Opinion of Broadcast Code and Broach Marks

[Stephen B.]

Here's a early 1970 LT-1 CTU block. Do you think it's real? Thanks.

[James G.]

Re: Opinion of Broadcast Code and Broach Marks

Per the AL COLVIN book, "Chevy by the numbers", they made a "CTJ" engine in 1970, which was a 350/350 with hydraulic cam and used in 4 speed air conditioned Corvettes introduced 'during' the 1970 model year.

Never say never, but I think some 'creativity' is present. You must also, or you would not have asked the question.

[Kenneth H.]

Re: Opinion of Broadcast Code and Broach Marks

Steve, here's mine from January 20th. Notice the differences in the "C", "U", and "0".

Ken

[Michael W.]

Re: Opinion of Broadcast Code and Broach Marks

There's one prominent member of the NCRS that has the philosophy of not commenting on stamp pad pictures posted on the internet. I agree with this position, so will not mention that I think neither the machine code nor the belt sander, uhhh sorry broach marks, look typical of factory production.

I will comment that CTU is a valid code for a '70 LT-1

[Steven G.]

Re: Opinion of Broadcast Code and Broach Marks

Its very obvious that placement of and letter size, type, as well as broach marks, not typical of factory production. The vin # probably would reveal more as well.

[Jay G.]

Re: Opinion of Broadcast Code and Broach Marks

Has a Very "Fresh" look to the numbers. Similar to a guy on e-Bay known to replicate BB distributors (396-427) with similar fresh stamped numbers.

[Dennis D.]

Re: Opinion of Broadcast Code and Broach Marks

Here's a early 1970 LT-1 CTU block. Do you think it's real? Thanks.

Looks like the engine on fleecebay now. just the engine no vin. More than likely a L-46 bottom end with LT1 top end. Gee, would that make it worth more?

[James G.]

Re: Opinion of Broadcast Code and Broach Marks

There's one prominent member of the NCRS that has the philosophy of not commenting on stamp pad pictures posted on the internet. I agree with this position, so will not mention that I think neither the machine code nor the belt sander, uhhh sorry broach marks, look typical of factory production.

I will comment that CTU is a valid code for a '70 LT-1

Very good policy. If we are not having fun, why do we care ?

[Tom L.]

Re: Opinion of Broadcast Code and Broach Marks

I'm confused... Broach marks seem to be used as the defining proof that the block is authentic. Why is there some grey area about discussing it? I don't yet have a judging guide for my '72, but... Based on this discussion it seems that authenticating broach marks is subjective???

[Vincent F.]

Re: Opinion of Broadcast Code and Broach Marks

To small, to deep, to tightly grouped. for something done 39 years ago look like fresh sharp edges. just an opinion thou

[Steven S.]

Re: Opinion of Broadcast Code and Broach Marks

Distinct differences between those fonts and Ken's example, that is for sure.

[Steven C.]

Re: Opinion of Broadcast Code and Broach Marks

Hi Steve. That does not look anything like my original CTU pad.

[Bill I.]

Re: Opinion of Broadcast Code and Broach Marks

Looks to me that at one time, it read CTJ. Look, you can see the U may at one time been a J. Bill.

[Harmon C.]

Re: Opinion of Broadcast Code and Broach Marks

The font size between picture in the first post and the third is much different in heigth. In the first picture 4 stamps that heigth would fit on the pad.
In the picture in post three only 3 would fit.

[Tom H.]

Re: Opinion of Broadcast Code and Broach Marks

I am sure not the source for stamp pad info, but this one sure deviates from typical factory production.