63 Emblems - Yea or Neah!

[Joe S.]

Removed the emblems preparing for paint. Need to check to see if these are correct emblems. If they are, and if they can be cleaned up to look pretty decent, I'll probably keep them. They are not in bad shape. The side emblems though have two different numbers in them (on the back of the flags) and what appears to be two dates (1965 and 1966). Don't know if these are dates but sure appear to be. If so, they are wrong.

Emblem Numbers:

Front: 3797400
Side: 3872930 / 1966 and 3827158 / 1965
Fuel Inj: 3819575
Rear: 3797414

Worth Cleaning up and keeping?

Thanks




Joe's 63 FI Convertible

[Tom D.]

Re: 63 Emblems - Thin or thick? (Side) *NM*

[Michael H.]

Re: 63 Emblem Myth

Tom... and everyone else that own's a 63,

It's time to put another 63 Corvette myth out of it's misery. There's no such thing as thin side emblems for any 63 Corvette. This one has been causing problems since the first parts books were printed in 1963. The "Thin" 3792000 emblem was used on 62 Corvette and 62-63 passenger cars but there was a mistake in the original 63 parts book that continued on and was never corrected. In one listing, the 3827158 was listed for Corvette and below that, the 3792000 was listed for 62-63 pass and Corvette. If you look in the assembly manual, you will see absolutely no mention of the thin 3792000 emblem, only the thick 3827158 and if I remember correctly, that part number was catalogued and finalized way back in July of 1962. I owned serial #00170 S/W in the early 70's and it had it's original faded 3827158 emblems on it. In the mid 70's, I looked at Steve Costelli's serial #00020 pilot line car and it had one of it's original 3827158 emblems on it. If I'm not mistaken, the thin "000" emblem won't even fit into the original holes in the fender of a 63 because the spacing of the studs is different. The 3827158 emblem was discontinued in the mid 60's and replaced in service with the 3872930. NOS 3827158's are near impossible to find. I've found only two sets in nearly 30 years of searching.

Now, for the difference in 3827158/3872930, it was only the color that changed in the red/orange flag. The 3827158 that was used from 1963 through 1965 was orange but that was changed to dark red on the 3872930 for 66. The orange in the 158 emblem should be the same as the orange in the Fuel Injection emblem and front nose emblem. The 1966 3872930 side flag doesn't even come close to matching. The same is true for 1965 and 1966 front emblems. The color on an orginal 65 nose emblem was orange while the 66 was changed to maroon. There was a different part number for 65 than there was for 66 but all service replacement emblems carry both numbers because the original 65 number was discontinued in late 65 and replaced by the 3872929 66 nose emblem.

Michael

[Loren L.]

AMEN!! *NM*

[Mike E.]

Re: 63 Emblem Myth

And the 3792000 replacements, since at least the early 70's, have also been the dark red while the originals were orange (for 62's and 62-3 passenger cars)

[Tracy C.]

Re: 63 Emblem Myth

Thank you Michael!

This is excellent information and is one more item for me to stop fret'in over.
I've considered replacing my original emblems because I thought the red was just faded out. I'm glad to hear the Orangish tint is the correct color. I'm expecially appreciative of mine now knowing the "158" emblems are so hard to come by.

Your post will find a home in my Archive.....

I love this place!!
tc

[Joe S.]

Re: 63 Emblem Myth

Thanks much. Sounds like a good cleaning and these stay. There is no pitting whatsoever and actually the colors are still in pretty decent shape.

Any recommendations on cleaning other than some soap & water and a soft brush?

Thanks everyone. And Michael, hope you don't mind but I am going to add your post to my website.

Joe..




Joe's 63 FI Convertible

[Michael H.]

Re: 63 Emblem Myth

Mike,

You are absolutely correct on the color of the service emblems. The quality seemed to drop quite a bit also. I bought a set from GM in about the mid 70's and they looked nothing like the originals.

[Tom D.]

Very complete reply - Thanks. *NM*