Hi
Need some thoughts from the techies on the forum. On fleabay there is a 1970 350/350 coupe for sale. Owner states the block code CTJ has the J stamped backwards from the factory.... I have thought about this and don't see how it could happen since the only way I can think of is by modifying a "U" stamp to get this result.
Anyone seen this anomaly before ?
Any thoughts from you guys ?
Thanks, Keith
http://i1352.photobucket.com/albums/...1374010148?534

 

Hi Keith,
I thought something similar to you when I saw the 'J'.
There's no way for it to be 'backward' and look like that. If ANYTHING it could have been upside down, but I don't think that could happen either... I think the individual stamps could only go in the gang-holder in one way.
If the 'J' had been stamped separately it could have been upside down, but there's no way to make it mirror image... it's a stamp... it only makes a single impression... it can't vary. it's either right side up or upside down.
I think the seller thought he had a simple explaination that no one would consider on their own.
Regards,
Alan

 

To me, it looks like a "U" that just wasn't stamped clean.

DC

 

The stamping is deeper on the left side, and gradually lessens going to the right. With a gang-stamp, and a right-handed line worker, the right part of the "U" never got enough ooomph! to put an impression in the block.

At first, I thought a dyslexic [but creative] employee might have ground-off the {wrong} side of the U to create a J. But, now I think not....

 

Hi,
Would CTU make this an LT-1.... but then it has a/c....?
Regards,
Alan

 

That should be an O that never got stamped all the way.
As Alan said about the stamps, no way it's a backwards J it has to be a O. It sure ends at the top left like a U though. Maybe a factory mess up

CTO is a 350/350 4sp A/C so it is the right engine. I'm not to far from there, but If I brought a 3rd Vette project home home I'd be dead
But man would that be a cool one.

 

Alan
Yes a CTU is an LT-1, which doesn't make sense as VIN is correct.... That would be a half restamp ! Or it is an actual mistamp from factory, which I haven't seen before, but it's possible. Not a bad car to put back together which I can do, but this is weird and not sure I want to explain it to someone else.
Not going to loose sleep but I am puzzled.
Thanks, Keith

 

The more I look at that, the more it looks like a mis-stamped U, I wonder if the guy at the factory grabbed the U instead of the O (they probably look close at a glance) and never fixed or noticed the error.

 

Problem is he has a POP that is CTJ, hard to explain..... Thanks

 

CTJ replaced the CTO engine code during the production year. If the POP was stamped CTJ, it would still be correct for a CTO car as it was just a clerical change for the same motor/trans/Air option. So it could be three "mistakes" on the same car.

 

Very possible.... on Friday afternoon or Monday morning.

 

Let me help to clear things up. I also own a 350/350hp factory A/C with power steering but in a convertible. It also has the reverse "J" stamped on the pad identical to the pictures that have been posted. It also raised a question with me before I bought the car however, my car has an Al Greening certification and a letter from Al Greening with it explaining the whole reverse "J" anomaly that is factory correct on very few cars for the 1970 model year. I will pull that letter and certification and repost later quoting directly from Al to explain this occurrence. My Vin # and this cars Vin # are close together.

I will be back shortly.

 

wow....that's pretty cool that it was a known and documented anomaly. I have no skin in the game, but am very interested in hearing it

 

The word processor is humming away as we speak...


[just kidding ; I'm interested in seeing the documentation, too. ]

 

Well I'll be damned.... That's an answer I never expected
Thanks !!! What a great resource community this is, we are all lucky !

 

Ok guys here we go. As promised I will share some of the most important information from the letter from Al Grennings Company " Classic Car Affirmation Service, LLC".

" The cylinder case casting date, casting number and engine pad have been carefully reviewed. We note that there is an "M sequence number" for a casting date on your cylinder case in place of the normal alpha/numerical application. This aberration , although not at all very common, has been satisfactorily studied and accepted as a legitimate factory practice relating to the tracking of casting patterns. It is completely acceptable as a normal 1970 small block foundry practice.

We also note that the last letter in the assembly suffix code is not a normal character. Instead of "CTJ" which would be normal for 350H.P.,power steering and A/C, the "J" character is a reversed aberration". In combination, the "M" casting date and plainly strange "J" character may certainly cause questioning. However, examples in our objective data base allow us to be completely satisfied as to your car's cylinder case legitimacy in spite of the "M" casting date and aberrant "J"."

I would also like to add that the cars VIN # in this ad is less than 10 cars from my VIN #. It was built just a few cars after mine and probably on the same day as mine in the first week of June 1970.

Seeing this same reverse "J" on the for sale car goes along way to also confirm the content of Al's letter pertaining to my car.

I hope that this helps to clear this very little known about engine suffix aberration up as there may be a few other cars out there like these two.

Jay

 

pretty cool, thanks for sharing that !

 

Although this doesn't explain HOW it happened, it seems obvious with the existence of two known cars that it did.

Is your engine assembly date (0509) that same as the OP's?

 

Mike I will have to check because I do not know for sure but I do know that both cars were built on the same day with the Vin's single digits apart. His car is built just a few after mine.

Jay

 

Hi,
This is certainly interesting reading.
It leads one to believe that very few people should be commenting on stamp pads since we see so few.
No more for me!
Regards,
Alan