Does this engine stamping look correct?

[Dave B.]

I don't see anything in the scrapings that reveals any swirl marks so I'm assuming the broaching is original. I believe this to be original and correct but would like a second opinion.

Thanks!

[Tracy C.]

Re: Does this engine stamping look correct?

No one here can provide a reasonable opinion on a painted pad. That is why the pad must be free of paint when presented for judging.

[Dave B.]

Re: Does this engine stamping look correct?

Fair enough, what are your thoughts on the size, placement and sequence of the stampings? Paint or no paint the numbers are very visible.

[Dick W.]

Re: Does this engine stamping look correct?

I would be VERY leary of any pad that has paint on it. Correct characters are easy to come by, pad surface is almost impossible to duplicate

[Alan S.]

Re: Does this engine stamping look correct?

Hi,
Did some engines escape without a broadcast code as part of the identification stamp?
Regards,
Alan

[Claus S.]

Re: Does this engine stamping look correct?

On a 64 is the partial VIN first and the suffix to the right on the pad?
Opposit to the stamp on the picture.

[John H.]

Re: Does this engine stamping look correct?

Hi,
Did some engines escape without a broadcast code as part of the identification stamp?
Regards,
Alan

Alan -

The two-digit suffix (if that's what you mean by "broadcast code") on the engine plant stamp was included in the gang-stamp holder.

[John H.]

Re: Does this engine stamping look correct?

On a 64 is the partial VIN first and the suffix to the right on the pad?
Opposit to the stamp on the picture.

Roger -

The pad in the photo is a big-block; their stamps were reversed on the pad. Big-blocks had the engine plant stamp on the outboard side of the pad and the assembly plant VIN derivative stamp on the inboard end, and small-blocks were the opposite way.

[Michael W.]

Re: Does this engine stamping look correct?

I would be VERY leary of any pad that has paint on it. Correct characters are easy to come by, pad surface is almost impossible to duplicate

Dick's right. The paint is covering up the 'critical' bits. You mentioned 'scraping' in your post. Best not use any metal or abrasive objects to clean a pad, this may damage or obscure the actual surface markings.

[Claus S.]

Re: Does this engine stamping look correct?

Thanks.

Roger -

The pad in the photo is a big-block; their stamps were reversed on the pad. Big-blocks had the engine plant stamp on the outboard side of the pad and the assembly plant VIN derivative stamp on the inboard end, and small-blocks were the opposite way.

[Alan S.]

Re: Does this engine stamping look correct?

Hi John,
Shouldn't we be seeing those 2 letters?
Regards,
Alan

[Dennis S.]

Re: Does this engine stamping look correct?

Alan
The Tonawanda stamp reads T 1012 IO
1012 is for October 12
IO is for L68 auto in 1968
maybe a "1" was used for the "I" but hard to tell with the paint
Dennis

[Michael W.]

Re: Does this engine stamping look correct?

Hi John,
Shouldn't we be seeing those 2 letters?
Regards,
Alan

?? I sure see them........

T1012IO

[Kenneth B.]

Re: Does this engine stamping look correct?

Alan
The Tonawanda stamp reads T 1012 IO
1012 is for October 12
IO is for L68 auto in 1968
maybe a "1" was used for the "I" but hard to tell with the paint
Dennis

I agree. I don't see the small flag on the 1 or crosses on the I but it might be the paint. That is why there needs to be no paint on the pad. FYI the other guy I have looked at what the owner of BB Corvettes swear that the motor was original that had the SN under the plug & the build date to the top of the pad. So much for honest owners. LOL
KEN

[Dick W.]

Re: Does this engine stamping look correct?

If I were doing the inspection on this car and the seller refused to remove the paint, I would call the pad suspect, at best. If you cannot see the bare pad surface you cannot make an accurate call.