Looks like the real deal to me. lol

 

I was hoping someone would show the famous "Fonawanda" stamp, like this one:

 

I dont offer opinions on topics within the context of being one of the many site moderators. The subjects are not related. Usually, when there's a pretty strong debate, I generally keep my opinions to myself.

 

It's not only the engine. But its the most significant indicator to many people of a well cared for car. Trans and body also. But a well cared for car might easily have a simple carb swap, or alternator failure. If your engine blew or got swapped out there is more reason to believe the car may have not been babied. But it is still one consideration among hundreds of others.

Of course to many people they don't care at all. It depends on how you were taught to evaluate and care for your cars. Not saying this is right or wrong way to evaluate, or even if it is significant. It is to some so in my opinion restamping is a deception.

 

A BIG reason why there so many BB & high performance along with high optioned & ones with rare desirable colors are shown at NCRS , BG & auctions is that it cost the same to restore any Corvette. You have NO chance of getting your money back restoring a 300HP no option corvette after spending 80 to 100,000.00 to restore it. MONEY drives this so called hobby & you can cry all you want but it won't change.

 

Many Cars in the day had engine failures early on & most were worn out at 80,000 MI. It was cheaper & faster to swap out the engine than rebuild it. If you replace the engine with the same configuration as it came from the factory with it is NOT being fraudulent. Only if you try to make anything, engine or other components something it was not is it fraud.

 

The legal definition of "fraud":.....fraud is the intentional deception of a person or entity by another made for monetary or personal gain. Fraud offenses always include some sort of false statement, misrepresentation, or deceitful conduct."

 

I DO understand how the "Grenning" evaluation is done. I spent a good deal of time listening to Al's presentations over the years, and I have provided a few pad stamp photos / rubbings / etc. as well.

And I would have to disagree with you about "less to do with the numbers" part of your statement.

The analysis is about brooch mark and pad stamp, both as a function of time frame.

Let me provide an example:

Lets say a 67 435 engine is with an engine stamp of T04I2JE is submitted for evaluation.

Now, lets also say that there are 5 known (believed to be, anyway) original examples of JE engines assembled on 04I2 (April 12th). NOw lets also say that the top curve of the digit '2' is weak / lightly stamped relative to the rest of the characters (perhaps because of wear on the '2' digit stamp).

We would expect the submitted example to also show this weak top curve of the digit 2.

OK, this is a very simplistic answer to a rather complex process that examines the pad, the brooch marks, the edge of the pad, the style of the characters that are stamped, the uniformity of the characters, the depth of the characters, the position of the characters on the pad,.... the list goes on.

I do not recall Al Grenning's process using anything like a comparison microscope, which is the tool typically used in bullet comparisons. And the matching of brooch marks to a specific point in time is somewhat inaccurate. It is a data point, one of many that are used in the process.

The examples I cited earlier would all pass muster, because the brooch marks WERE original, as was the engine stamp. Taking a 230hp 57 283 out of a Corvette, and replacing it with a closely dated 283hp 283, also a Corvette engine, is very difficult to detect.

The point I am making is that, when Al provides a affirmation, he provides a letter that he signs stating that in his opinion, and based on his available comparison data, the engine is correct. What he doesn't provide are actual examples of the engine pad stamps that were used to make this determination.
And the presence or absence of that actual evidence is what makes the difference between his affirmation (i.e. his opinion), and tangible evidence that can be pointed to as specific data.

When I was judging at NCRS meets, and I called for a deduction on something, I had to be able to point to / describe something specific that differed from "typical of factory production". What is missing from the engine affirmation service is the "something specific".

I get why he does not provide this, but without those comparison photos, it is just a letter, backed by the faith that his placed in the letter.

Now, let me be clear on this point, I am NOT making any sort of negative or questionable comments about Al Grenning or his affirmation service. I have no reason to believe that Al Grenning has anything but the best interest of the hobby at heart when he does his evaluations.

Here is a link to Al Grenning's patent application, which is now expired. Interesting reading.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...KZUCfabVzKtubQ

 

Al's patent has expired...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...KZUCfabVzKtubQ

 

I think your point is valid, but I don't know that anyone who, in the final analysis, if simply providing a letter that states his opinion, could be asked for more than that.

His "something specific" is his opinion that the broach marks and stampings don't look like the ones he's seen that he's convinced are real. You are right... it's just a letter.

I've had some experience with collectible autographs and verification of sports memorabilia. No one is willing to risk being sued anymore, so everyone just says "this is my opinion," whether in person or in writing. But nobody offers comparative photgraphy of their files of similar autographs as support. It's an opinion, based on their experience and knowledge base, and you can do with it what you like.

Unless Al is willing to come off the "opinion" part of it in a courtroom, I don't expect a file of supporting documentation to support his opinion.

 

I don;t expect him to provide the supporting evidence either, but that is what I would require in a situation where an engine was in question.

 

Your comment is right on the money. Again, it's based on trust and reputation that the person doing the certification does have the empirical evidence that he needs to come to his opinion.

Verne

 

So an thought as come to mind... has anyone ever asked Al to provide the sample data that he used to render his opinion.

I suspect the answer would be no, but maybe it is just because no one has asked.

Just to be clear, what I an suggesting is that he send copies of the sample data from his Master Pad Index that he used to make his determination, along with his letter of affirmation.

 

I haven't read al the pages but just the first one. In my opinion engine restamping is just wrong and with doing it you are devaluing all the cars of the people who bought their cars as numbers matching. Besides that you are just ruining the passion of collecting cars and retaining originality.

This is the only way I can think about it.

 

That'll never happen. The images of known original pad stampings which he has compiled are his meal ticket - once he has the photos of a good pad they become proprietary information which he will never share with anyone. Once Mr. G has declined to affirm authenticity of a pad it is the kiss of death, regardless of whether authentic or not. Even though it may well be the real deal, everyone henceforth will have to wonder why the guru did not bestow his blessings.

 

Yep, exactly.

However, a number of these engine pads are also posted on the internet. With enough effort, others could put together their own "Master Pad Index", particularly if they were interested in just one engine suffix code.

 

I had Mr Grenning evaluate my 66 L36 . He did offer to show me his sample data and GM paper work to back up his affirmation if I was interested , but he would not provide copies for me . Just look , no touching .
Fair enough for me .

 

The aggregation of the amount of data Al Greening already has at hand would be a stupefying amount of work. Collecting random images of pads of internet photos would take a lifetime.

Al is selling a product - again, that product is his reputation and the voracity of the data he has to back it up. Namely, his database of stamp pads, etc - those are his 'value added' flagship sales products. He won't give it up and neither would I.

And, of course, any expert 'certifier' is going to say they are only expressing their 'opinion'. That's what they are selling. If there was irrefutable, gold-plated, proof that some engine was the original BB that a car was 'born with' you wouldn't need Al's 'opinion'...

As to restamping; its a religious debate with no right answer.

 

I agree, that information is proprietary and most people in his position would not even do that.

 

Wow - apparently my little treatise on how a consultant's main product for sale is his/her reputation was offensive enough to be deleted.

Go figure !?