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.
There appears that there may be the remnants of broach marks near VIN stamping. 69 Corvette VIN 03495 was assembled on approximately October 4, 1968, so the September 9 (0909) engine assembly date works with the car's build date.
If there are problems it is with the engine stamp. It's obvious that the engine stamp was done with the head off, which is a good sign, but someone was overly aggressive in cleaning the area around the engine stamp, removing any sign of broach marks. In cleaning the pad they also obliterated much of the engine suffix code, leaving it difficult to say whether it's an LM, LL, LQ, LN, LO, LV, LR, LX, LP, LW, or LT. It looks like it might be "LR" (69 427/435 4 speed), but it could be "LK" which is a 69 427/335 Impala Police Package engine.
Maybe someone with better eyes then me can figure out the suffix code.
Hi prestodixo, first off - welcome to the forum and congrats on your new C3!
There are some really good experts that will likely respond. I 'sort of' don't like the looks of the left had stamping, but it could be the real stamp. It looks slightly reworked to me as there aren't a lot of original broach marks that I can see. Here is some info that might help:
The engine code should be 'LR' for a stick car; 'LX' for an auto. I blew the pic up really large and I can't tell for sure which this is. (It could also be 'LT' for a stick car with heavy duty clutch - not likely).
Below is an original stamp from a '68 L71 for reference.
Others will chime in. Enjoy your new beast! Best, Paul
I don't like it. All characters in the Tonawanda stamp have something like 80-90% of their full height, but the last letter is completely missing? With that in mind, I'm leaning toward it being an LL-code engine (427-390, automatic). The other choice for 427s were the M-codes, but here again, why is the very end of the stamp nonexistent? Don't make no sense, and what don't make no sense makes me think trickery.
Also, to my eye, the VIN looks a little roller coaster-y:
I’m with you, for a number of reasons. That VIN derivative brings up a lot of questions. The 1… The 9… The S… The 7… The 4… Take your pick. The assembly code raises some questions, as does the pad itself.
Appreciate the replies, here is a little history.
The car was originally an automatic. It was converted to a 4 speed over 30 years ago. Last owner (of 20 years) was told the person who put the 4 speed in tried to hide the X. It is not non-existent but is very light. Why he thought it would fool anyone is silly.
I have seen pictures of other vin derivative stamps from the same time frame that also have the number 1 raised a little.
Also, to my eye, the VIN looks a little roller coaster-y:
Even though they were stamped using a gang holder, the VIN stamp isn't always perfectly aligned. Digits often were misaligned, the key is whether the digits in VIN's before and after it are misaligned too. The plant only replaced the digit(s) that needed to be replaced. When they went from 19S703495 to 03496, only the 5 was removed and replaced with a 6, meaning variations in the rest of the VIN like the high 1 and 9, and the low 4, would turn up in the VIN stamps of the cars before and after it.
The only way to know for sure is if you have access to original stampings from cars just before and just after this car.
Originally Posted by prestodixo
Appreciate the replies, here is a little history.
The car was originally an automatic. It was converted to a 4 speed over 30 years ago. Last owner (of 20 years) was told the person who put the 4 speed in tried to hide the X. It is not non-existent but is very light. Why he thought it would fool anyone is silly.
I have seen pictures of other vin derivative stamps from the same time frame that also have the number 1 raised a little.
I have to say I hope the selling price reflected the "damage" done to the pad by the previous owner, as well as the conversion from auto to 4 speed. As I said in my earlier post the VIN stamp looked okay and had some sign of broach marks around it, but it's obvious the engine stamp has been tampered with.
I agree about the raised 1. I've seen plenty of real VIN stamps where the digits weren't aligned. The gang holder just held the individual stamps in place, it didn't guarantee that they would all be perfectly aligned, in fact they rarely are.
They have it listed as 194379s708495 instead of 194379s703495. I have a note in my files that it was sold in the past by https://billybobscars.com/ I remember the car when it was listed years ago for sale.
Here is a pic of the trim tag.
The block is a 439 casting with a date of June 14 1968. I have pics of those casting numbers. I have a different pic of the stamp where you can see the X better but they really messed the pad up.
Last edited by ed427vette; Apr 12, 2023 at 10:27 AM.
The trim tag is good but it has been removed in the past. ED, you are correct, when Billy Bob's had it for sale the pad had the LX stamp and broach marks. It appears someone tried to sand down the pad to pass it off as a 4 speed car IMO. Also, the cross member is welded and if I remember correctly in the old pics the car had the removeable crossmember which would be correct for an M40 car. Also, here is an LX stamp with a close build date to this car:
From the looks of the tag and the rivets, it appears the tag was removed at some point. A little strange considering you can see on the left side of it where it was tapped off when the car was painted. If ed427vette is right about the block casting date being June 14th, and the pad showing a September 9th assembly date, that leaves a pretty big gap between when the block was cast and when it was assembled. A 2 1/2 month gap is not impossible, but it's not what I usually consider to be typical. I know there were strike issues during the 69 model run, but I thought they all took place during the 69 calendar year, not in 68?
When you add the longer then normal gap between casting and assembly dates, to the botched up pad, the reattached trim tag and all on a red car, should that raise some concerns?
I have seen many of the early L71’s with a fairly wide gap. I just posted about this on the NCRS board.
My L71 has a June 14th 1968 cast date (very clear and readable) but the engine was assembled Nov 19th 68. The cars trim tag is Nov 23. I thought that was pretty unusual. But interestingly, Proteam currently has a red L71 that is a few cars before mine. The tag on that car is Nov 22 (I think) but also has the exact same engine build date of Nov 19th but the block was cast July 7 roughly 3 weeks after mine but still a very long time. It should be noted that the Proteam cars engine is verified by CCAS so I think mine is probably good. I plan on getting mine verified.
The strike was mid April 69 thru June for about 6 weeks I think.
The gap on two of my 69's is fairly wide and my L89 is a Nov 26 engine stamp and casting date is H19, August 19th 68. I have parts from August to January on the car with a build date of Jan 14th. On the 435 HP M40 cars I have seen some wide date ranges and also factory grind outs
Remember, there was no first in first out quality control back in those days. New arriving engines could easily be put in front of existing assembly plant inventory so this situation should not really be considered all that unusual.
Here is a pic of the trim tag.
The block is a 439 casting with a date of June 14 1968. I have pics of those casting numbers. I have a different pic of the stamp where you can see the X better but they really messed the pad up.
I don’t have this picture of the trim tag…..could you share where you got it from? Could you also share with me any other photos and information you have, I would like to get documentation on this car, it came with none.
Anyone else with information that precedes 2004 (date the owner who had it last purchased it) I would be VERY grateful.
This is pretty exciting that others have information on this vehicle that gives it a history, definitely the right forum for me to have joined.
This is what is listed on the dealers website regarding the block:
"This example shows a vehicle assembly date of early October 1968. The engine block is the correct 3935439 part with a casting date of 6-14-68. The block was decked during a previous rebuild and restamped with the correct VIN derivative, 9-9-68 assembly date, and LX suffix code. The automatic transmission was replaced with a wide-ratio M20 4-speed which is great on the street (and more practical than the close-ratio M21). The rear end is a 3.36 heavy duty Positraction unit dated 9-28-68. This car also has the correct 6,500 rpm tach redline, transistor ignition, single fuel line, halfshaft caps, and larger front and rear sway bars. And of course, no sign of air conditioning."
This is what is listed on the dealers website regarding the block:
"This example shows a vehicle assembly date of early October 1968. The engine block is the correct 3935439 part with a casting date of 6-14-68. The block was decked during a previous rebuild and restamped with the correct VIN derivative, 9-9-68 assembly date, and LX suffix code. The automatic transmission was replaced with a wide-ratio M20 4-speed which is great on the street (and more practical than the close-ratio M21). The rear end is a 3.36 heavy duty Positraction unit dated 9-28-68. This car also has the correct 6,500 rpm tach redline, transistor ignition, single fuel line, halfshaft caps, and larger front and rear sway bars. And of course, no sign of air conditioning."
They went with caution to avoid false advertising. They actually had a Corvette inspector look at the engine stamping. This is what they were told:
It appears original with a restamp. I had Gary Bosselman look at this, he is an NCRS expert on engine stamps. His recommendation was to advertise as numbers matching / restamped.
Gary Bosselman had a problem with the top of the number 4 in the vin, said it looked to rounded or something. He did not state any issue with the rest of it.
I talked to the last owner of 20 years and he said he purchased it believing it was original stamping. The Mecum auction advertises it as "numbers matching" This is why i brought it to this forum to get opinions.
I know Gary well and he knows his stuff. Like I mentioned before the car was sold in the past a number of years ago as an LX stamped car with a 4 speed conversion back when Billy Bob's cars in NJ had it for sale. At that time I believe it still had the automatic cross member in it. The stamp pad back then was before the block was decked and restamped. The VIN portion of the current stamp is not typical factory production. There are consistencies in the engine stamping and vin stamping depending on when the car was built in 69 that this stamping should fall into. The number 4 is not the only issue with the stamping but I agree with Gary's assessment that it is restamp. Did you buy the car believing it had the original motor or did you believe it was a restamp? The engine stamping issues and the trim tag being removed lowers the value of the car, but if you bought it right and just plan to enjoy the car then you should come out ok.
Gary Bosselman had a problem with the top of the number 4 in the vin, said it looked to rounded or something.
I'd agree with Gary (I usually do). The 4 is the first thing that caught my eye... It isn't right. Much different than an originally stamped 4. The 1, 9, S, and 7 also have issues to varying degrees. I'm also not a fan of repeating numbers (the 0909 in the assembly stamp)... I know it happens, but it's often used to cover up a restamper's lack of knowledge... Especially when there are other items in question. There are other issues that I choose not to address, but when you put everything together, it raises a big red flag to me. As mentioned, I could be wrong, but I don't think that I am in this case.
From the looks of the tag and the rivets, it appears the tag was removed at some point. A little strange considering you can see on the left side of it where it was tapped off when the car was painted. If ed427vette is right about the block casting date being June 14th, and the pad showing a September 9th assembly date, that leaves a pretty big gap between when the block was cast and when it was assembled. A 2 1/2 month gap is not impossible, but it's not what I usually consider to be typical. I know there were strike issues during the 69 model run, but I thought they all took place during the 69 calendar year, not in 68?
