When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Looks like the block was decked. Machining marks run lengthwise instead of outwards. I also see the shadow of old characters. Doesn’t look original to me.
Those numbers look like they were stamped individually instead of with a gang stamp. The spacing between the digits is all wrong and they're crooked too !!!
This is the same seller that had the "Bloomington Gold guaranteed" restamped small block. I know that this is a consignment shop,but they may want to take a look at what they are selling. Here is another of their cars mentioned here on the forum.
Stamp date is April 11. The build date by VIN is April 2
Does not jive.
No mention of the date on the block. But it states that it is 3904351 casting. Which was used in '67. There are a couple that have been shown used in '66 production. But those cars were in the last week or two of production in July '66
Found this on another site I frequent. Seller is calling it orig. numbers match but it looks a little sloppy to me. Your opinions?
I know the previous owner of this car. It was a strip out that was bought and put back together sometime in the 80s. I believe the seats and engine were the main components.
So, it is not the original motor.
I know the previous owner of this car. It was a strip out that was bought and put back together sometime in the 80s. I believe the seats and engine were the main components.
So, it is not the original motor.
This seller is 0 for 2 in Corvette ads that have been brought to this forum. Both restamps and bad ones at that. The other car with the "Bloomington Gold documentation regarding the motor" brought the owner of Bloomington Gold and forum member to post that the Motor was not verified by Bloomington. He added this "Documentation is quite good, with the important parts being the documentation from Bloomington Gold regarding the car’s matching-numbers status" Apparently the seller has forgotten to clarify the ad. Not looking good for credibility. Having said that I have inspected a '65 GTO there. The car was every bit as described and then some. So maybe they are just not as versed on these cars.
Remember, this car was rebuilt back in the early 80s when re-stamps were not a big deal. It was done by a professional shop and done right. Mechanically, I am sure the car is fine.
I agree woodsdesign, that is probably where the car was re-stamped. And if it was done in the 80's, it was probably without the intention of frauding anyone. However I don't think they stamped the original block that the car was born with as this one is a 3904351 cast which wasn't used until 1967. Possible on a very late build '66 maybe, but this car is a March build, which I think is just too early to have the '351 block. G.
I agree woodsdesign, that is probably where the car was re-stamped. And if it was done in the 80's, it was probably without the intention of frauding anyone. However I don't think they stamped the original block that the car was born with as this one is a 3904351 cast which wasn't used until 1967. Possible on a very late build '66 maybe, but this car is a March build, which I think is just too early to have the '351 block. G.
As I said in an earlier post; I know the history of this car. It is not the original block.
02-27-2019, 11:30 PM
1966 L72 Restamp?
No mention of the date on the block. But it states that it is 3904351 casting. Which was used in '67. There are a couple that have been shown used in '66 production. But those cars were in the last week or two of production in July '66
