Frame stencil

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Nov 28, 2014 | 11:36 PM

dugsgms74

Thread Starter

Burning Brakes

Joined: Mar 2014

Posts: 904

Likes: 46

From: Crestline CA

Frame stencil

Took off my rocker panel off my Jan 15 build 68 vert today to look at the frame stencil. Was surprised at how nice of condition it was in but after doing a little research there's a few things that are confusing me. One thing is the location, on the driver side frame rail rather than the passenger side. The other is the stencil itself, Has the smaller 3/4" font and has a number and date that look more at home on 67 car. My research says 3900200 is a 67 part number and the date of 2/6 seems too early for a Jan build car. The more I read the more I begin to realize that there is no absolute correlation to the stencil and the car its installed in so my question is this...Is this something that I should be concerned about or am I trying to put absolutes on a non-absolute subject?

Heres some pics:

Attached Images

Nov 29, 2014 | 03:02 AM

JC68

Racer

Joined: Nov 2014

Posts: 463

Likes: 129

Frame stencil

AO Smith was pretty inconsistent in the formatting of the info on frame stencils, but I can't believe they got the part number wrong. 3900200 is the part number for a 1967 frame. The date definitely doesn't match your car as well.

How long have you owned the car? The white paint on the stencil looks a little bit to nice to be 46 years old to me. Is it possible a previous owner put it on there and made a mistake?

John

Nov 29, 2014 | 05:11 AM

hunt4cleanair

Le Mans Master

Joined: Sep 2002

Posts: 5,235

Likes: 898

From: Myrtle Beach SC

I have to agree that it looks awful nice for a frame stencil. I have looked at hundreds of C3 stencils as a chassis judge and have yet to find one that clean and complete. Typically, you would expect to find it missing "pixels" if I can use a twenty-first century analogy.

Nov 29, 2014 | 08:12 AM

redrdstr72

Burning Brakes

Joined: Jan 2009

Posts: 766

Likes: 97

From: Lake Norman, NC

Seems awfully white to me too. Do I see white overspray around the perimeter of the characters?

Nov 29, 2014 | 08:44 AM

Alan 71

Team Owner

Joined: Sep 2006

Posts: 31,172

Likes: 4,250

From: Westminster Maryland

Hi,
I agree with rr72…. the overspray makes me think 'spray can' rather than 'paint roller'.
Regards,
Alan

Here's an original for comparison.

Last edited by Alan 71; Nov 29, 2014 at 08:46 AM.

Nov 29, 2014 | 08:53 AM

kenba

Safety Car

Joined: Apr 2007

Posts: 3,849

Likes: 367

From: PHOENIX AZ. WHAT A MAN WON"T SPEND TO GIVE HIS ASS A RIDE

99% sure Someone had a 67 frame stencil & as you said sprayed it instead of a roller. Probably had a 67 stencil & didn't know the difference. Also I see white paint on top of the rust where the frame paint is missing.

Nov 29, 2014 | 09:46 AM

BKarol

Melting Slicks

Joined: Sep 2004

Posts: 3,223

Likes: 666

From: Northeast

I attended a general discussion group many years ago and they talked about frame stenciling and thought they had said that the stencil could show up on either side however perhaps it was for C2s? is there a hard and fast rule?

Last edited by BKarol; Nov 29, 2014 at 09:55 AM.

Nov 29, 2014 | 02:17 PM

dugsgms74

Thread Starter

Burning Brakes

Joined: Mar 2014

Posts: 904

Likes: 46

From: Crestline CA

Thanks for the opinions everyone! Im going to have to agree with the consensus of the forum, looks like someone re-stenciled it and used the wrong one. The frame itself shows all of the characteristics of a early 68 frame(no kick-up reinforcements, 68-73 rear cross member, etc.) and the stencil looks sprayed on. Seems like if you're going to go to all the trouble to re-stencil it you'd at least use the right one but I suppose stranger things have happened. Thanks for all the input!

Karol, as I understand it, most were on the passenger side but some were on the driver side.