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.
Does this jive? Shouldn't the date be earlier? Besides the fact that it looks like a restamp, wouldn't the "creator" do a better job at lining up the date with the VIN. Isn't that VIN nov/dec?
That VIN is in the C2 registry, and shows a build date of 29 December 1962. So, the engine build date in May is a mismatch for the VIN.
The VIN derivative is stamped at a different time and place in the assembly process and has no connection to being lined up with the engine build stamp.
Curiously, that very picture you posted is one of several shown in the Corvette registry for that car.
Last edited by Easy Rhino; 12-21-2016 at 09:48 PM.
Right, the engine is built in flint and stamped. Then the engines are shipped to St. Louis where the are mated with the chassis and then stamped with the VIN. but didn't they use the engines as they were building the vehicle? Meaning a chassis that was built in say April would have an engine that was built in March even early April?
Does this jive? Shouldn't the date be earlier? Besides the fact that it looks like a restamp, wouldn't the "creator" do a better job at lining up the date with the VIN. Isn't that VIN nov/dec?
[/IMG]
I agree on the date issue, and I think it's a restamp. And not a good restamp.
To return to the car in question, I looked at the current sale offering someone cited and to my great surprise, I found that very tag in one of Noland Adams' early reports, posted there as belonging to '63 cvt
#30867S104171. This is a SERIOUSLY INTERESTING CAR; BUYERS GET IN LINE NOW!
To return to the car in question, I looked at the current sale offering someone cited and to my great surprise, I found that very tag in one of Noland Adams' early reports, posted there as belonging to '63 cvt
#30867S104171. This is a SERIOUSLY INTERESTING CAR; BUYERS GET IN LINE NOW!
To return to the car in question, I looked at the current sale offering someone cited and to my great surprise, I found that very tag in one of Noland Adams' early reports, posted there as belonging to '63 cvt
#30867S104171. This is a SERIOUSLY INTERESTING CAR; BUYERS GET IN LINE NOW!
That is interesting and no doubt that that's where the trim tag belongs as the numbers line up perfectly when comparing to other cars.
Also interesting is that I recorded '63 cvt #4,171 as being a Black/Black 340 car. I wonder what trim tag it now has? It's still out there somewhere.
It looks pretty good. The R is odd as many are, since most stamp sets don't extend as wide as factory stamps often did. The partial VIN looks to have a slight angle on the 3, but being the end number, could **** a bit in the gangholder. Other factors match known good ones.
The pitted surface is unusual. I'd say no one faking it would have one looking like that, but then the other day, I read where some restamper does that on purpose to "age" them to look old and make people assume they are original.
The almost polished surface is odd, but not out of the question. People did strange stuff to cars long ago. It could be the pad was polished out from a rusted mess no one could read. If you get that rare Chevy that doesn't leak at least a little oil out on the engine, then you end up with one that can potentially rust pretty badly if it sits.
I am going to post a photo of my original pad to use for comparison.
They are dated within two weeks of each other.
If you compare, many of the characters look like the exact same stamp was used.
I am going to post a photo of my original pad to use for comparison.
They are dated within two weeks of each other.
If you compare, many of the characters look like the exact same stamp was used.
Rich thanks for posting your original pad. Yes I agree with you that it does appear that the exact same stamp was used upon closer inspection. Especially the top left of the "R" gives it away for sure. I believe that this is an original pad. The motor and transmission were removed from this car when it had very low mileage and was stored in a non climate controlled garage for 40 years. That might explain the pitting on the pad. The car is still a low mileage car that just had a 70 model LT1 engine removed. The transmission is at the transmission shop for a good cleaning and rebuild if necessary and the shop also confirmed based on the condition and lack of wear and tear that it was also removed early on. The VIN is also stamped in the case and the date codes are late 62 which is correct for an early February built car.
12-21-2016, 09:38 PM
63 Engine Pad
On your top picture you could tell it is restamp GM never did a straight stamp like that one.
