Determining whether a 2/7/63 build date is considered early/mid/late

[Gerald C.]

Just looking for some clarification on the "era" of my 63 built on 2/7/63.

early/mid/late in the 1963 production run

Much appreciated

[Owen L.]

Those terms don't mean anything in a general sense. There are no defined cut-points for the terms.

For the car overall, you could calculate where your serial number falls in the range of the 21,513 total units. 2/7/63 is right around #8100, so it sits at about 38% of the total. But, it's also 5 months into production - right about the half-way point. Which would you use to put that into early, mid, late terms?

As far as parts descriptions that use early or late, those are only in relation to a specific part change. You could have a part change in October (not far into the production year) but parts after that change date are "late"; similarly you could have a change in May (near the end of the model year) such that all parts before the May change date are "early".

[Gerald C.]

Those terms don't mean anything in a general sense. There are no defined cut-points for the terms.

For the car overall, you could calculate where your serial number falls in the range of the 21,513 total units. 2/7/63 is right around #8100, so it sits at about 38% of the total. But, it's also 5 months into production - right about the half-way point. Which would you use to put that into early, mid, late terms?

As far as parts descriptions that use early or late, those are only in relation to a specific part change. You could have a part change in October (not far into the production year) but parts after that change date are "late"; similarly you could have a change in May (near the end of the model year) such that all parts before the May change date are "early".

Owen,
Thanks for your comments. I look at the car as a midrange car as far as production terms are concerned. It's kind of funny when some folks say it's an early car and yet others may say it's a late car. Since it's below the 50% range in the production run, I would consider it an early car. But no one really knows as you said that there was a continuous flow of changes during the production year. That's why these 63's are so much fun!!

[David H.]

[... I look at the car as a midrange car as far as production terms are concerned. It's kind of funny when some folks say it's an early car and yet others may say it's a late car. Since it's below the 50% range in the production run, I would consider it an early car. But no one really knows as you said that there was a continuous flow of changes during the production year. That's why these 63's are so much fun!![/QUOTE]

Gerald

Take a careful read of what Owen said:

" ...As far as parts descriptions that use early or late, those are only in relation to a specific part change. You could have a part change in October (not far into the production year) but parts after that change date are "late"; similarly you could have a change in May (near the end of the model year) such that all parts before the May change date are "early"...."

Most all "early / late" discussions refer to running changes of parts or assembly process. As Owen noted, "early/late" does not really mean anything in a general sense.

Dave

[Joseph S.]

At this year's National Convention, Andy Cabral (63-64 Team Leader) and I will be presenting a seminar on the running changes throughout the 63 Model year. Just as Owen and David have said, there is no set cut off for early and late. There are changes weekly in the 63 model run. I know some people believe that early cars are built in 1962 and anything after is late but that is not the best description. It's much better to discuss dates or serial numbers.

I hope this clears things up. Early and Late just does not work!

Joe

[Mark F.]

Most “early” / ‘late” discussions I have seen in TIMJGs are associated with a VIN; or a range of VINs (when known).

Assuming September 1962 was the 1^st calendar month of production for 1963 Corvettes and August 1963 was the last calendar month - using the narrowest range from the table below I would interpret your build date (February 1963) as “Mid” (later than the 5^th month and earlier than the 8^th month).

This table is from the Glossary in the 1967 TIMJG. Does it use “month” in a strict calendar month name sense ?; or in a “months’ worth of production run” sense ? IOW, does it assume 30 rolling calendar days, which can overlap named calendar months ?
Or, simply the month name associated with the date ?

I don’t know…and I don’t know the provenance of where this table came from.

I think this table can also apply to part changes, too when dates or VIN ranges are known for them.

Production Description	Timeframe
Very Early	the first month
Early	the first 4 months
Early to Mid	the first 8 months
Early to Late	the first to the last day or month
Mid	the 5th to 8th months
Mid to Late	the 5th to the last month
Late	the last 4 months
Very Late	the last month

[Duke W.]

It's also important to understand that if the disposition (which we don't know)of the superseded part was "use until the supply is exhausted" then there could be a period of time were both the new and superseded parts were used, which could be days or weeks depending on when the new parts arrived at the plant and how they were inventoried. Unless the replaced part was a serious safety issue or reliability issue (think warranty cost) superseded parts were usually used until the supply was exhausted.

The change record on the applicable AIM sheet will often, but not always, list the applicable part change and a date, but understand this is the date the sheet was changed. The new parts may have been installed on jobs before the plant even got the new AIM sheet or it could be after. The implementation of every change is essentially unique.

In some cases the change record may have no record of the change. That is because the sheet ran out of revision boxes or was "redrawn and revised". The currently available AIMs are copies of what existed at or near the end of production. Prior sheets usually went into the round file, so if the sheet ran out of change record boxes or was redrawn and revised, the prior change data is lost.

The bottom line is that judges need to be very "judicious" about calling out something like the car is too early to have a later part or too late to have a superseded part.

Duke

[Mark F.]

It's also important to understand that if the disposition (which we don't know) of the superseded part was "use until the supply is exhausted" then there could be a period of time where both the new and superseded parts were used, which could be days or weeks depending on when the new parts arrived at the plant and how they were inventoried [and delivered to the parts cribs adjacent to the stations where they were installed]. Unless the replaced part was a serious safety issue or reliability issue (think warranty cost) superseded parts were usually used until the supply was exhausted. Agreed. The bottom line is that judges need to be very "judicious" about calling out something like the car is too early to have a later part or too late to have a superseded part. Duke

Agree with Duke's statements...

Many parts and/or small assemblies were supplied to the line in what was once called "parts cribs" (heavy wire mesh "bins" w/ fork lift truck fixtures on the bottom). Freshly fully-loaded cribs were delivered to the line as needed so those parts would not run out during assembly (DISASTEROUS).

A Fork lift driver would approach from behind the crib location with a new full bin of parts - set that new one down - come over to the one adjacent to the line - remove that crib that was almost empty (but NEVER completely empty or the line would shut down) - back out and set it down - reload the newly delivered one up adjacent to that station on the line - and finally, load up and take the old one back to be restocked with additional parts for that station.

If the part had changed - w/o the need to remove the old version for safety reasons as Duke says above, the new batch of parts were dumped into the crib on top of whatever was left in the bottom...think stamped interior door parts here as an example.

Although not in "cribs" noted above - think the same with bolts; washers; nuts; cotter pins and other "nit noid" parts as I call them. Line parts supplier laborers were not searching thru what was in the bottom of the crib - or parts bucket - they just dumped in what was supplied to them - hence as Duke says - you could have randomized use of a new part and its' superseded part assembled randomly as they were pulled from the mixed-up supply cribs or bins adjacent to the line.

Translation: if it worked; put it on the car.

[Mark F.]

Examples of stackable parts "cribs"...

image.png

[Mark F.]

Examples of small parts bins...probably bolts, washers, lock washers, nuts, etc.
note the racks and bins appear to be the same for the driver's and passenger's sides

image.png

[Patrick H.]

At this year's National Convention, Andy Cabral (63-64 Team Leader) and I will be presenting a seminar on the running changes throughout the 63 Model year.

Joe

That could be a long seminar.