1969 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28 with Rally Sport... RESTAMP

[dannystarr]

Just an FYI, this car is for sale on eBay and is VERY close to me. I was going to offer to go look at it for anyone interested. It has been brought to my attention that it is a re-stamped block. Make note and beware. 

     http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1969-Chevrolet-Camaro-Z-28-with-Rally-Sport-Package-/281155464437?_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&forcev4exp=true

[Charley]

Did someone that knows the car tell you that ?

[dannystarr]

Yes, someone from this site has info on this car, and a high resolution picture. Maybe he will chime in and post the picture also... I am hoping he talks also about the cowl tag, VIN stamp on the block etc. Cowl tag rivets sealer looks SO perfectly rounded and clean. Just doesn't look right to me. ... Danny

[BULLITT65]

To his credit he does post a clear picture of the Vin stamp and the block stamp, although my Vin stamp doesn't look near as nice and clear as his does. His looks similar to the one in Jerrys book though. I would be curious if anybody else has noticed this with the vin stamp by the oil filter. Does anyone else's vin stamp look like it was done one digit at a time? Or has it been documented that they used a gang stamp on all the cars?

[Mike S]

 So the ACA can't tell a real one from a clone when judging in the Bowtie class?
Or is that where the points were deducted.

Mike

[dannystarr]

Bullitt65,
 I have heard that Transmission stamps have been stamped without the gang holder. But not sure about block VIN's. Just all seems to squeaky clean to me....Yes it IS nice he posted some nice clear pictures unlike SO many other people and dealers. Like the one in North Carolina with 600 Camaro ad's and not one shows any stamps, or cowl tags clear and up close. F'n frustrating.... Danny

[69Z28-RS]

The only thing I could tell from his photos was that his VIN on the engine block was MUCH more distinct than any others I've ever seen.   On my original one, it took a lot of effort on my part to even find it, but once I did I was able to make it out, and it matched the Trans stamping.   On mine, all the stamped VINs matched, on the transmission, the hidden stamps, and the engine, but the stamping on the engine wasn't as deep as the others (being on cast iron) nor as deep as it appeared to be on this car...   but I think one would have to examine *hundreds* of cast engine stampings to judge whether it was  'wrong' or not.  Based on what is shown in the pictures, it appears to be a 'real car' to me... with an original engine..  as the DZ stamp also looked good (the strange '6' was a bit odd, but I've seen other 'odd' characters used in engine codes before on original cars.)

[BULLITT65]

Well, that is interesting Gary. Not that I doubt your experience in identifying originality, but the original topic of this thread is that it is a re-stamp. So will the man with the real information please step forward and shed some light here?
I looked at my pic of my vin stamp (which is poor to start with) , and it looks like the number looks mostly straight, except for the last digit is off a bit. I can start a new thread about this if there are that many of us with a good shot of their vin stamp by the oil filter.

[69Z28-RS]

All I was trying to say Austin, was that I couldn't see anything in the information/photos supplied that would indicate (for certain) that it was not original...  although the VIN stamping in the block material was deeper than any I've seen, but I've only seen mine and a handful of others.... so that's not a huge sample size.  if someone says it's a restamp, then they should supply justifying information, otherwise...  what does it mean?

[69Z28-RS]

I made a mis statement earlier when I said (about my car):   
"... all the stamped VINs matched, on the transmission, the hidden stamps, and the engine, but the stamping on the engine wasn't as deep as the others (being on cast iron) nor as deep as it appeared to be on this car..."

I looked again, and the 'hidden VINs' under the cowl and under the heater housing do NOT begin with the '1', instead start with the '9' digit, whereas the Transmission and engine vin stampings begin with '1 9 ..'.   Other than the existence or missing of the leading 1 digit, the stamps appeared identical...

[ZLP955]

So the ACA can't tell a real one from a clone when judging in the Bowtie class?
Or is that where the points were deducted.
Mike

Not familiar with this specific judging class, but believe that in some classes, if an owner discloses that a component on the car is restamped or NOM, they don't lose points. If they claim it is original, and the judges disagree, then points are deducted. However, disclosing restamps or NOM parts can preclude the car from certain categories. Anyone able to confirm?
As for the OP, perhaps the thread should be "possible" restamp, unless and until the person who believes it to be so, comes forward.

[dannystarr]

Yes I am sure the person who mentioned that to me will chime in. He has no reason not to. I had a friend looking at buying this car as we are SUPER close to it. So I PM'ed and when I got the response, I told him to back off. He had the cash, and it's a nice car. I hope this wasn't a mistake.   ... Danny

[69Z28-RS]

From the photos/info supplied, it *appears* to be a nice car, so it would be a real shame if the someone who said 'RESTAMP' was only guessing, or if he's wrong.

[BULLITT65]

I assume it is Kurt who knows, since he seems to catalog just about every 69 Z that has shown up for sale or on ebay. It is hard to get one by him....
He had seen pictures of my engine pad to tell me the stamp was legit without me posting any pics (he had already seen them and had them in his own personal data base it seemed). ONLY issue I had was when I asked him if he could provide more info or where he got the pictures , because I thought maybe he had some info on my car that I didn't. That is when he clammed up....he never responded.

[cook_dw]

Idk about anyone else but if its a restamp it's a dang good one..  Idk need to see the casting # & date to know 100% but as far as I can tell it looks good to me..   Only thing I would question would be the "6"..  But again still looks ok..