Frame pull date

[Gary B.]

Joe,

An H9 Body Build Date (BBD) for both St. louis and AOS bodies is March 9, 1965

Mark,

Is the body build date code system different for ‘66 from ‘65? For ‘66, a St Louis bodied car with an H9 code would decode to April 9, whereas for an AO Smith bodied car H9 in ‘66 would be March. 9. That’s not the case for ‘65?

Gary

[Mark F.]

Mark, Is the body build date code system different for ‘66 from ‘65? Apparently For ‘66, a St Louis bodied car with an H9 code would decode to April 9, whereas for an AO Smith bodied car H9 in ‘66 would be March. 9. Yes, that's what I see in a '66 TIMJG I have. That’s not the case for ‘65? see below... Gary

Hi Gary,

I got my info from an older version of the '65 TIMJG off of the 1965 Body Build Date Codes and Final Monthly Serial Numbers Table.

Unlike the '66 TIMJG, that Table does not discriminate between St. Louis and AOS bodies - August 1964 is listed as month "A" with a final serial of 100227 (IOW only 227 cars produced, which by my guess is roughly 2 days production).

It might even be only 1 day of production if AOS made 1/2 of those bodies...
All supposition on my part, but somebody out there knows

[Jack M.]

Herez a handy C2 Trim Plate Guide from Mid America (see ATTACHED).

I've also been searching the archives for pertinent data on the 'pull date'.
Lotza conflicting info to sort thru... I hope to post a summary, in the near future.

1963-1967 Corvette Trim Plate Guide.pdf

[Gary B.]

Jack, Mark,

I wish they had kept the unified ‘65 build date code system for ‘66. It would have been less confusing.

Gary

[Mark F.]

Jack, Mark, I wish they had kept the unified ‘65 build date code system for ‘66. It would have been less confusing. Gary

Hi Gary,

Yeah, I agree.
The '67 TIMJG parallels the '65 in that St. Louis vs AOS (DowSmith) bodies are not broken out with different codes.
Either no cars made it to the roll off in Aug 1966 - or the serials for those that did are not known for August of 1966.
image.png

However, i just noticed in my copy of the '65, the last two months of production have the same body build date code "L" - actually looks like only 2 cars (23563 and 23564) lopped over into August 1966...

There's a reason out there somewhere, but we'll probably never know what it is

image.png

[Jack M.]

I've been searching the archives for info on 'pull dates'... over the years, there has been lotza conflicting posts. I've decided to forego the 'what should my pull date be' aspect, and focus mainly on stencils -vs- hand written dates.

Overall, I get the impression that the early 1966 frame image in Noland's book, has led people to believe the hand written date is the 'norm'... when in actuality, it appears to be just the opposite. I believe there have been many false assumptions made, seemingly based on that one photo.

What reason would St Louis/GM need to identify a 'pull date'... especially when they already have data on the vehicle build dates. A 'pull date' doesn't define any anomalies with a questionable frame defect... they would need a manufacturers date, since frames wouldn't have any other tracking mechanism (as they were stacked/rotated/used, just like any other part). A manufacturer date makes the most sense... and people have referenced this, multiple times.

John Hinckley even had conflicting thoughts on the frame dates... again, I believe based on the infamous frame upside down image in Noland's book. Hez claimed to have seen frames stacked outside, with NO hand written dates... so when he observes the dates in that image, he likely concluded (falsely) they were written at the 'buck station'.

But if we follow some of John's other notes, we know the frames went from the buck station, to being assembled for production... they didn't go back and restack them. That would be a wasted move, and I doubt that St Louis even had room for multiple stacks. And if the frames stacked on the rear of Noland's photo, were fresh off the buck station, why are those dates EARLIER than the dates on the frames being assembled? Seemz that would be a total impossibility.

So why did John Hinckley recall seeing frames stacked outside with NO hand written frame dates... simple, the manufacturer dates were already included in the stencil (seemz the majority of the time). What we don't know, is why the manufacturer dates had various formats... some stenciled, while others were hand written, even in the same year.

Finally, John also noted this: "After spending 37 years in assembly plants, I can say with some confidence that assembly plants don't put dates on parts - suppliers do."

Go thru the archives... read the various conflicting threads, and see just what makes common sense. In the end, I had one simple conclusion... I believe the dates (both stenciled and hand written) were done by the frame manufacturer.
.

-----------------------------

Afterthought: If I'm korrect, the frame dates will just be like any other part. Most will be grouped somewhat close together, while you can occasionally find a few 'weird' dates. Stacks were brought inside in no particular order... the closest one to the inside door, was probably brought in first.

[Stephen L.]

Thanks jack for the explanation.
Steve

[Mark F.]

I've been searching the archives for info on 'pull dates'...Finally, John also noted this: "After spending 37 years in assembly plants, I can say with some confidence that assembly plants don't put dates on parts - suppliers do."...Go thru the archives... read the various conflicting threads, and see just what makes common sense. In the end, I had one simple conclusion... I believe the dates (both stenciled and hand written) were done by the frame manufacturer.

Hi Jack, I agree with all of your conclusions...

Having done some work in a frame plant what still puzzles me is for such a large; expensive; exposed-to-the-elements; and structurally significant part - why weren't the frame manufacturer's numbers and dates stamped into the metal rather than relatively non-permanent methods such as stenciling and crayons ?

Oh well, it went on like that for some time so I guess GM was satisfied...
I wonder if service replacement frames were identified the same way ?