CRG Discussion Forum
Camaro Research Group Discussion => Decoding/Numbers => Topic started by: william on April 15, 2021, 03:29:46 AM
-
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1969-Chevrolet-Camaro-SS-396/274759505175?hash=item3ff8f15517:g:Y68AAOSwjH1gd554
124379N533905
From the ad:
Not only is this a true SS car, but also the trim tag tells us it was born with a hounds-tooth interior, too.
Not a tough call, thanks to the error.
-
What gets me is making these claims in their advertisements. They would be better off saying nice Camaro and great colors and leave it at that.
-
The tag looks like a reproduction, but I don't understand your reference to having houndstooth as an error? The only restriction I see for that is NA on a convertible. Please enlighten if you can without giving away secrets.
-
Can't. Would get a nasty em from Kurt. :( :-X
-
I have another short Norwood tag from around the same time frame with code 713 for hounds tooth in a coupe. I believe it to be an original tag. What am I missing about code 713 interiors in a coupe that are incorrect? Is there some unpublished information some where or am I missing it in the decode section?
-
It's not the interior.
-
Self explanatory.
-
The gorilla-fist installation and ugly rivets are other clues.
-
It's not the interior.
Not only is this a true SS car, but also the trim tag tells us it was born with a hounds-tooth interior, too.
Not a tough call, thanks to the error.
OK, the way you posted the ad quote made it seem like you were saying code 713 interior is an error. I was trying to find out why a 10E Garnet Red coupe could not have come with a Black Hounds Tooth interior.
As far as what makes the tag a reproduction, that is pretty obvious in the other characteristics.
-
I'm not expert on tags but looking quickly at this one and the one posted by 68 ragtop, even Stevie Wonder can 'see' the difference. With body numbers that close, I can only assume they would have been stamped by the same addressograph. ;)
Mike
-
Self explanatory.
Ima going to disagree with you on that. Unless you mean it's so obvious because it doesn't have any paint on it?
I doubt the average person would be able to tell you why that tag is flagged as a reproduction, especially without looking at the real tag I posted for comparison.
-
For me the point is with a fake trim tag it questions the validity of the entire vehicle and some of its options. For a car that looks like it is in fairly good shape for its age and "born" with this and that why would someone just mess the trim tag? I mean did it rust out, was it damaged in a collision...how could that be if it still has its born with hounds tooth interior?
You are right, most people would not know if the trim tag was replaced or not, that is why we have people like William that can spot fakes and post them here just in case there are buyers out there who are smart enough to do some digging to see what they can find on the car before they buy. Maybe even the seller might learn a thing or two and change their selling description if knew about this and wanted to remain reputable.
-
Is this not the same car someone post a little bit ago? Saying it was a survivor when it was actually a complete restore?
For a rookie like me, if the two tags weren't posted I would be hard pressed to say the first one is a fake.
-
The light just came on!!! Now I got it.
-
If they filled the rivets properly and put a couple coats of black paint on it, it would be less obvious.
My point is, I see no problems with the codes on the tag. Often when a tag is reproduced, something that was never done at the factory is presented on that tag that makes it an obvious reproduction. e.g putting hounds tooth interior in a convertible that's not a Pace Car. That is what I though William was referring to and did not see it.
No real reason to have a fake tag on this car except for a more desirable color and interior, as 1968, 1969 Van Nuys, and early 1969 Norwoods have no performance options encoded on the trim tag.
-
The light just came on!!! Now I got it.
It's really helpful to have a known good tag from the same plant and timeframe for side by side comparison isn't it?
Mods feel free to delete my pictures if necessary.
-
When I see a First Gen at one of the Consignment Dealers to me, that alone is a red flag. That may be cruel, but I always get the feeling that there are some people who feel they could not look you in the eye and tell you their story, so they tell that story to a consignment dealer and let them run with it. We all know there are LOTS of fake cars for sale. Most end up on Ebay!!
-
A few of my friends have consigned nice cars, for a variety of reasons. Some don't have the sales/marketing skills, time or temperament to deal with the process. In many cases, a sizeable amount of money is involved and it is important to ensure buyers are vetted and the funds are properly transferred. Buying/selling a collector car can stir up emotions; having a buffer in the process can keep those in check.
Collector car dealers usually do not have the in-depth knowledge buyers of '60s muscle cars demand. Some take the time to find out. If it is a jack-of-all-trades dealer making "numbers-matching" claims, take them with a grain of salt. Do your homework.
On-line auctions are an alternative. A colleague sold a nice OE drive train Z/28 on BAT last Fall. I had slight involvement to ensure the car was properly described. Someone ended up with a nice car for a very fair price. BAT does a great job of marketing.
Don't assume major auctions are necessarily a great place to buy. I have attended 28 collector car auctions over the years and have seen plenty of mis-represented cars. Repro tags, fake paperwork, even a few rebodies. It is impossible to do an in-depth inspection at those venues. Cars are consigned based on the consignors description; the auction company bears no responsibility for inaccuracy. Buy a mutt and it will be your problem.
One major auction company has made no secret of their intention to de-emphasize old muscle cars.
"...with nine of the top 10 sales falling into the hot categories of Resto-Mods, contemporary supercars, ’80s and ’90s vehicles, and classic trucks and SUVs."
-
All very true, especially the part about the major auctions!
-
If they filled the rivets properly and put a couple coats of black paint on it, it would be less obvious.
My point is, I see no problems with the codes on the tag. Often when a tag is reproduced, something that was never done at the factory is presented on that tag that makes it an obvious reproduction. e.g putting hounds tooth interior in a convertible that's not a Pace Car. That is what I though William was referring to and did not see it.
No real reason to have a fake tag on this car except for a more desirable color and interior, as 1968, 1969 Van Nuys, and early 1969 Norwoods have no performance options encoded on the trim tag.
I have to agree with this. And there is also the possibility that the tag was removed at one point and put back on. We're talking a 50 year old car that has gone thru so many hands , a lot can happen in that time span. Not saying there is still a possibility that it is fake but the tag info looks fine to me.
-
Nope. The error says it's fake.
-
Nope. The error says it's fake.
Body sequence # is out of wack?
-
Nope. The error says it's fake.
Body sequence # is out of wack?
It is a lower number on a later car, but in 1969 they scheduled different and that happened.
I don't see any error with the numbers on this tag. There are only 5 codes to look at.
ST 69 12437 is valid, NOR125674 is valid, interior code 713 is valid, paint code 52 52 is valid, date code 10E is valid (5 weeks in October 1968).
Either there is some unpublished information being held back, or William is referring to something else, such as 10E production alignment with VIN month ending.
-
With the two tags in the same post it's easy to see the "5"s are different.
-
With the two tags in the same post it's easy to see the "5"s are different.
There are some pretty obvious font differences. I think William is saying there is an error, not a difference.
Maybe I am mistaken in what he is trying to say. Maybe there is an error I don't see. Maybe we will never know.
-
I'm pretty sure I see the error. It stands out actually ;)
Mike