1963 Vin Number Question

[Monte M.]

I know looking at pictures of vin numbers on a forum is not the best way to see things, but sometimes you can see something.

This is a car I am looking at. The block casting date is "J 25 2".

What my question is about is the vin number itself. Do the number them selves look correct? One especially looks a bit off to me.

Any thoughts?

[Joe L.]

Re: 1963 Vin Number Question

I know looking at pictures of vin numbers on a forum is not the best way to see things, but sometimes you can see something.

This is a car I am looking at. The block casting date is "J 25 2".

What my question is about is the vin number itself. Do the number them selves look correct? One especially looks a bit off to me.

Any thoughts?

Monte------


The VIN derivative font style does not look correct to me.

[Jimmy B.]

Re: 1963 Vin Number Question

car approx 300 later than this had a block stamp a month earlier than this and some characters looked different

[Monte M.]

Re: 1963 Vin Number Question

That is what I saw as well. I know the dates change, but there is a pattern. I also thought ideally the casting date might be a bit later.

Thanks,
Guys

[Dick W.]

Re: 1963 Vin Number Question

The first three in the VIN is "open". I see and open and somewhat closed three throughout '63 production in the library I have

[Edward J.]

Re: 1963 Vin Number Question

Dick, I was looking at a pic. of my 63 pad, and Montes pic vin appears as my 63, I have quite a few of the same numbers as this mine is 311067x , I think that pad appears to of had a rough life, the numbers are just not crisp as mine. but the font appears to be okay.

[Monte M.]

Re: 1963 Vin Number Question

Guys,
The thing that prompted the question was, my "63" is in the 3300's. As I looked at mine I noticed exactly what Dick did. The fact that there is about 400 cars between this one and mine I thought is was very strange that all my 3's are much more closed than the ones in the picture I posted.

I have maybe two or three hundred pictures of 63 vins and I typically see the closed 3's as well.

The two cars I know of that are re-stamps, one has the closed 3, while the other has the open 3 as in the picture.

Ed, I too noticed that the pad has seen better days, but in real life there are broach marks that look really good. All that means is they are real broach marks, or re-done droach marks that look really good.

As we all know, it has nothing to do what that vin number.

Thanks for the input. I have looked at a lot of these. If it had the correct "3", it would have been too good for me to catch or speculate it might not be the number that came on that block.

Again, Thanks for the input.

Monte

[Michael G.]

Re: 1963 Vin Number Question

Monte,

The 3103922 stamp on my car is very similar in spacing of the "3 1 0 3", but the 3's are "closed" a bit more on mine. The "0" doesn't seem to have the same shaped curve on the top and bottom, my "0" is bit more uniform.

[Monte M.]

Re: 1963 Vin Number Question

Mike,
I agree. It seems my "0" has a little more vertical lines on it rather than being so round. Although it is round. It seems my "6" does not quite go quite so far over on the top.

My pad is pretty clear, but a few of the number are not really deep. It appears they hit it a bit harder or the impact made a better impression on my transmission. Which makes sense because it is aluminum.

P.S. The car the picture is from does not have the original trans in it. You guys know why that matters.

Thanks Again,

Monte

[Monte M.]

Re: 1963 Vin Number Question

Better example of the typical "3"

[Wayne M.]

Re: 1963 Vin Number Question

Here's another one for comparison. Taken the day I picked up my black/blk 2-top F.I. convertible and towed it a couple of thousand miles home.