Opinions on this early 1967 small block pad stamp?

[Joe R.]

I'm looking at the V0901HT engine assembly stamping on a '67 small block Corvette that was built in mid-September, 1966. In the attached photo, both the "0" and the "9" look different from other Flint pads I have in my photo library.

Unfortunately, I only have two photos of September 1966 pads, and they are each about a week away from this one. Does anyone have a photo of a Flint stamping that is closer to September 1, 1966?

On a broader level, has anyone ever seen *any* Flint stamping that had "0" or "9" character fonts like the ones in the attached photo?

I realize that the attached photo not clear enough to make a determination on broach marks, but I think it is fine for looking at character fonts. I'm trying to get better photos from the owner.

[Joseph T.]

Re: Opinions on this early 1967 small block pad stamp?

Joe - attached is an assembly stamp close to your date

[Joseph T.]

Re: Opinions on this early 1967 small block pad stamp?

The 0 and 9 Assmbly Characters look similar to the Tonowanda numbers around that same time period

[Gerard F.]

Re: Opinions on this early 1967 small block pad stamp?

Joe,

If you look at the second 6 in my 0626 (late small block)67, upside down, it looks like your 9.
The 0 doesn't seem to match, but there were lots of 0's

[Kenneth P.]

Re: Opinions on this early 1967 small block pad stamp?

Read post #6 https://www.forums.ncrs.org/showthre...Block-Stamping

[Joe C.]

Re: Opinions on this early 1967 small block pad stamp?

Joe,

The pad surface original broach marks are gone, which makes the stamp non original.

Other than that, the upper part of the "9" looks too small.

[Michael H.]

Re: Opinions on this early 1967 small block pad stamp?

Looks like it's re-stamp to me.

Mike

[Joe R.]

Re: Opinions on this early 1967 small block pad stamp?

Hello All:

Thanks for the feedback. I asked the owner to get me better photos of the pad, but the second batch came out too fuzzy to be useful regarding broach marks.

However, he did manage to get a good photo of the casting date, and it turns out the block was cast in December. So, this is definitely a re-stamp.

Interestingly, the current owner purchased this car in 1995. So, this re-stamp is at least 21 years old.

[Mike E.]

Re: Opinions on this early 1967 small block pad stamp?

Hello All:

Thanks for the feedback. I asked the owner to get me better photos of the pad, but the second batch came out too fuzzy to be useful regarding broach marks.

However, he did manage to get a good photo of the casting date, and it turns out the block was cast in December. So, this is definitely a re-stamp.

Interestingly, the current owner purchased this car in 1995. So, this re-stamp is at least 21 years old.

There was restamping controversy already in the early 80's, so 95 is recent history!

[Patrick T.]

Re: Opinions on this early 1967 small block pad stamp?

Joe,

If you look at the second 6 in my 0626 (late small block)67, upside down, it looks like your 9.
The 0 doesn't seem to match, but there were lots of 0's

Jerry, I never realized that our cars were built so close together.

[Gerard F.]

Re: Opinions on this early 1967 small block pad stamp?

Patrick,

Yes, less than 500 apart. One thing on my pad, (and on yours) is that I still can't see the broach marks. They must have just changed blades on the big machine in June 67.

Have been judged 3 times and they say the broach marks are there on mine, however faint. The little scratches on mine are when I removed the rust. Have owned the car since 68 (second owner, traded a 67 Renault 10 for it to my Navy room-mate)(and when he was going to get married), so I know the engine is original. Exhaust manifolds, heads and intake manifold have never been off, and I'm still driving it.

Maybe see you and the car in Texas next year, I'm driving it there with a road tour. The year of the 67.

And I'm still having fun.

[Leif A.]

Re: Opinions on this early 1967 small block pad stamp?

Another June 1967 for comparison...the six and the fine broach marks.

[Joe R.]

Re: Opinions on this early 1967 small block pad stamp?

Hi Leif:

That HP code on your engine is pretty rare. It was only used for the combination of L79+A/C+PS. Any idea how many "HP" cars were built?

Based on my research, the reason that they needed a different engine code for this combination was that the water pump flange placement was farther back than the standard L79. This was done because the standard L79 used deep-groove pulleys, while the combination of L79+A/C+PS used the standard-groove pulley setup from the 300 HP configuration. I believe the problem was that with deep-groove pulleys, the PS pulley moved so far forward that there was a risk of interference with the frame rail kick-up.

[Leif A.]

Re: Opinions on this early 1967 small block pad stamp?

Joe,
There is, unfortunately, no way to know exactly how many '67 L79 with N40 & C60 were produced. According to Noland's book, there were a total of 444 '67 L79 coupes with A/C but there is no way of knowing how many of those, also, had power steering. With mine being Ermine White with J50 power brakes, A31 power windows, QB1 redline tires and N14 side mount exhausts...there couldn't have been too many produced exactly like this one. How many are left...fewer still.

[Joe R.]

Re: Opinions on this early 1967 small block pad stamp?

I do not agree that the absence of broach marks means it's a re stamp, I have seen several original stamps with no broach marks. Remove the head and most have broach marks. An absence of broach marks just means that it has been exposed to rusting for 50 years plus! Please do not use that as a standard for a re stamped motor. That logic won't fly!

JR