C2 1967 engine pad

[Nick C.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

To the first point and respectfully submitted;

Perhaps there may be visible broachmarks...

On the machine stamp points...

I believe collected data confirms there definitely was a certain amount of "play" in the gang holder, especially when the last letter of the suffix code was left off, (perhaps for the sake of expediency).

Both pictures attached below prove that, even though the upper T is a much neater appearing after strike. Without giving up all my files, and those of others, suffice it to say there are many examples.

Also noted, there were several different fonts used in the Flint assembly sequence... and sometimes they changed position when the dates changed...

[Joel F.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

Great pictures Nick, thank you! Looking at the two's in the assembly dates removes any doubt for me.

[Jimmy B.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

My car is in the paint shop so it will be a little while before I can get to those pulleys.

Here's what I know and "can document" about the car.

1) Original owner purchased On April 01, 1967.
I have been in contact with Rubin Hollatz 80+ years old who
signed my original warranty booklet and entered the car into the
warranty/service program at the selling Chevrolet Dealership at
Penrose Chevrolet in Parkers Prairie Minnesota.

2) I assume 2nd owner purchased in 1970 and I do have that original
California title dated that year. Also known as "pink slip"

3) Car put in storage in 1979 (last sticker on CA. license tag)

4) I contacted CA dmv and they had no history or anything on the car
because it had not been registered in a long time it had dropped
out of their computer system and they had lost all record of it

5) Car purchased out of an estate because the owner from 1970 had
died

6) I have the original protecto plate/booklet and tank sticker
Anybody want to see this let me know.

7) When I got the car the original engine appears to have never
been apart, it still had dated spark plug wires and a original
numbered fuel pump. The waterpump was also correct and
totally frozen up. I also received 1 original fan belt (GM with
the numbered heated/recessed into it)

8) For you speculators Mr. Grenning did look at the pad photos and stated that this is "factory typical" 100% the real thing, he even showed/used this pad picture at his slide presentation at the NCRS National in San Antonio 2006 to enlighten NCRS members as to what was an example
of "the real thing".

[Chuck S.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

...For you speculators Mr. Grenning did look at the pad photos and stated that this is "factory typical" 100% the real thing, he even showed/used this pad picture at his slide presentation at the NCRS National in San Antonio 2006 to enlighten NCRS members as to what was an example
of "the real thing".

I believe we, or at the very least I, have been SANDBAGGED!!!

Well, that's all right, Jimmy...it's a heck of a lot easier for me to handle being wrong than it would be for you to deal with that pad being bogus. HaHaHa...

"...All of these features may be perfect examples of typical factory stamps, and it's my pad stamp knowledge that has holes in it...

I consider myself suitably rebuked for my "speculation".

[Kevin M.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

Chuck,

Yea what's up with that? I felt like Paul Harvey just gave us the "rest of the story". I guess asking a question you already have the answer for makes the replies useless, I feel had.

Kevin

[Jimmy B.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

I apologize if anyone feels abused, I thought showing an original "old encrusted" pad might open up some eyes to what might not appear to always be the "norm". I just didn't want to show a pic and say this is the way it is period but gave all a chance to view it and express their humble opinion. I didn't even know that "1" was upside down until Gary Bishop took a picture of it for me and then when I looked at it on my computer screen there it was. Again I think a discussion and a chance to view it by numerous personnel was/is good. Do you see these type anomalies at judging school?

Thus I gave everyone a chance to view it, and then stated the documentation to back that it is real 100% factory. I could have not told anyone this and just left everyone hanging...... Sorry Kevin if I upset you and others.... I thought I would share this because isn't this what this FORUM is all about?

[Patrick T.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

OK Chuck, I'll throw this one in just to stir the pot! I sent this pic to Al Grenning and he says it's good to go. PT

[Chuck S.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

OK, Patrick, too late...now you're just PILING ON!!!

Actually, I don't see much to be concerned about with your pad...the HT is a lightly struck, but from what we've learned here, the suffix, or one letter of the suffix was sometimes stamped later "for convenience" (I figure until the supervisor caught them getting ahead of the game).

I think the lesson to be learned here is...being embarrassed by a loaded question is one thing, but when it comes to a purchase decision on a questionable pad stamp, it would be better to admit your limitations, and err on the side of conservatism. Better to pass on an opportunity, than make a costly mistake...or, better yet, get help from someone that knows pad stamps.

[Mark R.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

I apologize if anyone feels abused, I thought showing an original "old encrusted" pad might open up some eyes to what might not appear to always be the "norm". I just didn't want to show a pic and say this is the way it is period but gave all a chance to view it and express their humble opinion. I didn't even know that "1" was upside down until Gary Bishop took a picture of it for me and then when I looked at it on my computer screen there it was. Again I think a discussion and a chance to view it by numerous personnel was/is good. Do you see these type anomalies at judging school?

Thus I gave everyone a chance to view it, and then stated the documentation to back that it is real 100% factory. I could have not told anyone this and just left everyone hanging...... Sorry Kevin if I upset you and others.... I thought I would share this because isn't this what this FORUM is all about?

Jimmy:

Thanks for initiating an excellent exercise in stamp pad judging. I fully agree sharing knowledge and opinions is what the forum is all about. I feel I have definitely benifitted by following this thread.

Mark

[Rick A.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

there you go again - stirring the masses up - thought when you retired from LMCO you would quit doing that! (VBG)

[Lee S.]

[James G.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

The pad's Letters look fine until you get to the "T". It looks like an overstike. It obviously wasn't included in the gang-holder on the 1st strike. Look at how faint the "H" is. It's possible the "T" was even more faint the first time around and that the past owner or the factory guy just had to restamp it. The pad "surface" is gone and would recieve a full deduction for lack of broach marks. Regards, Bob

I agree it was a factory double strike over.....or added "T" as they did not know which engine they were going to use until the last minute. Remember the "KH" engine had California smog K-19, so at the end of production line there was some confusion as to what stamps was needed for what car.

I SAY REAL DEAL

[Page C.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

Hi Lee,
Very interesting engine stamp. If the casting date is I86( Sept 8, 1966), then don't see how it could be assembled on Aug 17, 1966. Are you sure about the casting date?
Regards,
Page Campbell

[Lee S.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

Hi Lee,
Very interesting engine stamp. If the casting date is I86( Sept 8, 1966), then don't see how it could be assembled on Aug 17, 1966. Are you sure about the casting date?
Regards,
Page Campbell

See photos. What do you think?