Warning on 58-60 Taillight Lenses

[Bob B.]

Hi all,

After seeing about 13,956 broken taillight lenses for sale by different folks on eBay, I thought I ought to at least warn the NCRS membership. Take a peek at auction 290606942916 for instance of many. The little square of red plastic at the back end of the plastic that should wrap around the end of the lens is entirely missing. I see these over and over and anyone who can tell me what is going on here, I'm ready to listen.

In any event, please don't be fooled by auctions for nothing more than a broken reproduction!

Bob

[Don H.]

Re: Warning on 58-60 Taillight Lenses

I am not an expert but I seem to remember something about using the center chrome strip from an original on a repo - but I could be wrong. If that is the case that would make it somewhat valuable. Don H.

[Bill M.]

Re: Warning on 58-60 Taillight Lenses

Those are reproductions. Corvette Central offers the same design with the missing plastic bit at the rear.

I would warn folks that the "NOS" part I got from Chevy parts back in about 1980 is not correct either, even though the lens isn't missing the rear plastic bit. It has a different and wrong stainless strip compared to the originals for my '59.

[George W.]

Re: Warning on 58-60 Taillight Lenses

In the photo below, is this what you are referring to?

[Philip P.]

Re: Warning on 58-60 Taillight Lenses

Pages 260 -261 of 58-60 corvette restoration handbook has a procedure to make reproduction lenses look like the originals. I have not tried this.
Phil

[Bob B.]

[Philip P.]

Re: Warning on 58-60 Taillight Lenses

Here is a lense from Trimparts. Looks pretty close to original cannot tell about the stainless however.
Phil

[Bob B.]

Re: Warning on 58-60 Taillight Lenses

Phil,

Those are the same as the reproduction one in George's picture. I can't tell if the color is right, but the mold for the plastic is the same as the original and may well be the original. The stainless may also be from the last GM run for service replacements and is not correct. Not necessarily a big point deduction, but certainly not like the original.

Bob