55 engine stamping question

[Troy P.]

I've seen two early '55s with what I believe to be original engines with engine identification stampings that are out of alignment and done in pieces. What do you think? Does anyone have similar stampings to share?








If you'd rather not post the photos you can email them to me at troy.pyles@comcast.net

[Willard M.]

Re: 55 engine stamping question

I don't remember the exact post but recently there was a reference to the fact that gang holders were not used until well into C1 production, maybe 58-59 if I remember correctly. I think that this stuff was posted on the CF. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

[Patrick B.]

Re: 55 engine stamping question

There is no question that this 55 stamping is original, but I doubt that most early 55 engines had the sequence number done in individual hand stamps. The Flint factory certainly had 5 character gang stamps. One was used for the F55FG part. The attached photo shows that the 5 character gang stamp was used in 1954 for the first 5 characters of the sequence number followed by 2 hand stamped characters. It does not seem logical that the factory would abandon an 1954 practice for a more time intensive stamping method in 1955.

[Wayne L.]

Re: 55 engine stamping question

Troy-
I have a couple of pictures of 55 stamp pads. One is Corvette, and one is passenger car, but they both were stamped in pieces as you and Pat described. Should I forward the pictures to your email?
Wayne

[Troy P.]

Re: 55 engine stamping question

Nice to hear from you Wayne. Please do send them to my email.

BTW my 54 is from Tacoma/Lakewood. My 55 is from Oregon. Both your area.
Troy

[John S.]

Re: 55 engine stamping question

troy, it is not unusual to find the first 5 digits staggered. to show you how common it is, go to ebay and type in 1955 chevy engine block. there are three listings that show the engine pads. two will have the first five numbers block stamped and the third is staggered like the 1955 corvette #29 pad that you posted.

[John S.]

Re: 55 engine stamping question

There is no question that this 55 stamping is original, but I doubt that most early 55 engines had the sequence number done in individual hand stamps. The Flint factory certainly had 5 character gang stamps. One was used for the F55FG part. The attached photo shows that the 5 character gang stamp was used in 1954 for the first 5 characters of the sequence number followed by 2 hand stamped characters. It does not seem logical that the factory would abandon an 1954 practice for a more time intensive stamping method in 1955.

how do you know if the G was not added. the owners of the car, who had it since the early sixties, did not even know the car had been in a accident and was repainted a different color.(now copper, was white). is that pad number in sequence with other early 55 corvettes?

[Patrick B.]

Re: 55 engine stamping question

You are right. The G could have been added, but this one is in exactly the right spot for a 5 character gang stamp. I was actually referring to the fonts of the individual hand stamped characters. They match typical factory production of the time, although I am used to seeing the first 5 in a gang stamp. You obviously know more about 55's than I do and also are acquainted with this particular car. However, I would gladly place my bet on the originality of this pad.

One of the ideas discussed in this thread was the question of whether all 55's up to a certain time had the first 7 characters hand stamped. I included the picture of the 54 to show that although I was not questioning the authenticity of this 55, the typical factory practice established before its stamping was to gang stamp the first 5 numbers as an obvious time saving measure.

[John S.]

Re: 55 engine stamping question

troy, car #29 with pad number 0092495F55FG has a engine date code of J284, which seems awfully early for a car built in early February. it makes me wonder if it was assigned a sequence number, but wasn't stamped until after the gang stamp was changed to another number.

[Troy P.]

Re: 55 engine stamping question

The reason why I raised this issue is a 55 with a similar stamping to the one I showed in the photo was deducted 50 points at the recent regional in Florida. That car reportedly has an engine sequence number just two away from that in my photo. All other indications lead to the thinking that the engine has not been replaced but certainly was rebuilt (sleeve in one cylinder).

Judges had no issue with the broach marks. If the randomness of the stamping layout was the only reason then I think the judges made a mistake.

BTW if the G was added I'd say someone did an excellent, undetectable job. But why add a G to a sleeved engine block? Just go find one in better condition to add a G.

[John S.]

Re: 55 engine stamping question

The reason why I raised this issue is a 55 with a similar stamping to the one I showed in the photo was deducted 50 points at the recent regional in Florida. That car reportedly has an engine sequence number just two away from that in my photo. All other indications lead to the thinking that the engine has not been replaced but certainly was rebuilt (sleeve in one cylinder).

Judges had no issue with the broach marks. If the randomness of the stamping layout was the only reason then I think the judges made a mistake.

BTW if the G was added I'd say someone did an excellent, undetectable job. But why add a G to a sleeved engine block? Just go find one in better condition to add a G.

any one that is judging a 55 corvette, especially a ncrs judge(seeing that you (Troy) are so involved with ncrs), should have viewed your c.d. of car #29. the 50 point deduction is unexcusable and being that the sequence number is so close it gives the other car more merit that the pad is original. the judging sheet needs to be corrected. BTW, there was no doubt in my mind that the pad you posted was original, for I have also inspected #29 several times. I just added the G scenario to see what responses would follow. in answer to why add a G to a car with a bad cylinder, if I viewed your c.d. and found a passenger block with so close a sequence number, I would certainly try to use that block.

[Troy P.]

Re: 55 engine stamping question

I was not there but the owner of the judged car had my CD of photos and told me he showed the judges the photo I posted. But apparently they thought the engine represented by my photo and the judged car both had bogus stampings, even though they found the broach marks to be acceptable.
How can you have good broach marks and such a supposedly lousy re-stamp? No one would go to the trouble to deck the block, reproduce accurate broach marks and then do a childish job of stamping the block. Anyone who can reproduce broach marks can stamp better than that. Which by itself should tell you the stamping was not done over.
Enough said. An error was made.

[Joe R.]

Re: 55 engine stamping question

Troy,

The engine stamp on the 55 that you show is original and correct! Judges can be wrong and in this case they are dead wrong! The judges that deducted for that stamp should be schooled before they are allowed to judge again.
I would suggest to anybody putting on a meet to ask Patrick Boyd to conduct the seminar! He has forgot more than the rest of us together know about judging stamp pads!!!!!!

JR

[Rick A.]

Re: 55 engine stamping question

agree with JR!

[Greg P.]

Re: 55 engine stamping question

Well let address the facts, In response #12 the reply is I was not there and it is bogus. Correct in one statement false in the other. Here are the facts at this time. No judges used the word bogus the statement was we HAVE not have seen this Stamp sequence at this time in any V8 engine built at flint in 1955, not one in our library sooooo we left the owner to gather some info to see if we can find another. We have people on our team also looking to help the owner locate another one .. We all agree (judges that day) it can be out there but we can not just let it go by without our due diligence to find another example.Guys when you have a one of one or something that We have NEVER seen before the burden of proof is with the owner and we are here to help with his cause