71 Stamp Pad...the real deal?

[Tom R.]

That's the ebay marketing pitch...anyway curious how others view this stamp pad.

[Kent K.]

Photo too small - need higher resolution *NM*

[Dave S.]

Re: 71 Stamp Pad...the real deal?

Tom,
Looked at it in the Ebay listing. I'd hate to be the seller who is guaranteeing that this is the original engine. Can't see the broach marks due to poor quality photo but the letters/numbers are a bit crooked for me. Especially the last number in the assembly date and last letter in the VIN derative.

[William C.]

Re: 71 Stamp Pad...the real deal?

The picture simply is not good enough (resolution) to tell anything.

[Rick A.]

Re: 71 Stamp Pad...the real deal?

resized the pix using IrfanView and the stamp pad is a joke! it looks like someone hand-scribed the numbers or something - if I knew how to post the resized pix ya'll would see what I am stating

[Tom R.]

Re: more res

Ok...here's one sized at 33 KB...the other was 9 KB. For me it's a crap shoot with resizing photos for web consumption.

[Kent K.]

Re: more res

Tom,
Thanks for resizing the photo. I am no expert on '71 but, the problem I see is the "C11..." prior to the S in the SN stamping. I thought it should start with the S.... Maybe Terry will chime in with his experience.
Happy New Year, Kent

[Terry M.]

Re: more res

The best help I can offer this week is that some 1971s start with 71S and some with C11S. I don't have any of my reference material with me. (Hint: It is not cold and snowing where I am. The temp is 22*C right now, and the AC has been on day & night. Life is a beach.) I know there was a change during production, and it is cited in the TIM&JG. Someone besides me will have to look it up.

[Dave S.]

Re: more res

The C11S...... is correct for engines assembled after early September 1970. Earlier 1971 engines were stamped 71S1.......

[Kent K.]

Re: more res

Terry,
Thanks to you & Dave Strickland for correcting me. Dave wrote "The C11S...... is correct for engines assembled after early September 1970. Earlier 1971 engines were stamped 71S1.......". Guess I should stay out of conversations regarding car years I know little abbout. One thing though, is that if you enlarge Tom Russo's second photo, one can barely see (or imagine) brooch marks. Sure would be nice to see Rick Aleshire's resized pix using IrfanView for what he described as "hand scribed" numbers. They look pretty good to my ol' tired eyes without a scope in the real world.
Happy New Year, Kent

[Terry M.]

Re: more res

I didn't comment on the stamp because the photo, even enlarged, isn't adequate for me to make an assessment. It is not high enough resolution or magnification to tell much, and not all of the pad is unpainted. Even under the best of circumstances, photos are a poor substitute for actually seeing the unpainted pad "in the flesh."

[Tom R.]

Re: more res

What caught my attention is the paint in the letters but that just suggests the pad was painted than wiped off. I tried to resize but as Terry points out...the resolution is not sufficent to permit a blow up.

So we have no issues of originality, configuration (of characters), completeness, date with finish not discernable due to photo resolution and probably a deduct for paint?

[Terry M.]

Re: more res

Tom, if you are going to look at it like an NCRS judge I would point out that the finish issue (pad surface) is a 100% all or nothing assesment. With no broach marks it is an automatic 38 point deduct in my way of looking at it. If I saw any broach marks on I might be sawyed, but for whatever reason I don't. This is an area where seeing it in the flesh might yield the car more points.