[DaleM]

Thought this a bit odd. Auction is over but http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190501809945

No date, although the sequence puts it in 07C or 07D of 1966, and no stamped inspection number.

 

[geezer]

Evidently just relisted. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Chevrolet-Chevelle-Super-Sport-1966-chevelle-SS-Convertible-/190502120372

 

[DaleM]

I see...shame they didn't research it even just a little.

This is a real 138 car, built in Fremont California, sold 12/30/65

Sequence number shows mid to late July, 1966 build. Wonder how it sold 7 months earlier?

Factory power dics brakes

Don't think so. :noway:

Z19-Passenger rear view mirror

Believe Z19 is driver's side remote mirror...

U14-Special instrumentation, U16-Tachometer

You could order one, not both. U14 included the tachometer. :sad:

 

[elcamino]

Could be a reproduction tag.

 

[jeffschevelle]

That VIN tag does not look right to me either. First, the Chevrolet letters look too big.

Second, there is a square background around some of the digits, almost like they are photoshopped in (or a mark from a die stamp ??)

Third, the line around the outside edge of the tag turns the corners and makes a picture frame almost all the way around (everywhere except at the rivets). That is a 64 VIN tag isn't it?? 66 should be just a line above and a line below, without turning the corners, shouldn't it?

Also note the funny looking "rust" spot around one of the rivets. Looks an awful lot like a 1964 weld-on vin tag to me ... ???

 

[davewho1]

Third, the line around the outside edge of the tag turns the corners and makes a picture frame almost all the way around (everywhere except at the rivets). That is a 64 VIN tag isn't it?? 66 should be just a line above and a line below, without turning the corners, shouldn't it?

Also note the funny looking "rust" spot around one of the rivets. Looks an awful lot like a 1964 weld-on vin tag to me ... ???

Mine just has the line above and below the VIN - it is about 50K before this one, however. Maybe something changed in the interim? Something definitely looks off here.

Also, something I just noticed on my tag - the 13817 looks like it was pre-stamped on the tag and the rest was stamped at a later time. Never really looked at it that closely.

 

[1966_L78]

That VIN tag does not look right to me either. First, the Chevrolet letters look too big.

Second, there is a square background around some of the digits, almost like they are photoshopped in (or a mark from a die stamp ??)

Third, the line around the outside edge of the tag turns the corners and makes a picture frame almost all the way around (everywhere except at the rivets). That is a 64 VIN tag isn't it?? 66 should be just a line above and a line below, without turning the corners, shouldn't it?

Also note the funny looking "rust" spot around one of the rivets. Looks an awful lot like a 1964 weld-on vin tag to me ... ???

My VIN tag also looks different (line doesn't turn the corner, mine's in the 140,200 range, late April...

The rivets on the VIN tag also do NOT look correct. Mine (IIRC) are more hexagonal, but those have more of a "Torx" look to them... Hmmm, major red flag...

The Window sticker is a repro, so probably a good chance the cowl tag is too...

Maybe the seller bought it thinking these were real (cowl/VIN and sticker)...

semi-local car, pretty sure I have seen it before at Hot August Nights...

 

[DaleM]

Didn't notice the VIN plate, good catch. I think Jeff is right, VIN tag is from a 64 Fremont car. That's the only year to have that kind of border. Looking at the size of the CHEVROLET DD font, it looks more like a Baltimore 64 plate.

http://chevellestuff.net/1964/vin_samples.htm

Window sticker I didn't even consider to be real. No harm no foul on a repro for display but at least get it halfway right. L35 wouldn't be an option, neither would dual exhaust, U14 and U16 wouldn't both be listed as the tach was part of the gauge option, Z19 is not a passenger side rear view mirror but a convenience group and U79 wasn't a valid RPO code until 1968.

As for the 13817 (or any series/model) looking prestamped, Fremont did this in 1966 and 1967 (size is different too). Fremont also prestamped the leading "1" as well as the year, plant, sequence on VIN plates then stamp series/model as needed in 1968.

 

[tar6569]

Wow, that vin tag is really strange. The only explanation I can offer for the vin and trim tag if they turned out to be original is that the car was some special order where the tags would have been stamped by hand or not by the regular machine.

However, it looks like they put a repro cowl tag on there, masked off around it and then painted it. You can see the paint line in the black on top and to the left of the tag...and notice around the edges where the tag has that "new" finish like that of a repro tag. Dale, have you seen any Fremont tags that were masked off at the plant? They did that at some fullsize plants but I'm not aware of a Chevelle plant that did that.

 

[DaleM]

Nothing special about the car that would warrant a VIN plate that had been used 2 years prior. Sad thing is that probably nobody will ever do anything about the car and the VIN plate - unless just maybe it comes up in a real auction and it's questioned.

I've never heard of a U.S. plant masking off the trim tag before blacking out the firewall. I know Canada kind of did mask off the trim tag at least through 1967.

 

[LeoP]

My 64 VIN plate was spot welded on. ?

 

[DaleM]

:yes:

Look at every one of these examples.

http://chevellestuff.net/1964/vin_samples.htm

 

[tar6569]

Dale, I see some of those 64 vin tags have the rivets. I guess those were taken off the car then put back on?

 

[DaleM]

Dale, I see some of those 64 vin tags have the rivets. I guess those were taken off the car then out back on?

Home Depot-style rivets. :yes:

 

[1966_L78]

Didn't notice the VIN plate, good catch. I think Jeff is right, VIN tag is from a 64 Fremont car. That's the only year to have that kind of border. Looking at the size of the CHEVROLET DD font, it looks more like a Baltimore 64 plate.

I recall hearing about someone having/selling extra blank VIN tags... Maybe thats the case here?

Not saying the car isn't real, but very suspicious...