We have a friend looking to buy a 69 Z-28, and would like some opinions on these numbers. The seller has been very up front with everything. He sent many pictures of the car and numbers on all the parts of the car that are important. I think these numbers look fine, but I'm no Z-28 expert, and wanted to get some opinions from some of the experts.

Thanks guys...
I'm having trouble getting it into Team Camaro for some reason. But I'm looking into that as well.
http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/data/500/deck_stamp.jpg



http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/data/500/trim_tag1.jpg

It looks pretty good to me. The VIN is in line with the date of the car, I can still see the broach marks in the deck, The "I" 's in the date stamp are kosher, and being an early car, the VIN stamp on the pad is legitimate as well, as the location didn't change until December-ish. So all looks well.

If I'm judging that pad at a meet (which I do). It's good.

OK guys, thanks for the input. We are planning a road trip to check out the car and see it first hand, but everything looks right. I think he's good to go.:thumbsup:

First let me say I am no expert on engine pads. But from what I have read in Chevelle reports,specificaly engine pad stamps,the number 1(as shown here with the bar across the bottom) was incorrect in any application being vin derivative or date/stamp(for 68 and later vin derivative).The number 1 with no bar across the bottom was used as was the I.

First let me say I am no expert on engine pads. But from what I have read in Chevelle reports,specificaly engine pad stamps,the number 1(as shown here with the bar across the bottom) was incorrect in any application being vin derivative or date/stamp(for 68 and later vin derivative).The number 1 with no bar across the bottom was used as was the I.


I just went and looked at all the images I have of original VIN's on engine pads and all the 1's do not have the line at the bottom of the digit like this 1.

Hmm, that makes one wonder if this one is a real or restamp?

I would check down by the oil filter to see if another con vin is stamped there. Could be they match and the restorer do not know of that alternate location.

Here is one Norwood 69 Camaro image, I think you can see the 1 is different that the above photo.
http://www.synthetic-oil.com/images/con_vin.jpg

First let me say I am no expert on engine pads. But from what I have read in Chevelle reports,specificaly engine pad stamps,the number 1(as shown here with the bar across the bottom) was incorrect in any application being vin derivative or date/stamp(for 68 and later vin derivative).The number 1 with no bar across the bottom was used as was the I.

I'm no expert here either but, I have two 1969 Corvette 3963512 427 blocks and on both partial VIN's none of the 1's have the bar across the bottom.

I've been told that it's generally accepted in the 69 Z-28 world, that the number 1's in the engine plant numbers can look like a capitol I with the top and bottom bars. I thought it looked strange, but I've been assured it's common. In the Jerry MacNeish Camaro book, he has a sample of an original Z-28 DZ stamp with these 1's that look like a capitol I. I haven't seen the car yet, but will check out the oil filter area for a vin. The seller has been very up front about everything, so I wouldn't think there are any numbers he missed. He sent pics of everything, except the trans, which it said was not original. Thanks guys for the replys. After we check the car out, I'll report back. Here's a shot of the car. It also has the cowl hood which is incorrect for this Z-28...
http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/data/500/Z-28.jpg

Someone tell me I'm not crazy,but if I zoom in on that deck stamp I can clearly see below the 0 in the con vin, the numbers and letter 12T4. I cannot make out the numbers preceding or after.
What does it mean? I don't know.Nice lookin car by the way.Would it matter to me,nope. Buy it and enjoy it.

The right side of the 0 does appear to have less of an arc than the other side making it look like it is stamped over another digit.

I still think this is a re-stamp. Looking at a lot of con vin images I have, non of the 1's have a base to like this 1.

But if the experts all agree its OK, maybe they had to different sets of dies in use. Who knows?

Its not my money on the line. If the seller knows all about numbers, logic would tell you he may well know how to make them appear original. If you really are dead set on the car, ask the seller if he will sign a notarized document of some sort stating that he has not re-stamped any numbers etc, just to see what kind of reaction you get. If he balks, that may be a sign to proceed with caution.