag have centers, while the rivets on the VIN tag are hollow. Which are correct? Looking at some other pictures I have handy, it looks like the VIN rivets are not correct? Why would someone retag the VIN?
Wow, this is really freaking me out, these are just the first two trim tags that I've looked at and they are both bogus? How rampant is this stuff?
Also, notice the apparent wrinkles on the trim tag just above the rivets, as if it had been pulled off.
Also, please look closer at the rivets. The set of rivets on the trim tag have centers, while the rivets on the VIN tag are hollow. Which are correct? Looking at some other pictures I have handy, it looks like the VIN rivets are not correct? Why would someone retag the VIN?
Wow, this is really freaking me out, these are just the first two trim tags that I've looked at and they are both bogus? How rampant is this stuff?
Last edited by woolooloo; Dec 1, 2006 at 02:55 PM.
Thread Starter
Advanced
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte NC
Drew - I think you are right, example 2 is an I20, not L20 but the discrepancy remains. Here we go:
Example #1
The VIN : 194675S122422
Build date L 07
Style 19 437
Body A-7181
Trim 402
Paint UU
Here is the follow-up picture I was provided for example 1:
The trim tag date (L07) and the VIN birthday both would seem to be July '05, but the coupe code is so flagrant, and the metals of the two tags are very different. Although he quickly responded when I wanted more pictures, he hasn't responded since I pointed out the problem...
Example #2
The VIN : 194675S105323
Build date I 20
Style 65 467
Body S5057
Trim 443 BA
Paint 900 UU
Again, the VIN number suggests Dec '64 but the trim tag says April '65.
I was doing this as a learning exercise, I think I'm learning more than I intended
Thanks
Example #1
The VIN : 194675S122422
Build date L 07
Style 19 437
Body A-7181
Trim 402
Paint UU
Here is the follow-up picture I was provided for example 1:
The trim tag date (L07) and the VIN birthday both would seem to be July '05, but the coupe code is so flagrant, and the metals of the two tags are very different. Although he quickly responded when I wanted more pictures, he hasn't responded since I pointed out the problem...
Example #2
The VIN : 194675S105323
Build date I 20
Style 65 467
Body S5057
Trim 443 BA
Paint 900 UU
Again, the VIN number suggests Dec '64 but the trim tag says April '65.
I was doing this as a learning exercise, I think I'm learning more than I intended
Thanks
Burning Brakes
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 825
Likes: 17
From: Rowlett, TX
Originally Posted by woolooloo
Also, please look closer at the rivets. The set of rivets on the trim tag have centers, while the rivets on the VIN tag are hollow. Which are correct?
Originally Posted by woolooloo
Looking at some other pictures I have handy, it looks like the VIN rivets are not correct?
Originally Posted by woolooloo
Why would someone retag the VIN?
Racer
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 313
Likes: 26
From: Richmond Va.
In my opinion the first example is not a GM produced trim tag. The basic plate is wrong. The placement of "Detroit Michigan" on the second line is not even close to an original trim tag when compared to where it should line up with the top line.
Page Campbell
Page Campbell
Thread Starter
Advanced
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte NC
I passed on both of these cars (wasn't very far into the process with either). The seller of the second one (the one where the VIN is Dec '64 and the trim tag is Apr '65) followed up with me to see if I was still interested and I mentioned the discrepancy. He replied today and said NCRS allows a 6 month gap. I know that is true for certain parts, but is that true for the trim tag?
Also, it seems that it is backwards, that the trim tag would have to be less than 6 months older, not newer, than the VIN. It doesn't make sense to me that NCRS would allow a trim tag that shows the body was made months after the vehicle came off the line. I'm being fed a line of aren't I?
Further, in my interpretation, NCRS allows parts that date match within 6 months, but isn't changing the trim tag in order to change the color (which is what I assume happened) counterfeiting under NCRS rules and the car would be disqualified?
Is there any correct reason to put a different trim tag on a Vette that NCRS does allow?
Also, it seems that it is backwards, that the trim tag would have to be less than 6 months older, not newer, than the VIN. It doesn't make sense to me that NCRS would allow a trim tag that shows the body was made months after the vehicle came off the line. I'm being fed a line of
aren't I?Further, in my interpretation, NCRS allows parts that date match within 6 months, but isn't changing the trim tag in order to change the color (which is what I assume happened) counterfeiting under NCRS rules and the car would be disqualified?
Is there any correct reason to put a different trim tag on a Vette that NCRS does allow?
Last edited by woolooloo; Dec 7, 2006 at 12:26 PM.
Team Owner
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 38,897
Likes: 1,926
From: Washington Michigan
Originally Posted by woolooloo
I passed on both of these cars (wasn't very far into the process with either). The seller of the second one (the one where the VIN is Dec '64 and the trim tag is Apr '65) followed up with me to see if I was still interested and I mentioned the discrepancy. He replied today and said NCRS allows a 6 month gap. I know that is true for certain parts, but is that true for the trim tag?
Also, it seems that it is backwards, that the trim tag would have to be less than 6 months older, not newer, than the VIN. It doesn't make sense to me that NCRS would allow a trim tag that shows the body was made months after the vehicle came off the line. I'm being fed a line of aren't I?
Further, in my interpretation, NCRS allows parts that date match within 6 months, but isn't changing the trim tag in order to change the color (which is what I assume happened) counterfeiting under NCRS rules and the car would be disqualified?
Is there any correct reason to put a different trim tag on a Vette that NCRS does allow?
Also, it seems that it is backwards, that the trim tag would have to be less than 6 months older, not newer, than the VIN. It doesn't make sense to me that NCRS would allow a trim tag that shows the body was made months after the vehicle came off the line. I'm being fed a line of
aren't I?Further, in my interpretation, NCRS allows parts that date match within 6 months, but isn't changing the trim tag in order to change the color (which is what I assume happened) counterfeiting under NCRS rules and the car would be disqualified?
Is there any correct reason to put a different trim tag on a Vette that NCRS does allow?
. This discrepancy would be spotted instantly on the judging field, and would automatically limit the maximum award the car could receive to a Second Flight, regardless of how well the car actually judged; it would also be scored automatically as an interior and exterior color change, losing all points, and the owner would usually be advised that it would be in his best interest to withdraw the car from judging.Run, don't walk, from this car.
Thread Starter
Advanced
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte NC
Originally Posted by JohnZ
Run, don't walk, from this car.
I'm quite certain that they know these cars inside and out and they know this stuff a lot more than I do. So I figure they already know about the problem and it bothers me that they are glossing over the issue with misinformation with potential buyers rather than being upfront.
I've tried to be careful not to be specific about the car or seller, but I wonder if it would be appropriate to disclose this car to the forum in case anyone else is looking at it.
Melting Slicks
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,479
Likes: 12
From: New York
Jon,
I would put this issue to rest right now and not worry about it anymore. You don't want to get enemies (if you will) on this forum or in general. Although it would help potential buyers to point out the issue on this public forum, I'm just not sure its a good idea.
-Dave
I would put this issue to rest right now and not worry about it anymore. You don't want to get enemies (if you will) on this forum or in general. Although it would help potential buyers to point out the issue on this public forum, I'm just not sure its a good idea.
-Dave