Engine Block Numbers
Drifting
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,545
Likes: 783
From: Massachusetts
Team Owner
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 38,897
Likes: 1,926
From: Washington Michigan
Yes. Engineering notified the Engine Plants in early 1957 to use the capital "I" character instead of the "1" number character in the engine plant-applied assembly date stamp; compliance varied, but that was the direction given. 
Melting Slicks
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,815
Likes: 936
From: Cortez, FL/Canandaigua NY (Summer)
I’m not an expert but I agree with gearheadjoe. I think the 711 are original and possibly the 5 and the 442 were punched after the block was ground enough to remove the original. Is the pad not flat in that area? The 4 font is bad and the 5442 seem to droop down. I think they were individually stamped but fairly well done. This pad would fool 99% of the buying public who don’t look too closely.
Drifting
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,545
Likes: 783
From: Massachusetts
I’m not an expert but I agree with gearheadjoe. I think the 711 are original and possibly the 5 and the 442 were punched after the block was ground enough to remove the original. Is the pad not flat in that area? The 4 font is bad and the 5442 seem to droop down. I think they were individually stamped but fairly well done. This pad would fool 99% of the buying public who don’t look too closely.
However, John Hinckley's comment about the "1" in the engine assembly stamping casts doubt on the originality of the engine assembly stamping too. Aside from that possible issue, I think the engine assembly stamping looks pretty good.
However, the characters "4," "2," and "5" in the VIN derivative look questionable to me.
BTW, John Hinckley may recognize the original "204" that I posted earlier. They are from the VIN derivative on his car!
