This car looks like it was done nicely and appears to be the real deal. Item # 140225083799, Could someone link this up please. Thanks

link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140225083799&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fmotors.shop.ebay.com%3A80%2F__%3F_ from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm39%26_nkw%3D140225083799%2 6_nd1%3D%26submit.x%3D29%26submit.y%3D7%26_fvi%3D1

stunning car! :thumbsup:

Thanks Chris, one of these days I'll figure that part out.

My favourite 70 colour. I love it :eek:

that color is awesome!

Anybody remember this seller buying a 512 Block, and some "Stamps" off ebay and some discussions on an LS6 he sold shortly after?

Very nice car! However, the 7 in the stamp looks suspect.

Search posts by "showqualityone" and you'll find the controversy on an Ls6 previously sold.

My opinion, block is a restamp. If you want to know why, PM me.

Buildsheet is also Fake.
Mike

ShowQualityOne strikes again.

Buildsheet is also Fake.
Mike


Caught that eh Mike? Any 12A L78 would have to have been an XXX order as well.

yet another fake. A shame.

i know i heard recently, i can't remeber if i read it in a magazine or not.. but there are more GTO Judge's today (being advertised and sold as real Judge's) then were produced back originally, not even considering accidents and totalled out original Judge's over the years.

PHS has all the docs on the GTOs..You cant slide fake GTOs and Judges ..I sold a Sweet frame of 1970 Ls6 cars that had the correct drive train for the year but no paper work and I never claimed it was an original. Theres a lot of people that want one but cant afford an original..If anybody wants more pics of the L78 or close ups of the Build sheet just hit the ebay link and send me an email....The build sheet is as original as they come..You wanna see a repo build sheet and ill show you the differance..I am in the process of writing a hand book on how to help tell the differance between Chevelle Malibus and Chevelle SSs but it will only state facts that will help the buyer ..As knowbody knows everything about Chevelles.... And as somebody said they read something about an XXX that apparenty means nothing to this L78 car.It maybe only certain plants used it...Heres a perfect example... How come only Kansas built cars had a L or LW in the last line in the cowl tag and they were all SS cars as Malibus didnt have the L or LW ???? Also some builds sheets had the motor size in the lower boxes of the sheet and some didnt...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=140225083799&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT&ih=004

PHS has all the docs on the GTOs..You cant slide fake GTOs and Judges ..I sold a Sweet frame of 1970 Ls6 cars that had the correct drive train for the year but no paper work and I never claimed it was an original. Theres a lot of people that want one but cant afford an original..If anybody wants more pics of the L78 or close ups of the Build sheet just hit the ebay link and send me an email....The build sheet is as original as they come..You wanna see a repo build sheet and ill show you the differance..I am in the process of writing a hand book on how to help tell the differance between Chevelle Malibus and Chevelle SSs but it will only state facts that will help the buyer ..As knowbody knows everything about Chevelles.... And as somebody said they read something about an XXX that apparenty means nothing to this L78 car.It maybe only certain plants used it...Heres a perfect example... How come only Kansas built cars had a L or LW in the last line in the cowl tag and they were all SS cars as Malibus didnt have the L or LW ???? Also some builds sheets had the motor size in the lower boxes of the sheet and some didnt...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=140225083799&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT&ih=004


Nice car!!! Do all L-78s have the TCS code on the build sheet?

Nice car. Paint it red and you're good to go. Like everything else buyer be ware.

Caught that eh Mike? Any 12A L78 would have to have been an XXX order as well.

Not sure why you think that..????

That is absolutly incorrect...

Just because some of the late sheets which have surfaced show "customer order" doesn't mean ALL late cars built would have been or even HAD to be....The "Richmond memo" dated 10-30-69 (going off memeory of the date as I don't have it in front of me) simply says the option has been canceled...it DOESN'T say only customer ordered cars will be built..If you are using info we talked about as the basis for your post..I simply said the factory would have made efforts to build "customer ordered" cars as a priority over "stocked" units during the wind down of an option

So to say a 12A L78 HAS to be a customer ordered car is not correct and shouldn't be publicly stated...especially when there is a possiblitly a real deal late L78 could surface and someone might read this thread and take your post as a fact. The "xxx customer order" on a sheet means absolutly nothing to whether a car is real...

BTW...I spoke to Harry at length last week....he wasn't aware of the previous history of the car...You should ammend your post on the SYC as it too isn't factual.

Respectfully

Greg

Specifically Speaking. Chevrolet would not Accept the Order for Dealer Stock since the Option had Been Cancelled. Therefore It would have to go thru Zone and be a Customer Special Order. Which would be on a Van Nuys Built Chevelle, Build Sheet.
Mike

Specifically Speaking. Chevrolet would not Accept the Order for Dealer Stock since the Option had Been Cancelled. Therefore It would have to go thru Zone and be a Customer Special Order. Which would be on a Van Nuys Built Chevelle.
Mike


Not entirely true...If an order was placed AFTER the cancelation of the option..ie: in this case 10-30...the option wouldn't have accepted either way...stock or customer order. The purpose of the memo was to alert dealers that no further ordering of the option would be accepted.

If an order was placed before the cancelation of the option as a stocked unit and the car was process it would have been assembled...and the sheet wouldn't show a "xxx"

Going off memory again..I believe the memo states the option has been canceled and no further ordering is possible...The orders in process at that point would have been built, as long as sufficent engines were available..anything after 10-30 would have been returned as a canceled option and if it was a customer ordered unit the person would have to accepted a L34,LS5, or LS6

It is ASSUMED that the late L78's are all customer ordered cars, as Chevrolet would have allocated those ordered cars a higher priority, but it isn't a given that ALL late L78's had to be customer ordered cars.

Either way an order placed and accepted say 10-29-69 or 10-25-69 could have been built 12A or even 12B and still have been a non "xxx" coded sheet...

Guys I have to chime in because when I see this kind of deception it just makes me appreciate what my awesome all original LS6 with ALL the original docs means to me and the hobby. I met a lot of great Chevelle folks out at Vette Fest a couple of weeks ago and this kind of stuff only makes it so important to be educated before buying and realize the almighty dollar is what drives a lot of folks to try and BS the rest of us. Needed that rant.:D

Hi Greg,
Since you apparentely have appointed yourself keeper of the facts regarding these,please allow me to reply to your diatribe-

Your statement
"The "Richmond memo" dated 10-30-69 (going off memeory of the date as I don't have it in front of me) simply says the option has been canceled.."

Not factual,it states verbatim "Is in process" not "has" been cancelled.Since someone might read this and take that as fact you should amend YOUR post.
As far as your theory that a 12A car was anything but a customer order, I will amend my post when you provide a real sheet to vaidate that assumption. As you are well aware the only 12A sheets known are XXX ,just like all the 12C LS6 are too. Until you provide facts to support your hypothesis,it remains just that.

The seller came on here and stated,

"I am in the process of writing a hand book on how to help tell the differance between Chevelle Malibus and Chevelle SSs but it will only state facts that will help the buyer"

Well now see how heaven plans? you two could collaborate on THE definitve chevelle facts manual!.Funny thing is your defending a car that even the seller won't address the concerns with the block stamping and sheet..

Just keepin it real..and by the way since you chose this forum instead of a pm let me add the car will never be for sale back to you,at any price,at least while I own it.

Respectfully,
The current owner of the pilot LS6 car.

i have always said its a shame theses guys trying to pass off a real deal with a fake. but that being said wow what a nice car . he spent all lot of money on this car real or not. the issue is who can and will you believe any more. how many people can spot the wrong font on a stamp. ive been studying all you guys post on chevelle for 3 years now i cant tell this font was wrong or this built sheet is fake. some of you kept it a secret i under stand why though. but still its great to have the chevelle police here. imho i would email a question about the authenticity of this car on the ebay question section to alert so people if your confident that this car is indeed a fake l 78.

let me add the car will never be for sale back to you,at any price,at least while I own it.

Respectfully,
The current owner of the pilot LS6 car.

If you want my honest opinion, and it is just that, and we all know what that's worth, having the pilot car restored is a big mistake. That car is so important to the history of the LS6 that it deserves to stay in it's present condition.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Not meant in any way other than that. :yes:

Back to the L78 in question....doesn't matter who ordered it, dealer, or customer, the sheet indeed looks real. If it's a fake, they've got it down pat. :o The block is the questionable part of the deal.

Wow this post reminds me of the LS6 I busted on ebay last month.... Its your turn guys go get em....I am sitting back and drinking the beer and eating popcorn this time...:beers::D

Hi Greg,
Since you apparentely have appointed yourself keeper of the facts regarding these,please allow me to reply to your diatribe-

Your statement
"The "Richmond memo" dated 10-30-69 (going off memeory of the date as I don't have it in front of me) simply says the option has been canceled.."

Not factual,it states verbatim "Is in process" not "has" been cancelled.Since someone might read this and take that as fact you should amend YOUR post.
As far as your theory that a 12A car was anything but a customer order, I will amend my post when you provide a real sheet to vaidate that assumption. As you are well aware the only 12A sheets known are XXX ,just like all the 12C LS6 are too. Until you provide facts to support your hypothesis,it remains just that.

The seller came on here and stated,

"I am in the process of writing a hand book on how to help tell the differance between Chevelle Malibus and Chevelle SSs but it will only state facts that will help the buyer"

Well now see how heaven plans? you two could collaborate on THE definitve chevelle facts manual!.Funny thing is your defending a car that even the seller won't address the concerns with the block stamping and sheet..

Just keepin it real..and by the way since you chose this forum instead of a pm let me add the car will never be for sale back to you,at any price,at least while I own it.

Respectfully,
The current owner of the pilot LS6 car.

You know Mark...I never said I was anything....you did

What I have always said was this...unless something can be proven with FACTUAL data it shouldn't be assumed..If you really want to get down to brass tacks..here goes..

1) IMO you are really a "johnny come lately" who had some cash to buy a car....that is it...IMO you didn't really know a lot about the LS6's, the past history of the values of the LS6 cars, which expalins why you didn't know the cars were selling for 70k-80k in the late '80's, or the musclecar market in general...What you have posted about LS6's and specifically the "pilot car" was stuff that was posted previously either by me or someone else...You have posted stuff about the early cars, LS5's, LS6's, L78's, etc..yet it is all regurgatated...Please go do alittle research and offer something new to the table...

2) You have already assumed the "pilot" LS6 is the definitive 1st car..which I find funny...maybe it is and maybe it isn't...no way to prove it either way...

3) You have demostrated you aren't really interested in the actual history of that car, as you have posted non-factual stuff on the net about it..Specifically about the condition of the car as found...it wasn't original paint as you posted on the SYC..no matter what Harry says...and I spoke to him after we talked about it.. and his recollection of the conversation wasn't exactly as yours was..Per our (you and me)conversation after your post...the car was clipped in the front end..hence the late CI hood..hence the black GM primer fenders, etc..I'm not sure how you would make that post, even if Harry said it was..as YOU have the pics of the car when it was stripped and can clearly see the body work in the drivers door and the brazed in patches on the quarters..When was the last time someone brazed in sheetmetal?? Try the '70's or early '80's..When the car was repainted....The engine apparently had been out as the crank was a cast crank with 3/8 rods, and I believe 30 over already...Yet you don't ammend your post..and would rather have non factual info out there..

4) Harry owned the car, nothing else....He didn't research the owners, track down the zone rep, original owner, or past owners...I did..so I probably know alittle more about its' history than he does with respect to what was done to the car...I never had a problem telling you this stuff..yet you never asked...

5) As far as the "p" marking you posted a pic with at 'vettefest....the inference is nice...but do you know it stands for anything....Do you know who put it there? the answer is "no" ...yet I've heard from 2 different people you are claiming it stands for "pilot."

6) Not for nothing..but I've owned the car twice already..and sold it twice..the first time in '96 and then to you in '05..The first time through Hemmings..which was the best way then..the second after all of the "earliest" stuf was on here and through the 'net...on the SYC site (the "heavy hitter" site). Both times ALL the stuff you have for documentation I had...Universally everyone says "cool" or "neat"..but a universal "cool" doesn't equate to a "I'll buy it.." As it is green and an auto, and contrary to what you think..and I thought at the time honestly...POSSIBLY being the first, means nothing to 95% of the people out there...

This is the very reason 6 months ago when we spoke and you casually mentioned if someone offered you what you had in the car (about 90k give or take) you'd sell it...and again not for nothing I've owned it twice and would be the logicaly choice..I passed..and it isn't from a lack of funds...as it isn't worth what someone will have in the car..nor is it worth where you are in the car as it sits....Alittle known fact when I sold it in 2005..you were the ONLY guy even in the 80's (I was asking 85k) as most everyone was in the 70's...So either you will look like a hero or a zero...and judging from what you'll have it when done and the market...I'm betting zero..another case of someone with alittle too much money and not enough education...

Also did you ever wonder why the car didn't sell in 2003 when I listed it on here for 65k??? A lot of guys here..on the Chevelle site..the logical place to get a knowleddgable Chevelle buyer... saying "neat..a pilot car" or "I know it is the earliest as of yet" ...but no buyers....Why do you think it went on the SYC site??? Maybe marketing on my part????

As far as you not selling me the car...Do you honestly think if I want the car back I'd directly come to you and say so?? How about a proxy buyer??? That way my history with the car stays out of your decision....and more importantly pricing...

Didn't you just prove my point...if the option was in process..again I don't have the memo handy...then a stocked unit could have been built which negates your original post...BTW...you should really go back and re-read some of the previous late L78 stuff as I believe one of the sheets which are used isn't even a 12A car..it is for a cowl tag of 12B..As far as ALL 12C LS6's being customer ordered cars...I'd be real careful with that one as I've seen an Atlanta car with 12C and it is stock order..

The whole point of this was to point out "xxx" means nothing as to whether a buildsheet is real...From what I can see the sheet looks righteous..and again I'm just going from memeory as I don't have access at the moment to my research literature..You showed your ignorance of the topic with your post and basically proved my points...

BTW..I wasn't defending his claims or his car...just proving a point that your post was BS and that you really need to go get a clue...

Also I love your "sound biting" of my post where you conviently omit I stated I was going off memory on the actual verbage...guess that didn't help your point...

If you want my honest opinion, and it is just that, and we all know what that's worth, having the pilot car restored is a big mistake. That car is so important to the history of the LS6 that it deserves to stay in it's present condition.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Not meant in any way other than that. :yes:




Dave,
The car is/was not in unmolested conditon,far from it actually as i'm guessing you might have thought based on that statement. It got an amateur level frame on years ago,the car had been in a big hit, the frame is tweaked,pitted,and the pan is soft. The color shade is incorrect,and the engine finishing hardware looks to have been purchased at the local ACE hardware. High #3 low# 2 driver at best. In present condition hardly representative of such a historically significant car. It needs to be gone through from top to bottom and made 100% period correct.That's why Rick Nelson is giving it a to the letter frame off. Suffice it to say if it had been anywhere near original it would have been left that way and i could have saved a lot of coin. That option was removed quite a few years ago.
Cheers


And Greg,as far as the Johnny come lately tag i owned these in the seventies when YOU were pooping mustard.

Do you ever wonder why you have been kicked off most forums?

Do you ever wonder why i didn't mention I owned this car for nearly three years?. Because I wanted it to stand on it's own, and it was guilt by association when your name was mentioned.

Do you even enjoy this hobby, or just need the attention by pontificating to anyone who will listen?

You have issues brother,the least of which is not having spellcheck. Two people em'ed me and bet you would respond with at least a twelve page rambling retort,well guess your not done yet but i most certainly am.

Dave,
The car is/was not in unmolested conditon,far from it actually as i'm guessing you might have thought based on that statement. It got an amateur level frame on years ago,the car had been in a big hit, the frame is tweaked,pitted,and the pan is soft. The color shade is incorrect,and the engine finishing hardware looks to have been purchased at the local ACE hardware. High #3 low# 2 driver at best. In present condition hardly representative of such a historically significant car. It needs to be gone through from top to bottom and made 100% period correct.That's why Rick Nelson is giving it a to the letter frame off. Suffice it to say if it had been anywhere near original it would have been left that way and i could have saved a lot of coin. That option was removed quite a few years ago.
Cheers


And Greg,as far as the Johnny come lately tag i owned these in the seventies when YOU were pooping mustard.

Do you ever wonder why you have been kicked off most forums?

Do you ever wonder why i didn't mention I owned this car for nearly three years?. Because I wanted it to stand on it's own, and it was guilt by association when your name was mentioned.

Do you even enjoy this hobby, or just need the attention by pontificating to anyone who will listen?

You have issues brother,the least of which is not having spellcheck. Two people em'ed me and bet you would respond with at least a twelve page rambling retort,well guess your not done yet but i most certainly am.


Mark,

As far as being kicked off any sites..well it is only 1..and we all know why that was..So I'm not sure why you posted "forumns"...maybe 1 means multiples in CA????

The biggest problem I have with you is you haven't a clue...and never will...It is funny how on one site you say one thing and on another something else...You make a post without any knowledge and then when checked on it you get a crappy attitude,clam up, or refuse to admit you're wrong...You spout off about how you want the complete history of the car known, how it deserves the "full monte" etc..Yet your facts are all wrong and your history...or rather lack of the history shows your ignorance.

Case in point..your post on the SYC about the condition of the "pilot" car when Harry found it..you wrote the car was found in original paint and was basically an untouched car..yet now the frame is bent and pitted?? How many cars from the NE have you owned??? The frames usually have scale from the salt..but apparently you don't know this??? When was the car hit??? Was that after HS found it????

Did you ever ask me what the history was of the car..."no"...Might it have made sense to ask the person who whether you, your restorer, or whomever else doesn't like it..DID the legwork and found the people and history of the car? I'd love to see you say it was hit when I owned it...or I was the one who changed the hood or brazed in the panels..I tried to explain the history of the car..but ANYTHING coming from me you apparently want to distance yourself from...So you put BS info out there on, as you put it..a "historical car??" That makes sense..

Why don't you post the pics from the album I gave you...Let's let everyone see the car...the condition when I bought it, the car stripped to bare metal...the car afterwards..Why not get Harry to post, the guy I sold it to in '96..the guy who owned the Astro Blue auto, and is from NJ who looked at the car in MD in '95..before I did anything to it...Since now I sold you a car which by your post appears to be "cobbled" up..you had better hope I don't have those pics...

I used to enjoy the hobby a lot...until I started meeting guys like yourself...and as far as ponitification..."no" I don't really care about seeing my name in or attached to anything...especially something which by your account I've tainted...So please return any personal correspondence to me attached to that car..it isn't yours..you want a letter from someone...get them to email something to you..

I would just appreciate if you could tell the truth...and take a sec to learn and not spin stuff to fit your needs or agenda...then again you have the right restorer for that...Truth be told I like RP more..at least that guy doesn't send BS emails telling me how he had to defend me to everyone like I'm his "pet project" and isn't a fair weather friend...When he thinks he might get a resto out of the deal..

The biggest problem I have Mark is had I known that the guy I passed on a neat car to be the next "caretaker" of, was like you are...you would never have gotten the car in the first place...That is my regret...A car I invested a lot of passion in, a lot of time devoted to learning more about, etc...gets relegated to you..I must say you are a much better salesman as you sold me on the idea you were the right guy to entrust the car to...Boy was I apparently wrong..

Good luck restoring a car (wait...you are paying someone to do that for you...) and more importantly for you...MARKETING a car you obviously know all about....

BTW..while I've never said spelling was a strong suit..at least I know the story and history of your "historically significant" car...more than I can say for you there English major...BTW..shouldn't you capitalize " i ?"

greg 2001 man you sold a car to someone in 2005 got 85k and your bitching at him . over what if this car is the first ls6. well is it did you say it was when you sold it. or is this the claim the new owner is saying and now your kicking your self .

I personnally would have stayed out of this one. That dosent sound like something even remotely close to what that discussion is about.

Hey Mark...let it be buddy. We can talk about it over beers sometime. The reason that I got out of this hobby years ago were because of people like GC above. They are never wrong...and have about as much tact as a used up piece of sandpaper.

I don't blame you for not posting that you had the car for as long as you did...as eventually this type of situation would come up somewhere...on one of the forums...With GC, it always does.

I mean now that he can't bitch about TC's former car...what CAN he complain about?

It's great that Rick is doing the restoration...he does awesome work!:hurray:


Mark, let me know when you are in town...dinner and drinks are on me. BTW, bring that Bart guy with you, too!:beers:

Bruce
________________
Former owner of quite a few cars...but I don't advertise it 3 years later:D

Mark I'm only sorry I didn't realize the genius of your knowledge earlier...

Random thoughts...

money green leather sofas

red and black lumberjack

CREAM

my uzi weighs a ton

OPP

Akagi, Soryu, Kaga, Hiryu, Zuikaku, and Shokaku

and we should all just get along...life is too short

Enjoy your car...

Ibtl

So you see Snooky 1225, Showqualityone slid well under the Radar with the L78 after all. :D

There's always a happy ending and a Silver lining in every cloud.

Getting back to the original topic...


Can either 1 of the 2 people who claimed the buildsheet fake explain why they feel that way? I am curious but so far I don't see anything in that pic (maybe you guys have different pics of the sheet) which would make me say that...especially after just looking at a sort of fuzzy Ebay pic..

I've looked at other Van Nuys sheets and so far I don't see anything which would make me claim the car itself was a fake..I would hope someone wouldn't make such a harsh claim just based on an assumption, as that would be pretty irresponsible..

Unfortunatly someone who is going to bid might read all of this and think otherwise..and if I was the owner of the car, I'd be PO'd..especially if someone previously made comments about the car being nice, and possibly the last L78 at Van Nuys and then claims the car isn't real...

Trying to keep the topic at hand..does anyone see anything on the sheet they don't like??

That is one reason it is better to keep your stuff to yourself. There are plenty of fakes out there. If you were gonna buy it let an expert check it out will be well worth the money. I have done it many times. I am by no means an "expert" but will pay somebody to verify a car. All this personal crap gets old and just has destroyed alot of the hobby enthusiasm. I mean how many of us really know what an exact chevelle should have a certain paint mark we could go on and on this is not correct I see a few things wrong man gets tiresome. I do not agree with someone spending there hard earned money and then being scammed that is wrong. I have had many chevelles with and without buildsheets. But I did my homework so I would not get hurt. Keep it real.

Sean

The RPO verbage looks good (how the options are written out), the VIN is inline with known end of month numbers, the overall appearance of the codes looks good, the font looks good, the option designators (the #, -, etc) look good and appear to be correct with other sheets..

I would question the engine stamping, as I'd have to see other examples to readily accept that...but IMO the sheet looks good to go and truthfully someone who knows what they are doing and has the right block can make an engine stamp look undetectable anyway..it is the buildsheet someone is buying for documenting...

IMO, limited as it is...I'd have to say it looks like a legit sheet...

Someone might want to issue a public apology if the general consensus here is legit sheet....

Nice car!!! Do all L-78s have the TCS code on the build sheet?
Couldt say on TCS if they all do....But this one definitly does.

Hi Greg,
Sounds like your up on you cars..Anybodys that ever looked at a real build sheet and repo build sheet there not even close to looking the same..The biggest detection on the repo is the vin# fonts.You can detect that even with bad pic of the sheet.Ive seen dozens of real build sheets and have had many of my own..I dont believe there is any way to fool a guy that knows his stuff.It would just like making fake money.You can get close but never exact..Its like a finger print..No two people on the plantet have the same 2 finger prints.Gm had printed thousands of build sheets with the same machine and even if you fired up the same printer I bet you still couldnt get them to look the same as the original...An also how do you make new paper look the same as brittle 38 year old paper ..Myth Busters even tried aging paper with no success.....

The RPO verbage looks good (how the options are written out), the VIN is inline with known end of month numbers, the overall appearance of the codes looks good, the font looks good, the option designators (the #, -, etc) look good and appear to be correct with other sheets..

I would question the engine stamping, as I'd have to see other examples to readily accept that...but IMO the sheet looks good to go and truthfully someone who knows what they are doing and has the right block can make an engine stamp look undetectable anyway..it is the buildsheet someone is buying for documenting...

IMO, limited as it is...I'd have to say it looks like a legit sheet...

Someone might want to issue a public apology if the general consensus here is legit sheet....

Interesting
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1436317#post1436317 (http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1436317#post1436317)

Why should anyone feel compelled to issue an apology to a disengenous person?. The block is a restamp, you can buy trim tags and sheets like this one.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1969-70-71-CHEVELLE-MALIBU-BUILD-SHEET-Broadcast-Sheet_W0QQitemZ150236914865QQihZ005QQcategoryZ4260 6QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1969-70-71-CHEVELLE-MALIBU-BUILD-SHEET-Broadcast-Sheet_W0QQitemZ150236914865QQihZ005QQcategoryZ4260 6QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)

Not surprising why the seller has posted on here and not tried to set the record straight. I have never heard of anything but a Baltimore built Dec L78, and why would you want to give the benefit of doubt to someone with such a shady track record.

I think the general consenus here is where there's smoke there's fire. Please don't point out the faults on the sheet, those that know the difference shouldn't want to make it any easier for these crooks than it already is.

The previous car sold in question was a "numbers matching" Kansas LS6 136370K177730 without the "L" on the cowl tag.

This is not a personal attack. This is posting a fact. The car in question was a triple black 4 Speed and was obviously restamped, but sold as numbers matching.

I do not have the skill without referance, to exclaim without doubt, that this Van Nuy's L78 is restamped, I am more familiar with Kansas Fonts and can not find examples of Van nuys posted for referance, but past practice dictates that caution be excercised as prior restamped vehicles have been sold by this E-bay member.

I emailed this seller explaining the irregularities in the Kansas Stampings and explained that there was no "L" on the cowl tag. I advised him to state these irregularities in the questions section, so buyers could weigh in the facts prior to purchasing the "numbers matching" Ls6.

His response was that he has owned several "numbers matching" Kansas SS's without the "L" and did not revise the listing, rather continued to ask additional questions regarding the possibilities, of a very late L78.

And Sorry Snooky1225, this isn't a personal attack, these are the facts regarding the previously sold LS6, as I recall them.

In the correct thread to boot.

God Bless.

man, when did discussions about cars turn into; 'well, the buidsheet should show a RPO blah, blah, blah, unless of course the woman in van nuys typing it was having a tummy ache in which case sometimes it's just blank because....'

Interesting
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1436317#post1436317 (http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1436317#post1436317)

Why should anyone feel compelled to issue an apology to a disengenous person?. The block is a restamp, you can buy trim tags and sheets like this one.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1969-70-71-CHEVELLE-MALIBU-BUILD-SHEET-Broadcast-Sheet_W0QQitemZ150236914865QQihZ005QQcategoryZ4260 6QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1969-70-71-CHEVELLE-MALIBU-BUILD-SHEET-Broadcast-Sheet_W0QQitemZ150236914865QQihZ005QQcategoryZ4260 6QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)

Not surprising why the seller has posted on here and not tried to set the record straight. I have never heard of anything but a Baltimore built Dec L78, and why would you want to give the benefit of doubt to someone with such a shady track record.

I think the general consenus here is where there's smoke there's fire. Please don't point out the faults on the sheet, those that know the difference shouldn't want to make it any easier for these crooks than it already is.

Not to be tooting my own horn here...BUT..if you go back to the archives from 2001-2003..I'm the one who was doing the majority of the late L78 Chevelle research as it directly related to the transition to the LS6. And the majority of info on this site and consequently taken as "gospel" in the community..I was directly involved with..Another words the info guys regurgatate here, was largley a product of my endeavors and desire to establish a more definitive understanding of the transitions..Sure Mark Meekins and others were looking at things, but it was largely a result of me buying the "pilot" LS6 for a second time in 2001 and joining here that the "ball got rolling again." I was also doing this research back in 1994/1995, when I owned the "pilot" car the first time as well..

It was Kevin Bierman (sp?) and myself who first proposed the hypothesis on the dual RPO codes (Z15 and Z25) shown on some of the late L78 cars, and with Kevin's 12-8 sheet which didn't show the dual codes we thought we had came "full circle." As far the assumptions that Baltimore got ALL of the late L78's..it is just an assumption...NOT a fact...That is an important point.

The research I/we were doing was certainly centered around 1 area, and the data does tend to support that thought...but the important thing to remember with the L78/LS6 timeline is ALL of the plants were producing the cars (LS6) at about the same time...Therefore it IS possible for a late L78 to have been built at another plant..as per Mattison's emailed letter to me(which someone should get their own copy..) the LS6's were built at their respective plants when production began...and I believe the LS6 at Van nuys was only a day or 2 after Baltimore..

We surmized Baltimore was the last plant producing L78's as the close distance to Tonawanda, the dual codes, and the fact that the sheets we had for late cars were all Baltimore cars..BUT and this is a BIG BUT....there isn't any proof of this...

The intriguing thing about this L78 presented here..is the fact the sheet appears correct, based on the 1 pic from Ebay and the info I have on Van Nuys sheets...I agree the source might be suspect..I can't speak on that as I don't know the guy or the other situation...but just because someone did something we don't agree with or is suspect..doesn't mean THIS is the case here...it warrants further investigation...

The thing that really gets me is how some guys have taken what I KNOW are assumptions..and NOT facts at all...ie: the L78/LS6 timelines, the "pilot" LS6 being the first..(might be...then again might not be if an earlier VIN came along...;) the fact ALL late L78's were built at Baltimore, etc.. and accepted this stuff as FACT...it is my own research...not theirs (they haven't done anything to further the info)..and I DON'T EVEN DO THAT....

If this cars' sheet is legit..what message have certain people sent??? They have already discredited this car based on what???? An assumption??? and not even their assumption to boot...

Like I stated..this sheet needs to be further looked at..IMO it is possible there is another avenue to explore..maybe it is real..maybe it isn't...but for guys to take assumptions, which they didn't even have anything to do with and state them as a fact is wrong and quite honestly is a dis-service to the hobby...Until plant records, GM records, etc..come out (if they ever surface..doubtful)...ALL of this is stuff is/are merely assumptions and hypothesis'...nothing more



Respectfully...

I think the sheet is dead balls on and real, the stamp is another issue. That's all I have to say, I thought this car was very nice and that's why I started this thread, not to down play anyones car. Here's a picture of another Van Nuys stamp, can anyone tell the difference? P. S. this isn't my stamp yet, but may be shortly!

Here's the build sheet, can anyone tell me what color the car is ?

For comparison purposes. Tonawanda stamp of 136370L151545 on left. Known original on right.

Thanks Mike

Here's the build sheet, can anyone tell me what color the car is ?

I CAN I CAN!! ;) :yes:

Very rare. :)

I CAN I CAN!! ;) :yes:

Very rare. :)

You don't count, this is supposed to be fair!!! No insider trading!!!:thumbsup:

How about me? ;)

How about me? ;)

Yeah, your another one! Let the rest have a crack at it!!!;)

Ok you clowns:D

Ok you clowns:D

I knew someone was missing, your still up this late???

Hi Greg,
Since you apparentely have appointed yourself keeper of the facts regarding these,please allow me to reply to your diatribe-

Your statement
"The "Richmond memo" dated 10-30-69 (going off memeory of the date as I don't have it in front of me) simply says the option has been canceled.."

Not factual,it states verbatim "Is in process" not "has" been cancelled.Since someone might read this and take that as fact you should amend YOUR post.
As far as your theory that a 12A car was anything but a customer order, I will amend my post when you provide a real sheet to vaidate that assumption. As you are well aware the only 12A sheets known are XXX ,just like all the 12C LS6 are too. Until you provide facts to support your hypothesis,it remains just that.

The seller came on here and stated,

"I am in the process of writing a hand book on how to help tell the differance between Chevelle Malibus and Chevelle SSs but it will only state facts that will help the buyer"

Well now see how heaven plans? you two could collaborate on THE definitve chevelle facts manual!.Funny thing is your defending a car that even the seller won't address the concerns with the block stamping and sheet..

Just keepin it real..and by the way since you chose this forum instead of a pm let me add the car will never be for sale back to you,at any price,at least while I own it.

Respectfully,
The current owner of the pilot LS6 car.

QUOTE..


"As far as your theory that a 12A car was anything but a customer order, I will amend my post when you provide a real sheet to vaidate that assumption. As you are well aware the only 12A sheets known are XXX ,just like all the 12C LS6 are too. Until you provide facts to support your hypothesis,it remains just that."

Baltimore L78 buildsheet dated 12-04 VIN 126084...You don't have that one I guess...BTW..it is a 12B cowl tag....although the car was discussed on this site..BEFORE you probably ever thought about owning a collectible Chevelle....Like I stated maybe you should go back and re-read the stuff I and others posted..the info which was being done on this site..long before you had a LS6, and long before you were even looking into this sort of stuff...The very stuff you now try to reference and post from some "expert" opinion anytime someone has an early car and it is discussed...The VERY same info that YOU THINK makes you some sort of authority..I and others were looking into when you were still trying to figure out other areas to put your money in...Simply because you own some car, doesn't give you the right to un fairly critique another car, nor make definitve post about ASSUMPTIONS, which might or might not be anything.., especially ones you had nothing to do with...

I think you and MB owe the guy whose car you called fake in this thread, a public apology...the sheet looks legit from what I can see..and at the very least if you didn't like it for some reason...you should have kept your "mouths" shut as you didn't represent the facts with your post....And Bruce...let's see who admits when they are wrong???? Typical "other site..." slam someones car without knowing all the facts...

I've never claimed to be an authority...on anything...and I'm NOT one...but I know and it can be shown by using the archives here and elsewhere..I and others WERE looking into this stuff as early as 1995 (care to share the letter from BE?).

I'll try to post a copy of the sheet if someone wants to see it...it isn't the best copy, but shows NO "xxx customer order"

Respectfully

somone with a clue

Just keeping it real....

It's a shame that such a "potentially" historically significant, L78 was clouded with a restamping of the Block and that the E-bay listing continues to run with a description of "all Numbers matching".

It's a shame that such a "potentially" historically significant, L78 was clouded with a restamping of the Block and that the E-bay listing continues to run with a description of "all Numbers matching".


I agree...the car appears to be a glimsp into an area that wasn't explored earlier..simply because the sheets people saw were Baltimore sheets...It isn't the last L78, but does show other plants appear to have been building them late..Hopefully the owner of the car will correct his ad to reflect the engine...

I agree John...

..Hopefully the owner of the car will correct his ad to reflect the engine...

I doubt if he will step up to the plate on that one, he didn't on the LS6 he advertised before.
Too bad, really, because the car is real, it's the block that isn't legit. :thumbsup:

Here's the build sheet, can anyone tell me what color the car is ?

And the color is????

For comparison purposes. Tonawanda stamp of 136370L151545 on left. Known original on right.

Thanks Mike

So are ya'll saying that you think every single Tonawanda block stamp are exactly alike? :confused:

So are ya'll saying that you think every single Tonawanda block stamp are exactly alike? :confused:No, But the letter "C" and "0" should look like the ones on the the right side block stamp. Look closely you will figure it out.:yes:

I saw that little difference but again are you saying that ALL stampings are always exactly the same?

They never used any other stamps in all the years that they made engines??

The Chevelle's will eventually go the route of the Corvettes, as the stampers will eventually get so good there will be no choice but to surrender.

But for now, all you have are the subtle little nuances that are wrong, as compared to all the available examples of Tonawanda stamps in 1970.

That subtle little nuance, says that a different font Stamp was used that is typical of Tonawanda in 1970.

Couple this with the sellers past history of selling restamps, lack of effort to argue to the contrary, and you draw your own conclusions.

I don't know that I'd point out every little anomoly that flags it as a restamp as you can guarentee, the stampers are highly motivated to learn the same information.

Once they master it, it means the next LS6 on the block goes under the radar, and somebody is frauded out of $100K for a "Numbers matching" specimen.

What is disclosed here, will certainly be used fraudulently.

The Chevelle's will eventually go the route of the Corvettes, as the stampers will eventually get so good there will be no choice but to surrender.

But for now, all you have are the subtle little nuances that are wrong, as compared to all the available examples of Tonawanda stamps in 1970.

That subtle little nuance, says that a different font Stamp was used that is typical of Tonawanda in 1970.

Couple this with the sellers past history of selling restamps, lack of effort to argue to the contrary, and you draw your own conclusions.

I don't know that I'd point out every little anomoly that flags it as a restamp as you can guarentee, the stampers are highly motivated to learn the same information.

Once they master it, it means the next LS6 on the block goes under the radar, and somebody is frauded out of $100K for a "Numbers matching" specimen.

What is disclosed here, will certainly be used fraudulently.


100k fake....scares the hell out of me! :(

..........
But for now, all you have are the subtle little nuances that are wrong, as compared to all the available examples of Tonawanda stamps in 1970.

That subtle little nuance, says that a different font Stamp was used that is typical of Tonawanda in 1970.



Sorry but I'm still curious. :D

How do you know "that a different font Stamp was used that is typical of Tonawanda in 1970."

Did you work there or is this something that has been passed down from person to person from someone who did work there and knew for sure that only one type font was ever used?

I'm not questioning the fact that only one font was used or not, heck I don't know and don't really care but I'm just curious to find out where the information originally came from.
I mean, if anyone knows for sure that only one font was used, who told them?

And the color is????

The color on this 70 Chevelle was special ordered 69 LeMans Blue.

So are ya'll saying that you think every single Tonawanda block stamp are exactly alike? :confused:

Yes. There are nuances in different dates and years, but compared to dates that I have that are very close to this one, all have the same fonts, especially the "C". :yes:

Not only does Tonawanda have nuances, typical expected wearing, and certain Fonts which are typical, but each assembly Plant has typical nuances of how they stamped as well as independantly used fonts in some cases.

There are also typical Broach marks that can be identified that is atypical of what is used today for decking.

There is also typical time frames, from low horse and high horse time lags between Tonawanda and Plant assembly times.

There are also anomolies that are expected and acceptable in some cases, such as the use of an "I" in place of a "1" in "certain" predictable scenarios.

You have thousands of yearly examples of stampings for every Plant, and every year to compare in addition to the common broach marks of the Era.

There are variations expected such as gang stamping versus hand stamping in predictable assembly plants in known varying years.

You should also verify the casting date of the block to ensure it does in fact preceed the Tonawanda Assembly stamp. Many restamps use whatever blocks they have available without having the luxery of a correctly lagged dated block.


I have much to learn myself, and can spot typicaly only the more obvious incorrect Fonts and broaches.

Others here such as Dave, have spent far more time studying these nuances and can spot even the most subtle inconsistancies.


Having the absolute correct Font, as typical of the time and plant, will give away the majority of the restamps as the exact Fonts are not readily, and easily available.

I'm beginning to sound like Abbott and Costello's Who's on first so I won't keep asking the same question over and over. :D

And here I thought I was being thourough and forthcoming. :D

You were John!:beers::thumbsup:

Well maybe so and it went over my head. :(

Like I said, I'm not into the numbers thing myself, just curious.
HOWEVER, the numbers on my engine is the only proof that my 69 is a real SS but I really wouldn't care all that much if it was home brewed.

Now I'm thinking that maybe nobody really knows FOR SURE that more than one font was ever used, they just repeat what other people have said before them.

Now I'm thinking that maybe nobody really knows FOR SURE that more than one font was ever used, they just repeat what other people have said before them.

I'd agree that the only thing we can FOR SURE Guarentee in life is Death.

And that it's more a matter of red Flags and reasonable doubt than it is whether one letter proves without question, that it's restamped.

In this case, the Fonts on (2) letters don't match which raises a Red Flag and a significant doubt.

Upon closer inspection of the broach mark, it would likely collaborate the doubt if the stamp isn't original.

I'm sure if the seller cleaned off the paint, and posted a very high quality Close-up of the Pad in a Macro setting, it could easily be determined.

I know if I was reading this thread about my car I would be very motivated to learn the truth and post a high Def picture ;)

Nothing wrong with playing Devil's advocate Dean, but the lack of interest by the seller if the engine is restamped or not (after the question is raised) also speaks volumes.


To the contrary however, I do see a $125,000 Buy it now had been added. :D

perception is reality. so if some thinks he bought a real ss numbers matching so be it. the more i read about theses scammer restamping engines the more pissed i get. there is a logical solution for the chevelle group i guess follow the corvette crowed and dont place a premium on numbers matching.

Whats a nuance(s)?:confused:

This is why I will never buy a car being sold as a numbers matching. I wouldn't kow the difference and sinking that kind of cash into a hobby is crazy to me imo. I would rather have a bad ass clone that will smoke that numbers matching car and still look as good. Maybe better.

Whats a nuance(s)?:confused:

A subtlety or fine distinction :D

A subtlety or fine distinction :D

Good answer. Certain things all have a certain "look" to them, and block stampings are one. John and I have had this discussion about the stamps and the "trends and differences" before. I don't know if he totally believes my theories or not... :D :beers:

On the contrary I'm rather impressed with the level of knowledge you have on the topic as with the amount of blocks and stampings you've studied.

I relate it to the study of the Art of metelurgy. The similarities of Antique japenese sword authentification even. A field in which the subtleties of the amounts of folds within the metal, the certain aspects of low heat versus high heat discolorations of the temperings. the amount of Carbon within the folds. All these subtle things tell the expert if the sword is genuine, and the approximate date of the sword in addition with the exactness of the makers marks.

Metal has characteristics, and will tell a story.

The more knowledge you have the more it tells you.

It can be blatently obvious, very subtle, or totally undetectable depending on the skill of the forger..