Thanks, 6667ss138, for the additional pics and videos, which are consistent with all contemporary 60's info I have seen. As to some of the other posts:
1. Mike you asked in POST #20 where is the link to a factory document, which I had already posted earlier in POST #7. That just shows that you did not bother to read what I posted earlier, or the contents of that link, before firing off your opposing comments. I actually clicked on and read the link that YOU posted before I replied to it. That's how intelligent debates proceed, which is not possible if one person just totally ignores whatever is posted if it is counter to his position.
2. You asked where does the Delco-Moraine document reference Chevelle, and you referred to the date on the document. You are a little behind, and again you apparently did not read what I posted before you fired back, because I already addressed both those topics. To quote what I ALREADY posted (again in POST #7) (emphasis
"Lastly, see here from the Yenko site: https://www.yenko.net/forum/showpost...postcount=5261 -- Delco Morraine disc brake master cylinder component parts list!! Original release date on the document is 11-25-66, with revisions noted up through 1968. Line 26 lists "Paint-Black". Hmm, I wonder what that was for? I doubt they were painting the inside black. That really should be the end of the inquiry. And yes, it references Chevy-II and Camaro. But if anyone is going to try to argue that Delco Morraine would have thought it needed to paint Nova and Camaro MC's black, but not paint them for Chevelles, then they are just grasping at straws. They had some engineering reason to paint them (or else they would not have spent the money on the paint to do it), and whatever that reason was would have applied equally to Chevelles. "
3. All the references to different car assembly plants are a moot point on this subject. The black paint was applied at the Delco-Moraine manufacturing plant to the raw MC casting BEFORE it was machined and assembled at that plant. See the pics posted above showing the bare flat machined surfaces. The document I posted is from Delco-Moraine, not from a car assembly plant. The assembly plant just bolted on what arrived from Delco-Moraine. I doubt Chevrolet paid someone at the assembly plant to take thinner and wash off Delco-Moraine's paint before installing the part.
4. You say you will go with what the "guy who was there" remembers, which you have said on more than one occasion that his recollection is that NONE of them were painted. If NONE were painted, then how can anyone explain all the pictures, videos, survivor cars and Delco-Moraine document showing that they (or at least some of them) WERE painted?? And again if you actually read the entire CRG posts and one of the posts in the thread you originally linked (or heck, just read what I posted because I copied and pasted it all for you), they refer to a line supervisor at Norwood (who is a well respected authority on Camaros) who says they were ALL painted. And before you say, that's Norwood and Camaros, not Baltimore and Chevelles, see #3 above.
So between two honest and honorable people who were there, who have diametrically opposed 50-year-old memories of NONE being painted or ALL being painted, I must go with the one whose recollection is actually supported by existing current evidence -- all the CONTEMPORARY photos and videos, and many legit survivor cars, and the Delco-Moraine document.
5. I have spoken to Richard D. a few times before at the NC show, and it has always had a good chat, although not about this topic because it has never come up. I already said he's a nice guy and I certainly don't have any problem with him, and I look forward to the next time I see him; and if this subject comes up, great. I doubt he has any desire to give me a black eye, and your suggestion above to the effect that I, Richard or anybody else with any sense at all would want to have a fist fight over this topic only shows an inability on your part to engage in a mature, civil discussion whenever anyone disagrees with you.
6. Some posts above referred to economic considerations and people trying to puff up the value of survivor cars. First I am perplexed how any of this has anything to do with the value of a car. Find me anyone who says they'll pay a nickel extra for a survivor car because the MC is still black (versus one that had a sloppy owner who spilled a lot of brake fluid over the years and washed most of it off). And for those of us who study those cars, I can tell if a MC has been repainted anyway.
Second, if you knew me at all you would know I don't give a hoot what any of my cars is worth (I'm sure I will regret that at retirement time, but for now it is not my concern). I have never sold any Chevelle other than rough old project cars that I finally realized I would never get around to. I didn't buy any of the survivors, Z16's or L78's to make a buck, I bought them because I am dedicated to preserving original and/or rare 65-67 Chevelles whenever possible. I am also dedicated to researching these cars (64-67 at least) like an archeologist to try to discover facts and truths about how they were assembled, finishes, etc. -- not to make a buck but because it is my passion. If I was trying to cash in I would never have made a single post on this site and instead would have put all the info I have shared here in a book or 10 (and trust me I have been asked on more than one occasion to write a book on 65-67 big block cars).
So if the point of any of those posts is to suggest that anyone is running around adding black paint to survivor MC's to try to increase the cars' value, that does not make any sense (although if you actually believe that might be true, you should ask yourself why would anyone do that if it was not accepted, by at least the knowledgeable survivor buyer market, that they WERE black to begin with). Or if the point was to suggest that I posted this thread for some money-driven reason, then that's just ridiculous. The purpose of this post to begin with was to get at what was original or not. This is the "Restoration Corner" forum after all.
7. On the topic of running folks off of T.C., I agree completely with that concern. However, I am entirely confident that if we took a poll on how many folks on here have found posts by me to be useful, helpful, and/or informative, versus how many folks believe I ever make rude, derogatory or childish personal attacks on here, the ratio would be about 10,000 to 1. I am not the one in this thread who posted a veiled physical threat, or who has engaged in name calling. This thread was not aimed at anyone in particular in the first place, so it's hard to understand why one person chose to try to make it personal, and ugly.
With all that said, I am done with this thread. Anyone may post any additional disparaging or pseudo-threatening responses they want, but I am not replying further. So if anyone wants to say they won the debate (or argument or fight or whatever you want to call it) then congratulations.