Need expert opinion on this jack stamp - is it original? - NCRS Discussion Boards

Need expert opinion on this jack stamp - is it original?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Brad M.
    Expired
    • July 31, 2005
    • 262

    Need expert opinion on this jack stamp - is it original?

    I need help determining if the stamp on this jack seems correct/original for an early 69 car.

    The stamp is "L 8" which is inverted from the normal year/month format.

    Are jacks of this era known to have been stamped opposite of the normal method?

    The jack that I have for my 71 and others that I have previously seen (primarily for 1971 and 1972) seemed to all follow the year/month format as described in the 70-72 judging guide, but not sure if it is possible to have the code inverted or if this is not a 69 jack, etc.???

    This also has an interesting location of the stamp in that the 8 almost missed the metal of the jack.
    Attached Files
  • Brad M.
    Expired
    • July 31, 2005
    • 262

    #2
    Re: How would this be treated for judging purposes??

    OK, no one apparently wants to go out on a limb and give an opinion on this based upon my original question, so let me re-phrase the question.

    If this jack with the stamp of L 8 was in a November 68 built 69 car, how would it be scored?

    Comment

    • Mike M.
      Director Region V
      • August 31, 1994
      • 1463

      #3
      Re: Need expert opinion on this jack stamp - is it original?

      Yo, Chill Dewd. This is not a 24/7 assignment for most of us.
      Yes, Brad, you should be good to go. Juxtiposition was very erratic.
      My '68 has the month at a 45 degree angle to the year. I have seen '67-72 originals with the dates stamped upside/down from each other.
      Ha patiently ND

      Comment

      • Brad M.
        Expired
        • July 31, 2005
        • 262

        #4
        Re: Need expert opinion on this jack stamp - is it original?

        Mike,

        Thanks for your response. I had noticed that many people had viewed the post (over 100) but no one (prior to you) had responded based upon their opinion or facts noted from observing similar jacks, etc.

        I probably get spoiled by this site as there are many people with vast knowledge of the details on these cars and most times people respond quite quickly. Maybe there was some impatience on my part - if so I appologize.

        I appreciate your help. It is definitely good to have some verification that this jack is appropriate/correct for my friend's 69.

        Comment

        • Mike M.
          Director Region V
          • August 31, 1994
          • 1463

          #5
          Re: Need expert opinion on this jack stamp - is it original?

          Happy to help.
          HanD

          Comment

          • Harmon C.
            Extremely Frequent Poster
            • August 31, 1994
            • 3228

            #6
            Re: Need expert opinion on this jack stamp - is it original?

            Jacks have backwards letters and lots of difference in the way they were stamped. I would have no problem with your jack stamp. But I would never say all judges would buy the stamp because you could get judged by the jack expert whoever that may be and when you find him he will know it all right or wrong.
            Lyle

            Comment

            • Mike M.
              Director Region V
              • August 31, 1994
              • 1463

              #7
              Re: Need expert opinion on this jack stamp - is it original?

              Lyle, it sounds like you may have had one of your cars judged.
              HaND

              Comment

              • Ridge K.
                Extremely Frequent Poster
                • May 31, 2006
                • 1018

                #8
                Re: Need expert opinion on this jack stamp - is it original?

                Brad, I believe your question has been answered, but I thought I might give you a quick look at the jack in my very original 1967 "barn find". It is a March 1967 built car, and has a jack stamped "A7".
                Has plenty of runs from the original "dipped" paint.
                Hope this adds more evidence for you of the "month-year" possible stamping. Ridge

                Good carburetion is fuelish hot air . . .

                Comment

                • Harmon C.
                  Extremely Frequent Poster
                  • August 31, 1994
                  • 3228

                  #9
                  Re: Need expert opinion on this jack stamp - is it original?

                  Originally posted by Mike Murray (25129)
                  Lyle, it sounds like you may have had one of your cars judged.
                  HaND
                  5 Duntov's and over 400 judging points

                  Been their done that and got the T-shirt!!
                  Lyle

                  Comment

                  • Terry M.
                    Beyond Control Poster
                    • September 30, 1980
                    • 15578

                    #10
                    Re: Need expert opinion on this jack stamp - is it original?

                    Originally posted by Brad Maynard (44253)
                    I need help determining if the stamp on this jack seems correct/original for an early 69 car.

                    The stamp is "L 8" which is inverted from the normal year/month format.

                    Are jacks of this era known to have been stamped opposite of the normal method?

                    The jack that I have for my 71 and others that I have previously seen (primarily for 1971 and 1972) seemed to all follow the year/month format as described in the 70-72 judging guide, but not sure if it is possible to have the code inverted or if this is not a 69 jack, etc.???

                    This also has an interesting location of the stamp in that the 8 almost missed the metal of the jack.

                    Not that it helps you any, but this is from my January 29, 1970. Date is 9 M You can take this one to the bank -- I bought it new.
                    Attached Files
                    Terry

                    Comment

                    • Brad M.
                      Expired
                      • July 31, 2005
                      • 262

                      #11
                      Re: Need expert opinion on this jack stamp - is it original?

                      Thanks guys. I think the L 8 is probaly legit based upon what I have heard.

                      Also Terry, I have a 9 M jack and I would say the stamp looks identical to yours (the nine is kind of hard to read in my opinion, but once you look at it vey close, you can definitely tell it is a 9)

                      Comment

                      • Steven G.
                        Expired
                        • November 16, 2008
                        • 348

                        #12
                        Re: Need expert opinion on this jack stamp - is it original?

                        Terry, my jack has 9 M also, the 9 is very clear. This is difficult to photo as per light, camera, planning, time, ect... so, it probably looks better in person than pic. Steve

                        Comment

                        • Terry M.
                          Beyond Control Poster
                          • September 30, 1980
                          • 15578

                          #13
                          Re: Need expert opinion on this jack stamp - is it original?

                          Absolutely -- it does look better in person than in that photo. There is no doubt it is a 9 when one looks at it. The glare from the bright sun makes it hard to see in that photo. If we ever lose the snow around here, I might try to take another couple of shots on an overcast day.
                          Terry

                          Comment

                          • Scott S.
                            Extremely Frequent Poster
                            • September 11, 2009
                            • 1961

                            #14
                            Re: Need expert opinion on this jack stamp - is it original?

                            Originally posted by Ridge Kayser (45955)
                            Brad, I believe your question has been answered, but I thought I might give you a quick look at the jack in my very original 1967 "barn find". It is a March 1967 built car, and has a jack stamped "A7".
                            Has plenty of runs from the original "dipped" paint.
                            Hope this adds more evidence for you of the "month-year" possible stamping. Ridge

                            Not sure where your photo went Ridge, if it's still available, could you re-post it?

                            As another data point, the jack I have also has the date code inverted, "C 7". The car has a Jan. 11, 1967 build date, so I can't explain how a March jack came to be in the car. If my understanding is correct, jacks were not dated until the 1967 model year, and I had not seen any dated earlier than "C 7", so it was good to find your post. I attached pictures below, appears to be original paint (has a large run/drip in picture #2).

                            Besides the date being too late for a January car, does it have characteristics that positively identify it as a jack for a '67 Corvette?
                            Attached Files

                            Comment

                            • Mike M.
                              Director Region V
                              • August 31, 1994
                              • 1463

                              #15
                              Re: Need expert opinion on this jack stamp - is it original?

                              No Scott. Jack dating did not begin to appear until January, '67 production rather than with the start of the model year. Not all January cars came with dated jacks, however.
                              If your jack has the "A" on top, it would appear to be the proper configuration for a '67, actually, for mid-'65 production through at least '68 as well.
                              HaND

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              Searching...Please wait.
                              An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                              Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                              An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                              Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                              An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                              There are no results that meet this criteria.
                              Search Result for "|||"