Hello again. I have a thing for 1970 Corvettes, and found another one I would like to buy. The problem with this one is, there is a 10 month lag between the Casting Date and the Stamp Date on the engine block.

Please let me know your opinions about this, after looking at the photos below of the Trim Tag, Cast Date, and Pad Stamp. It is a simple 300hp car, 4-speed. I do not think the motor has ever been out of the car, so I am here to ask for your opinions.

The owner has had the car for 15 years, and does not know much about Corvettes. The previous owner had it more than 10 years, and also lived in the small tow where the current owner is.

He had to use a lot of brake cleaner and elbow grease to get the Casting Date readable, and that is when I discovered it is June 2, 1969. As I was photographing the Cast Date, I didn't know, but he was using a Scotch-Brite pad to clean the Engne Pad so we could read it better. We could not see the top, right side of the 1 in April 1st before the cleaning, and now you can see that the 1 looks like a capital letter i.

The Build Date of the car is May 13, 1970. The engine Pad Stamp is April 1, 1970. This is a 10 month lag between Cast Date and Stamp Date. From what I have read, the NCRS guidelines are only 6 months. I know that 1970 was a crazy year, after the UAW strike in 1969, so it is possible that this could be a legitimate 10 month lag between Cast and Strike dates?

Please have a look at the photos below, and let me know your opinions.

Car VIN # 9140
Car Build Date -*** May 13, 1970
Block Cast # -** ** 3970010
Block Cast Date -* June 2, 1969
Block Stamp-* 70s409140*** V0401CTD

Thank you again,

Steve Sperrazza

ps: I have also posted this in the NCRS forum

 

So an unrestored car has had two owners over 25 years, neither of whom know much about Corvettes, the stamp pad was covered in grease and grime, and it's a base model? Which is more likely:

That an older casting block was used, or someone decades ago bothered to fake a VIN stamp?

Sounds like a rhetorical question to me. The issue to me is probably whether you intend to show this and make it an NCRS car, and might have an issue with their guidelines--not whether this is a legitimate block stamp.

 

I saw your post on the NCRS board and will let the more experienced '70s guys answer. There may have been other cars built at the same time that were found to have a similar date spread.

The six month rule has everything to do with TFP and nothing to do with authentication. It does NOT take into account the myriad of one-offs that have popped up over the years.

People on both boards need to separate apples and oranges.

 

Strange things happened.

The block was ten months old before the engine was assembled. Not impossible, but not normal.

The engine was assembled on April 1 and not installed in a car until on or about May 13. Engine assembly and time/build dates were usually closer than six weeks, but these two dates are otherwise okay.

The PO did not do you any favors attempting to clean the pad.

 

I'm "out"
I leave that stuff to Mike Ward and his knowledgeble gang over at NCRS.
Nope, not even chiming in.

 

Thank you.

 

Mike,
I'm not "up" to making those "calls"
It was just my "opinion" on the Grn/Grn 454 and, seemingly wrong.
Just reading your and everyone elses posts "enlighten" me.

I'm "BIG" up on the MOPAR and FORD stuff.
I do ALL my own mechanicals.
But when dealing with the oddities of the Corvette world...
As you have stated in the past "strange things have happened"

 

There were two major strikes that impacted Corvettes during the 1970 calendar year... A teamsters strike in April-May and a GM strike in September-October.

The strike that affected the 1970 model year was obviously the teamsters strike. You'll note that it took place in the same time frame that your car was being built. I have observed some really strange stamps and timing issues during this period so the date spread between engine build and engine installation doesn't bother me too much.

The pad looks OK in the photos as well, but as always, my disclaimer is that it is impossible to make a call from a photograph... I'd want to see it in person. Still, there is no glaring issue that can be seen. As Mike noted, keep sharp objects and abrasives away from the pad... The pad surface is just as important as the characters stamped into it.

The ten month casting date to assembly date issue is not typical as Mike also stated. If the stamp pad and the rest of the car turned out to look as good in person as in the photos, there is a strong chance there would be no deduction made despite the date spread.

Regards,

Stan Falenski

 

I want to thank all of you for your input on this 70 convertible. I made the owner an offer, and we negotiated a fair price. I guess I am a sucker for a 70 white convertible. I had one years ago in California, and will now have one in Florida soon.

Thanks again guys,

Steve

 

Post up pictures of it when you get it.

 

Stan,have you ever come across another 70 with that wide of a time frame ?

 

Steve,congrats and post some pics...

 

There is another unusual case that just popped up on that other board.

 

I looked but did not see the thread .

 

Let me first say that this is NOT a common occurrence; however, yes, I have seen it on other 1970 Corvettes.

What is a little more common are long periods between the engine assembly dates and installation into a car in the time frame mentioned above. You also see a bit more in the way of "odd" assembly stamps durin this time as well.

As I mentioned before, I'd want to see ANY stamp pad in person before drawing any conclusions. You just can't make a definitive call from photos alone.

Steve purchased two really nice cars... Enjoy them!

Regards,

Stan

 

It's #12 in Steve's post. A mid-July car with a Dec cast engine case, also a '70 car.

 

 

Congrats!!

Let's see some pics!