Build date confusion
#1
Drifting
Thread Starter
Build date confusion
What do you guys make of this (other than the car has been painted)?
Trim tag shows December 7th, but the VIN shows early-mid October. http://corvettec3.ca/numbers.htm
The car's a mutt so I'm not sure why I care, but I wanted to take a snort of the $300 scotch on it's 50th birthday.
Trim tag shows December 7th, but the VIN shows early-mid October. http://corvettec3.ca/numbers.htm
The car's a mutt so I'm not sure why I care, but I wanted to take a snort of the $300 scotch on it's 50th birthday.
#2
Your info lines up with what is in the NCRS Technical Information, the vin and tag don't match. Have you checked for a tank sticker? That can give you the trim info as well.
NCRS Technical Information doesn't list a 992 paint code, but some other checking shows it as Corvette Bronze, and the Trim code is for Dark Orange Vinyl. This was a Chevrolet listed combination, so the tag is feasible to be accurate to something, but not to that VIN.
NCRS Technical Information doesn't list a 992 paint code, but some other checking shows it as Corvette Bronze, and the Trim code is for Dark Orange Vinyl. This was a Chevrolet listed combination, so the tag is feasible to be accurate to something, but not to that VIN.
Last edited by buckwylde; 10-04-2017 at 09:01 AM. Reason: for clarity
#3
Drifting
Member Since: Oct 2005
Location: Forth Worth TX
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 148 Likes
on
136 Posts
S403673 should be an early Nov. build, VIN S403410 was the last car in October.
992 is Corvette Bronze in 1968 and Laguna Gray in 1970.
425 is Dark Orange Vinyl in 1968 and Dark Red Vinyl in 1973/74.
With the above information the 425/992 combination could only be a 1968 trim tag.
What is the VIN stamped on the frame?
992 is Corvette Bronze in 1968 and Laguna Gray in 1970.
425 is Dark Orange Vinyl in 1968 and Dark Red Vinyl in 1973/74.
With the above information the 425/992 combination could only be a 1968 trim tag.
What is the VIN stamped on the frame?
Last edited by Revi; 10-04-2017 at 08:07 AM.
#4
Race Director
First off, I find that VIN 03673 was built approximately November 3rd, not "early-mid October". Of course, 11/3/67 doesn't work with the trim tag body build date of 12/7 either.
I'm not sure why you called the car a "mutt", but if it really is, then the tag may have come from another car, but why would someone bother? The car's obviously not painted Corvette Copper, at least currently, so why go to the trouble of hanging a Corvette Copper trim tag on it? The rivets on the VIN tag, appear top be correct, and I don't see any indication that someone has played with the VIN tag.
68 production was a mess, especially at the beginning. It is possible that the trim tag was incorrectly stamped. There are documented known examples of 63-67's, with mistakes on the trim tag. It's certainly possible that it was a mistake on the tag, though I'm not aware of any other 68-82's, with documented mistakes on trim tags?
I'm not sure what "NCRS Technical Information" you're using, but both 992 and 425 are listed in the NCRS "1968-1982 Corvette Specification Guide".
I'm not sure why you called the car a "mutt", but if it really is, then the tag may have come from another car, but why would someone bother? The car's obviously not painted Corvette Copper, at least currently, so why go to the trouble of hanging a Corvette Copper trim tag on it? The rivets on the VIN tag, appear top be correct, and I don't see any indication that someone has played with the VIN tag.
68 production was a mess, especially at the beginning. It is possible that the trim tag was incorrectly stamped. There are documented known examples of 63-67's, with mistakes on the trim tag. It's certainly possible that it was a mistake on the tag, though I'm not aware of any other 68-82's, with documented mistakes on trim tags?
I'm not sure what "NCRS Technical Information" you're using, but both 992 and 425 are listed in the NCRS "1968-1982 Corvette Specification Guide".
The following users liked this post:
Kevin68 (10-04-2017)
#5
First off, I find that VIN 03673 was built approximately November 3rd, not "early-mid October". Of course, 11/3/67 doesn't work with the trim tag body build date of 12/7 either.
I'm not sure why you called the car a "mutt", but if it really is, then the tag may have come from another car, but why would someone bother? The car's obviously not painted Corvette Copper, at least currently, so why go to the trouble of hanging a Corvette Copper trim tag on it? The rivets on the VIN tag, appear top be correct, and I don't see any indication that someone has played with the VIN tag.
68 production was a mess, especially at the beginning. It is possible that the trim tag was incorrectly stamped. There are documented known examples of 63-67's, with mistakes on the trim tag. It's certainly possible that it was a mistake on the tag, though I'm not aware of any other 68-82's, with documented mistakes on trim tags?
I'm not sure what "NCRS Technical Information" you're using, but both 992 and 425 are listed in the NCRS "1968-1982 Corvette Specification Guide".
I'm not sure why you called the car a "mutt", but if it really is, then the tag may have come from another car, but why would someone bother? The car's obviously not painted Corvette Copper, at least currently, so why go to the trouble of hanging a Corvette Copper trim tag on it? The rivets on the VIN tag, appear top be correct, and I don't see any indication that someone has played with the VIN tag.
68 production was a mess, especially at the beginning. It is possible that the trim tag was incorrectly stamped. There are documented known examples of 63-67's, with mistakes on the trim tag. It's certainly possible that it was a mistake on the tag, though I'm not aware of any other 68-82's, with documented mistakes on trim tags?
I'm not sure what "NCRS Technical Information" you're using, but both 992 and 425 are listed in the NCRS "1968-1982 Corvette Specification Guide".
We know that there are deviations from time to time, but for a trim tag to be off by a month there would need to be documentation beyond this trim tag.
Last edited by buckwylde; 10-04-2017 at 09:00 AM.
#6
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Aug 2004
Location: Opelousas, Lousiana
Posts: 3,151
Received 292 Likes
on
187 Posts
CI 6-7 & 9 Veteran
Excuse my ignorance, but what is meant by "mutt?"
[QUOTE=Kevin68;1595696169]The car's a mutt so I'm not sure why I care, but I wanted to take a snort of the $300 scotch on it's 50th birthday.
[QUOTE=Kevin68;1595696169]The car's a mutt so I'm not sure why I care, but I wanted to take a snort of the $300 scotch on it's 50th birthday.
#7
Team Owner
Member Since: Sep 2006
Location: Westminster Maryland
Posts: 30,173
Likes: 0
Received 2,878 Likes
on
2,515 Posts
Hi c,
I believe it refers to "mixed parentage' when talking about dogs.
But we all know of mutts that are wonderful pals!
When talking about cars I think of a car that's been put together with main pieces from several cars.
K68 may have meant something else?
Regards,
Alan
I believe it refers to "mixed parentage' when talking about dogs.
But we all know of mutts that are wonderful pals!
When talking about cars I think of a car that's been put together with main pieces from several cars.
K68 may have meant something else?
Regards,
Alan
The following users liked this post:
crawfish333 (10-04-2017)
#8
Drifting
Thread Starter
Alan got it right (as usual). The interior was from a 70-75? The frame isn't original because it has the bracing at the kick-ups which I do not believe were on early 68's, NOM, differential from a 65 (according to Tracdogg). It had YJ8 wheels and bubble tail lights (now gone). I'm trying to bring back some of the 68-ness, but overall the bones are solid, even if mismatched.
The following users liked this post:
crawfish333 (10-05-2017)
#9
Drifting
Thread Starter
First off, I find that VIN 03673 was built approximately November 3rd, not "early-mid October". Of course, 11/3/67 doesn't work with the trim tag body build date of 12/7 either.
I'm not sure why you called the car a "mutt", but if it really is, then the tag may have come from another car, but why would someone bother? The car's obviously not painted Corvette Copper, at least currently, so why go to the trouble of hanging a Corvette Copper trim tag on it? The rivets on the VIN tag, appear top be correct, and I don't see any indication that someone has played with the VIN tag.
68 production was a mess, especially at the beginning. It is possible that the trim tag was incorrectly stamped. There are documented known examples of 63-67's, with mistakes on the trim tag. It's certainly possible that it was a mistake on the tag, though I'm not aware of any other 68-82's, with documented mistakes on trim tags?
I'm not sure what "NCRS Technical Information" you're using, but both 992 and 425 are listed in the NCRS "1968-1982 Corvette Specification Guide".
I'm not sure why you called the car a "mutt", but if it really is, then the tag may have come from another car, but why would someone bother? The car's obviously not painted Corvette Copper, at least currently, so why go to the trouble of hanging a Corvette Copper trim tag on it? The rivets on the VIN tag, appear top be correct, and I don't see any indication that someone has played with the VIN tag.
68 production was a mess, especially at the beginning. It is possible that the trim tag was incorrectly stamped. There are documented known examples of 63-67's, with mistakes on the trim tag. It's certainly possible that it was a mistake on the tag, though I'm not aware of any other 68-82's, with documented mistakes on trim tags?
I'm not sure what "NCRS Technical Information" you're using, but both 992 and 425 are listed in the NCRS "1968-1982 Corvette Specification Guide".
#10
Team Owner
Member Since: Sep 2006
Location: Westminster Maryland
Posts: 30,173
Likes: 0
Received 2,878 Likes
on
2,515 Posts
Hi K,
REALLY nothing wrong with having a put together car…. you just don't want to have one that caught you by surprise!!!!
Regards,
Alan
REALLY nothing wrong with having a put together car…. you just don't want to have one that caught you by surprise!!!!
Regards,
Alan
#11
Race Director
When someone would ask him what year it was, he'd say to them "What part are you looking at?".
#12
Drifting
Thread Starter
Well I can't say that I knew the extent of it when I bought it and I'm sure I paid too much in early '08. I was really just looking for a solid base that I could make my own and, in that, I succeeded. Like so many on here, I am learning a lot. I'm thankful that I didn't do this as an investment and I have the resources to take it slow and do a good job. My heirs will be the ones that have to take the "investment" hit.
#13
Drifting
Awesome line, I have to save that. It describes my vette to a T.
The following users liked this post:
Z06LMB (08-12-2018)
#15
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Aug 2001
Posts: 6,334
Received 1,308 Likes
on
690 Posts
C3 of Year Finalist (stock) 2019
C2 of Year Finalist (stock) 2019
Talk about confusing - My passenger side window and hardtop glass are each dated Dec '67. The driver side glass is dated April 1968.
The car has a build date of March 1968. Go figure
The car has a build date of March 1968. Go figure
#16
Team Owner
Does the car have its original transmission? Does the partial S/N on it match with the S/N in the VIN? If not, you then are sure that you have a "mutt" in good health.
#17
Safety Car
Member Since: May 2004
Location: los altos hills california
Posts: 3,593
Received 1,114 Likes
on
725 Posts
A little off topic but since this thread is here, I have to ask: "What part of the assembly process does the build date correspond to?". I am thinking it is the beginning in some fashion. Like maybe printing the build sheet. slapping it on a tank, and starting it down the line. My car has a Jan 3 1969 build date but is it really 50 years old, or is that it's, well, conception? I mean who wants a car that was built over the Christmas/New Year holiday?
#18
Team Owner
Member Since: Jun 2000
Location: Southbound
Posts: 38,928
Likes: 0
Received 1,468 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
Cruise-In II Veteran
The following users liked this post:
ignatz (02-03-2019)
#19
Safety Car
Member Since: May 2004
Location: los altos hills california
Posts: 3,593
Received 1,114 Likes
on
725 Posts
So pretty close to, but not yet drivable. The build sheet, if dated, would have had some random earlier date. Back before those pieces of paper had some value, I tossed mine. Too bad I guess but I have some other goodies. I guess my car is a holiday baby. Door fit could have been better, but otherwise no complaints.
thanks Mike
Last edited by ignatz; 02-03-2019 at 02:17 PM.