1969 Z28 for sale - a true Z?

[aaberg]

I have found this Camaro Z28 1969 for sale in Sweden https://www.hemmings.com/listing/1969-chevrolet-camaro-751168 Noticed that tachometer is redline from 6000 - 8000 rpm what is strange recording to building date. Also then checking with https://www.car.info/en-se/license-plate/S/DGK871 the car is identified as a SS 350. What do you think? True or false Z28?

[cook_dw]

Block is a restamp, Trim tag has been off and possibly a repo (hard to tell from the photo angle) and possibly the vin has been off as well (but again might be the angle of the photo).


124379N506031

[aaberg]

Interesting! how can you see all this? Please explain so we can learn more how to detect a fake.

[x66 714]

Interesting! how can you see all this? Please explain so we can learn more how to detect a fake.

They don't discuss that information. They don't want to educate to people making the fakes.....Joe

[jdv69z]

VIN and TT do not appear to align.

[aaberg]

VIN and TT do not appear to align.

In what way does VIN and TT not align?

[bertfam]

In what way does VIN and TT not align?

You said it yourself:

what is strange recording to building date

Look at the trim tag date (10A) then compare that to THIS CHART as to when the car was ACTUALLY built.

But it really doesn't matter since the trim tag is a reproduction and the block is a restamp.

Ed

[aaberg]

As you wrote, the production number for N is not correct, but matches to L, can there have been any mistake then producing the tag and VIN? Guess it's a long shot but how knows? More likely they wrongly had add a N instead of L in the reproduction during restoration.

[cook_dw]

I don't believe the vin is repo.  Hidden vin check to vin tag would be the most accurate way to confirm its correct to the car unless someone did a complete body/tag swap but that's another subject.  IMHO no mistake on the car not being a NOR car.

[william]

124379N506031 was built during a short period of time at Norwood when body tags were mis-stamped 'NBR' rather than 'NOR'. Those tags were also mis-stamped '0A'; should have been '09A'.

IMHO, the repro tag was mis-stamped '10A'.