1967 Cowl Tag Date and Engine Build Date

[RC]

1

[67ss350camaro]

It would help if I could see all of the data on your car to give a better opinion.  With that being said, and with what little data you have given, something does not sound right.  CRG's data base has over 5200 67's in it and I don't remember any with what you are describing.
If you want a better opinion, I would need to have pictures of the engine stamp, cowl tag and the vin tag.

[KurtS]

It could be just a date misstamp by Fisher Body. That's what it kinda looks like, but that is pretty rare and the #'s just don't line up right.
I agree with Daniel, pics would help.

It appears to be a IPC replica, probably ordered by the dealer after they were no longer available. Or it could just be a car with the exact same colors and options.
What's the code on the transmission?

[Z71]

Unless, its possible the engine was changed before it left the plant due to some terminal problem with the first engine.  The Norwood Camaros had to be driven off the line several miles to the rail head, I suppose a few could have not made it?

[67ss350camaro]

I still need pictures to know for sure what you have.  None of the numbers agree (go together), except for the maybe the vin# and engine code.

[67ss350camaro]

RC,
  The axle may be too close to call for a 04A built car.  I was mostly talking about the cowl tag, vin# and engine code.  The engine code looks fine for the vin#, but both the vin# and the engine code do not agree with the cowl tag.

[ogbean]

Is that clear silicone insie the rivets that hold the trim tag on?

[ogbean]

Yes there should be seam sealer in the rivets, i believe it was black in color... I may be mistaken. Did the tag get removed or were the rivets just cleaned out?

[KurtS]

Not sure what the fear is in having the numbers out there. Most ebay ads have the numbers listed, or go to a car show....

To answer the question, I was able to dig the pics out of my internet temp directory. After comparing the tag pic to the many others I have, my opinion is that it is not original.
Which explains why the #'s don't line up, but not how the tag got there.

[KurtS]

There are anomalies, but this tag does not appear to be one. That's after comparing it to literally thousands of other tags. Reproduction tags have been around for decades. Maybe the tag was missing, who knows.

"The pacecar contact suspects it is an 05A that has been mis-stamped."
And did they state whether or not they thought the tag was original? I had another pacecar member state to me that they did not think it was original.

[KurtS]

Yes, I did. And it's always been our policy not to disclose details on why a tag looks like a repro tag. It's not because it's too clean.

Out of 11,000+ cars in the database, not one has a build date that's off by a month.

[67ss350camaro]

RC,
  I was skeptical when you posted just the data, but once I saw the picture of the tag, I knew what the problem was, the cowl tag.  Your cowl tag is very obviously a repro, it does not conform to any 67 NOR tags (the date code is only one of many problems).  I would bet anyone with a picture of your tag and other NOR tags can pick out problems with your cowl tag.  I understand your position (no one wants to hear that they have a repro cowl tag), but our opinion is based on data, not assumptions.

[Rich]

RC:  If you *know* that the tag had original paint on it 21 years ago, and this is the same tag, then you have a degree of comfort that you cannot expect us to have.  One anomaly is an anomaly, filed away as such.  Two anomalies raise additional questions.  Multiple anomalies lead to other thoughts. Since evaluation of a car can sometimes be taken personally, even when it isn't meant that way, I think we should take this off-line to better explain the concerns to you.  If you want to re-start the thread at that point, your call.  Thanks, Rich

[bertfam]

RC,

I NEVER get involved in discussions on Trim Tag authenticity because there are enough guys out there that know the facts and can report as such. And, as a matter of fact, Kurt is one of the best, as is Daniel.

That being said, when you first posted a picture of your tag, I knew that it wasn't factory, but didn't say anything. I didn't want to be the bearer of bad news for you, so I chose to leave it alone. I learned long ago that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

Although I can understand and appreciate your wanting to believe the tag to be correct, due to the fact that you've owned the car for so many years, you have to realize that even in the early 80's, there were people manufacturing reproduction tags for these cars, and reproduction Trim Tags, even today, are fairly easy to spot if you've seen a lot of them over the years. I won't go into details, but there are subtle nuances in the originals that are left off the reproductions.

Fisher Body manufactured hundreds of cars a day and as a general rule, didn't make this kind of mistake. Yes, mistakes were made with Trim Tags, but things like an incorrect paint code, or an incorrect interior code (of which my car has), but not an incorrect date code. You have to understand the process of which these tags were produced to realize why this type of mistake wouldn't happen, and believe me, Kurt knows.

I'm sure no one here will ever be able to pursuade you that your tag is incorrect, just as you won't ever be able to pursuade the guys here at the CRG that it IS correct. But the most important thing is that you enjoy your car no matter what and be willing to listen. Most of the guys associated with this site have 40 years or more of experience with First Generations Camaro's, and have a lot of knowledge to offer. They also value YOUR input as well, so please don't take all this personally. I would hate to see you frustrated to the point where you no longer post.

Keep the lines of communications open with these guys even if it's NOT on the forum!!

Ed

[PACE&Z2869]

Hello everyone. I have no opinion about the trim tag being original or not, however I do have a question.  It was stated that repo tags were being manufactured as early as the early eighties. Could the members who have commented about this particular tag provide myself and others w/ some info to lookout for when looking at a tag on a potential purchase?

Also, with the value of these cars being what they are now,  I see why someone who is dishonest would want a repo tag to represent a car that isn't correct.  However in the early 80's, (and correct me if i'm wrong please) these cars were still affordable and I would think that repo tag would have done someone little good.  I would include highly desireable cars (pacecars, Z/28's copo's) in the affordable group as well, in the early 80's.
I look forward to opinions on this statement.

When I purchased my 69 Z/28 3 years ago, I put alot of faith in the X77 on the trim tag. I'm sure other people do as well. I also put faith in the DZ stamp on the block. I was certain my car was a genuine z/28. How do I know? If someone was going to fake this car, they wouldn't have put air flow research heads on the engine. They wouldn't have painted it green when it was originally Daytona yellow. The cars VIN # was right where it was supposed to be by the oil filter under 1/4 inch of grime. There is X7 written in grease pencil behind the rear seat on the body on the passenger side. ( I'm assuming that means x77) I may have gotten lucky, the VIN and the X7 I didn't find until after I owned the car.

In case anybody is wondering, the Airflow Research heads are gone. I did a complete rotisorie restoration on the whole car and yes it's back to 76 76 Daytona yellow w/ black stripes!!