Team Camaro Tech banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,513 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,689 Posts
I think it's a fake and here's why:

Never seen a documented 9B (Sept69, 2nd week)car. The body sequence number is way off. Matter of fact it is the highest number I have ever seen (NOR397214) and doesnt not fall in with body sequence number of the Sept 69 or August 69 build period or any period for that matter.


I know exactly what the trim tag rivets look like that are being sold and I guarantee you that those are the ones. I have seen the repo trim tags in person and that is definately one.


I agree with Mark. It is a FAKE trim tag and the car is not an original z28.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
Very fishy. Besides all Z's came with a 12 volt rear end not a 10 volt!!! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,110 Posts
I realize this thread is about the fake trim tag, but the painting thing is a hoot! Also the ad says it has a 10 VOLT rear. I better check my rear-axle voltage regulator!! :D


(Sorry MAX...we must have been posting at the same time...I type slow.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
310 Posts
Forgive me for taking a shot at this, because I am NOT a numbers guy, but shouldn't the tag be 124 6 7 if it is a supposed V8 car? and not 12437? I know I am probably wrong, but what the hell, thought I would give it a shot.


Mark, I think you need to comment, so those of us know what is wrong with it, maybe after a page of 2 of guesses....I love the fact that he couldn't even remove the tire from the interior for the pic...hilarious...
 

·
Retired
Joined
·
26,947 Posts
Originally posted by BartonekDragRacing:
I just want to know what retard would paint his engine with all the accessories, carb, belts etc still on the engine??
Tread easy on this one, we've had many here in the past show off their engines and they are done the exact same way...


It would be cool if we respect the wishes of the poster by staying on topic. Matk wants to know what you see incorrect about the cowl tag...

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,689 Posts
Crossram

12467 would be a convertible. The tag doesnt designate engine, the VIN does. All tags were stamped 12437 (coupe) or 12467 (Convert)in 1969.

Also looks like he painted it on purpose to hide that it is new. The rivets really give this one away. On originals, the center would be punched out and no, thats not putty in the middle it is the rivet that you can buy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
The o's and zeros arent oblong like GM stamped them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,906 Posts
Hi all,
Shouldn't it also have the D80 stamping after the X77. I thought that spoilers were mandatory on Z's in April of '69.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
11,623 Posts
I give up! :confused: I really don't see anything wrong with this other than the numbers which were already pointed out. True, the rivets have not been punched out and have not had sealer applied.

Both my cars are the small tag like PaulM's, so I can't compare.

My guess is that the rivet holes are too far to the edges. They should be closer together, under the "P" in PNT and almost touching the date code on the other.

Is that it?

Do I win anything? :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,705 Posts
Late tag - early car...?

edit: scratch that - just noticed the number being to high for the build date (should have looked at paulm's post more carefully) - numbers started over again lower on carryover 69's - like paulm's.

[ 10-31-2003, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Vintage 68 ]
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,326 Posts
I guess I'm drawing a blank on this part of it too, Maybe someone else can chime in on what else is wrong with the trim tag, other than what has been stated. I did notice that it does not have the larger rear bumper gaurds.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
15,376 Posts
The ST and TR, as well as the BDY and PNT were stamped in the tag to purposely miss the rivet holes, so that they'd all fit. And they shouldn't be as close to the numbers on the same lines as they are.
Those rivets are definitely suspect. The entire tag is wider up and down than an original.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,513 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
No, I won't. I've been spoken to harshly about not giving away stuff like this on open forums by others (not necessarily on this board), probably rightly so. If I say something that helps tag swappers build better tags, thats bad for everyone. I would offer opinions on specific tags but beyond that I don't want to go down a list of things right or wrong with a tag.

I've got access to close to 1000 images of trim tags, mostly original, some terrible fakes, and other really good fake ones. The fake ones keep getting better all the time.

I'm just interested in what people look for when they think they see a questionable tag, be it a specific font or spacing inconsistancy, nice crispy new tags on a firewall that looks like it was used to dull hammers on, no paint on tags, but 1/4" on the firewall, weird rivet's, etc.

I will say that the most glaring error on this tag is the body number. Fisher reset the body number to 100000 in August of 69 coincident with the start of the 1970 model year, for all lines except the F-bodies, but of course you guys all knew that.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top