What is the give a way on this tag that would classifiy it as fake? Or is it?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=003&item=130032262323&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

It's fake.

I love the color combo.

The carb's a restamp too.

The current owner has a video tape from the 2nd removed previous owner guaranteeing authenticity. How's that for documentation.

The current owner has a video tape from the 2nd removed previous owner guaranteeing authenticity. How's that for documentation.

Oh, well that proves it then.

This car was discussed at length on a thread here. Its a gorgeous car,but not a Z. The owner lives in the Dallas area, and was duped...

YEp, second time I've seen this one. As I recall in the other thread, he actually responded, but refused to remove the rear seat for authentication of the X code crayon mark :confused:

YEp, second time I've seen this one. As I recall in the other thread, he actually responded, but refused to remove the rear seat for authentication of the X code crayon mark :confused:

Wow. I'm surprised he relisted it with that description in the auction. Saying it "might" be a fake is one thing, but when you KNOW that it is, that's pure deception. I'm truly disappointed, I sent a dozen emails to him back and forth when the last thread was active, and I was convinced he wasn't going to pass off his misfortune to somebody else. Oh well, I'm sure he's reading this thread too. Maybe he will chime in and tell everybody about the X-4 he found under the rear seat, maybe not. :sad:

Maybe he will chime in and tell everybody about the X-4 he found under the rear seat, maybe not. :sad:

OUCH!!!! :(

I'm surprised he relisted it with that description in the auction.

Really?

I for one am not suprised, as he made every excuse why it was too much work to take the back seat out and check for the partial X code...too hot....kids are crying...my expert freinds told me I had a real Z..

Remember he didn't change his 1st ad, as he wanted to see how high the $$ bids went.

Really?

I for one am not suprised, as he made every excuse why it was too much work to take the back seat out and check for the partial X code...too hot....kids are crying...my expert freinds told me I had a real Z..

Remember he didn't change his 1st ad, as he wanted to see how high the $$ bids went.

Like I said, we had numerous conversations "offline" and he didn't seem to be the type of guy that was trying to screw anybody. I honestly thought he was a good guy that just got the shaft, but who certainly wouldn't beset that same misery on somebody else. Guess I was wrong..........:(

just an observation..since the car has console with gauges..should it not have the clock between the speedo and tach?

Yes, this car has been listed a couple of weeks ago. The tag is bogus, the date stamp on the carb, bogus, nice pix of the car. I have not heard of many issues with volo, they seem to run a thumbs up operation, but things can slip past them. I dont think they would have passed this car off as real if they knew the tag was fake, jay gramms and his brother have one LARGE outfit and have sold lots of real nice cars for many, many years. Most of the cars there are sold on consignment, and they are just the middle man. I have checked some of them out for my customers over the years and they were what they were represented as, and some of these cars were camaros, namely Z-28s. If you ever want to see lots and lots of muscle cars along with everything else, a trip to volo is a real hoot, and jay and his brother are good guys to deal with. Just my two cents. Tru-Blue DZ-302 :thumbsup:

What tips off that tag being fake?

What tips off that tag being fake?

Do a search on the subject, it's been discussed at length, but we don't like to point out EXACTLY what makes it fake, that would only help the fakers make better fake tags! Look at all the ones that have been posted as real and fake, and you can probably figure it out yourself.

Man, I can't believe he has put this car up again on Ebay, w/o declaring that the tag is fake...as I recall, all the seller had to do was to lift up the back seat & look for the X code chalk mark, he just wouldn't do it...that tells the whole story...auction just ended at $42K.

Man, I can't believe he has put this car up again on Ebay, w/o declaring that the tag is fake...as I recall, all the seller had to do was to lift up the back seat & look for the X code chalk mark, he just wouldn't do it...that tells the whole story...auction just ended at $42K.

I think he has about 45K into it, so that was probably his reserve. The sad part is, surely he'll eventually sell it, and some poor sap will post here all excited about his "correct, numbers matching Z/28", that is anything but. I still can't believe after all that hoopla about "doing the right thing", he did this instead. All I can say is what comes around, goes around.

Man, I can't believe he has put this car up again on Ebay, w/o declaring that the tag is fake...as I recall, all the seller had to do was to lift up the back seat & look for the X code chalk mark, he just wouldn't do it...that tells the whole story...auction just ended at $42K.

Here is the 1st thread on this car.

http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=87442&highlight=fake+z-28

Here is the 1st listing. Maybe he should have taken the $49K last time

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1969-Camaro-Z-28-X77_W0QQitemZ130013442620QQihZ003QQcategoryZ6161QQ rdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

9n664725

What makes you guys think the tag is fake?

Here is an X11 tag on a car listed currently on e-bay. The seller states it's a re-creation (clone). I don't see what the difference is. The production numbers and build dates are close to the VIN#'s.

Sure this X33 car may not be all original but then again it's not a 100k Z28 either. An 06D production date would be close to the VIN#. Just like the 02D date here is close to this car's VIN# http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1969-CAMARO-X-11-DAYTONA-YELLOW-Z-28-TRIM-NICE-CRUISER_W0QQitemZ160037630022QQihZ006QQcategoryZ61 61QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I've had 2 1969 Camaro's. A 10D car built in late Oct. 1968 and an 02A car built in Jan of 1969. While I am by no means a certified trim tag expert the tag on that Dallas car looks real to me. It looks no different than the X11 Z28 clone (see link above) and the tag currently on my car.

man that is 1 fugly car color combo makes me nausious

What makes you guys think the tag is fake?

Here is an X11 tag on a car listed currently on e-bay. The seller states it's a re-creation (clone). I don't see what the difference is. The production numbers and build dates are close to the VIN#'s.

Sure this X33 car may not be all original but then again it's not a 100k Z28 either. An 06D production date would be close to the VIN#. Just like the 02D date here is close to this car's VIN# http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1969-CAMARO-X-11-DAYTONA-YELLOW-Z-28-TRIM-NICE-CRUISER_W0QQitemZ160037630022QQihZ006QQcategoryZ61 61QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I've had 2 1969 Camaro's. A 10D car built in late Oct. 1968 and an 02A car built in Jan of 1969. While I am by no means a certified trim tag expert the tag on that Dallas car looks real to me. It looks no different than the X11 Z28 clone (see link above) and the tag currently on my car.

The trim tag is a reproduction. If you search the archives, you might be able to figure out the pattern yourself, but generally, it is not discussed in detail for one simple reason. The fakers will read it and make better fakes. Not to mention the fact that he pulled out the rear seat and found an X-4 on the bulkhead. Last I checked, they didn't make any X-44 Z/28's. The car is a fake. Case closed.

Lets say the guy re-list the car as a (decidedly) cloned Z28. What is the the top dollar you think this car should bring? - considering it IS one very beautiful car.

If the guy relists that blue car as a Z-28 clone it probably will still bring 40-45 grand especially with a 302 in it.

The car may be fake but that tag looks no different than the "NON Z/28" 1969 Camaro's I have owned. One was an early built Norwood Car with no X-Code. I know for a fact that car was not a Z. The other is an X-44. Both tags on these cars were original and look no different than this tag. The production date on this car is also close to the car's VIN.

If you guys are looking at camaros.org they are not always correct. According to them my first '69 which was produced 10D was supposed to have been made in Nov. 1968. Nope!! That car was 20 years old when I bought it and everything looked every bit of 20 years old. I was the third owner and the guy I bought it from did not try to pass it off as anything it was not. (It was not a Z). The trim tag was original on that 124379N530XXX car.

Looks like I am missing something about the X77 trim tag on the blue car. Nonetheless even if it's a clone with nothing matching; that car would bring 40 grand easy and maybe even 50 grand for someone who wants it real bad.

If you guys are looking at camaros.org they are not always correct. According to them my first '69 which was produced 10D was supposed to have been made in Nov. 1968. Nope!! That car was 20 years old when I bought it and everything looked every bit of 20 years old. I was the third owner and the guy I bought it from did not try to pass it off as anything it was not. (It was not a Z). The trim tag was original on that 124379N530XXX car.


OK, I'll bite. What's incorrect at CRG??
And yes, a 9N530xxx, 10D car could have been finished in Nov of 1968. Exactly when do you think it was built?

If you're referring to http://www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml#HowMany, I'd say you should re-read it. The pertinent part is: The list below is Chevrolet's documentation of the end-of-month VIN for the GM assembly plants.
Yes, the source of that data is GM.

Trim Tags and VINs were not assigned at the same time, so it is a definite possibility that the tag couldve been made/issued at the end of October while the VIN wasn't assigned until the beginning of November.

Like I said, we had numerous conversations "offline" and he didn't seem to be the type of guy that was trying to screw anybody. I honestly thought he was a good guy that just got the shaft, but who certainly wouldn't beset that same misery on somebody else. Guess I was wrong..........:(

But he did put the tag issue at the top. I don't think he is trying to screw anyone. He just wants his money.


Originally Posted by South Side Goons & Hitmen
The car may be fake but that tag looks no different than the "NON Z/28" 1969 Camaro's I have owned. One was an early built Norwood Car with no X-Code. I know for a fact that car was not a Z. The other is an X-44. Both tags on these cars were original and look no different than this tag. The production date on this car is also close to the car's VIN.




A fake car with a real tag?:confused: :confused:

By fake I mean the engine may not be original, the trans may not be original. VIN #'s were not stamped on rear ends. But the tag could belong to the car. Some sellers on e-bay and other sites restamp engines, tranny's, carb's etc. and then represent them to be 100% original on any Z28 from virtually any year. That is what I mean by a fake car with a real tag. I know that some dishonest people will find a car with the same production date and swap an X11 tag for X22. It seems odd that Chevy trim tag's went up by 11's for each trim code. X11, X22,X33,X44,X55,X66,X77....I have no clue why they go up by 11.

The end of month VIN on camaros.org for October 1968 was 530337. That is incorrect. The car I had was built 10D and was about 300 numbers ahead of 337.

I know VIN#'s and trim tags are not assigned at the same time. But you will not see a 124379N59XXXX or 124379N60XXXX built 06C or 07D of 1969. A 59XXXX car would have a tag in late Jan. of 1969 or begining in Feb (02A) of1969.

Maybe I am missing something on the Body #. If I am, I apologize. I am not a certified trim tag specialist but I have owned 2 non Z2/28 cars that were represented to be nothing more than a RS and an X44. The one I own now is a 124 VIN # X44 car that is nothing more than plain V8 Camaro and was represented as nothing more than that when I bought it.

That tag looks authentic to me. As I said above camaros.org is incorrect in stating the end of month VIN for 10D 1968 was 506631 to 530337. My VIN # ended about 300#'s after 337 and that car was all original when I bought it back in 1989. Like I said if I am missing something I apologize. That is also even if I had 100 grand right now I would by a 1972 Z28 over 1969 or 1970. At least in 1972 the 5th digit of the VIN# did the talking.

Bottom Line: No one likes being duped and I know all of us hate people who try to scam enthusiasts of these cars.

Your 10D on the tag does not state when the car was finished, but when the tag was assigned. Study the process on the manufacturing process of these cars, and you will understand that the VIN was assigned much later. An end of the month body that was finished within 300 cars of the last of that month is completely possible.

The figures in the chart are the VINs that were logged at the factory, as the last car of each month was completed.

And the tag in question is clearly a reproduction.

The end of month VIN on camaros.org for October 1968 was 530337. That is incorrect. The car I had was built 10D and was about 300 numbers ahead of 337.

As I said above camaros.org is incorrect in stating the end of month VIN for 10D 1968 was 506631 to 530337. My VIN # ended about 300#'s after 337 and that car was all original when I bought it back in 1989.

That data IS correct. Did you read caveat #4 about that data??? "The cowl tag was attached 3-4 days before final assembly of the car was completed and build week dates did not always align exactly with calendar weeks. "
As Dave said, read up on the assembly process, http://www.camaros.org/assemblyprocess.shtml.

And the data is direct from GM. So any errors (and there are some) are theirs.

The clock was an option and it would be between the speedo and tach.

What tips off that tag being fake?
I'd say the font. I'm no expert but that font is too round. I'd also say it looks fake because the text is all in line. On my tag and many other "real" tags the text is nearly never fully even and level, I think this is because these things were mass produced in the late sixties when machining and manufacturing methods where quite crude.

Like I said I'm no expert but those are the things that rang alarm bells for me. I'd like to hear what the experts think.

My 2c

[QUOTE=South Side Goons & Hitmen;648161]What makes you guys think the tag is fake?

It is very much a fake.. Take some time and compare this one to an known real tag. It took me a little while but once you see it, you'll know for sure. Sooner or later someone is going to spill the beans here but so far so good.

I looked at it again. The font appears blurry and the X77 looks like it may have been X44 at one time. Maybe I'm wrong on that. I'm not expert. I looked at the tag on the X44 that I own it does look a little different. I remember the tag I had on my early Norwood car did not look like that.

The rivets also do not appear to be the O.E. rivets. The problem with a trim tag is once it has been removed there is no way to tell if it's the car's tag or if it came off another car with the same production date. That's why I passed on a 1970 Z/28 I looked at a few months ago. I posted the link here before I went to look at the car. Nice car. Nice ride. Great price! But some people cautioned me on the tag. The lower right corner of the tag appeared to have been broken off. This could have been when it was removed from the car with needle nose pliers or a screw driver. The dash also did not look like it was a Z28 dash. In 1970 didn't all Z's have a tach in the dash?? Didn't the 70 Z's have gauges in the dash instead of idiot lights?

I've seen cars on e-bay get listed as X11's with a production date of lets say 03C only to get relisted with an X22 of 03C. That is hard core cloning or should I say fraud cloning. That is also hard to detect since the production date is the same as the original tag and it will make sense in relation to the VIN. For example: You won't see a 124379N60XXXX car with a tag of 12D and I have seen those on e-bay as well. But at least for the amateur the 12D production date with the 124379N6XXXXXis easy to spot.

Thanks for the tip!! Like they say buyer beware. That is why this site is the next best thing to sliced bread! Kudos to the moderator's and administrators and thanks to all that respond to my posts and to others posts.

The problem with a trim tag is once it has been removed there is no way to tell if it's the car's tag or if it came off another car with the same production date.

I've seen cars on e-bay get listed as X11's with a production date of lets say 03C only to get relisted with an X22 of 03C.

Definitely valid points. Yes, some will transplant a real tag to a car built in the same time frame, and that can be almost impossible to notice. Luckily, we have the CRG guys and others that also track loose tags that are sold. Of course, not all loose tags that are bought/sold show up for sale on the internet.

Sometimes, cars are re-tagged with repops, and those are usually easy to spot.