'64 engine block stamping

[garth64]

can anyone post an engine block stamping for a '64 so i can see what it's supposed to look like when i check-out an engine?thanks.

 

[61 Silver]

Stamp pad numbers

Garth64

I do not have a picture of a 64, but here is a photo of my original 1965 250HP stamp.

Ray

 

[motorman]

Garth64

I do not have a picture of a 64, but here is a photo of my original 1965 250HP stamp.

Rayhttp://home.rochester.rr.com/splitwidow/MVC-026S.JPG

HF is 300 HP not 250

 

[61 Silver]

engine stamp

motorman

The suffix is HE the picture is not clear.


Ray

 

[garth64]

is it possible for both sets of numbers on the pad to have the same size numbers/letters? thanks.

Garth64

I do not have a picture of a 64, but here is a photo of my original 1965 250HP stamp.

Ray

 

[61 Silver]

64 engine numbers

garth64



I will check the stamp pad on the 63 and see if they are different size numbers and letters. I will try a post a picture this even.

 

[Tempus_Fugit]

here is the stamp on my '64 365hp

Although I am not an expert, I have seen a dozen or so. It has been my experience that the VIN is always about 2/3 the height and much sloppier, also a rounder font than the HP stamp. On my '74, the VIN was double struck and almost illegible.

John

 

[ChuckG]

Here are a couple of engine stamp pix.

Tempus, something doesn't look "right" with your VIN derivitive. Incorrect "format". Also, the pad looks like a 350 pad, not a 327 pad. Note the front or leading edge. Yours is flat, the others have a projection. Chuck

 

[Tempus_Fugit]

This is somewhat disturbing, not exactly what I needed to hear, but I appreciate the input. I did note that I am not an expert, and this development may provide evidence to that.

I will look at the other numbers (Casting & date) and report back.

thank you,

John Myers

Here are a couple of engine stamp pix.

Tempus, something doesn't look "right" with your VIN derivitive. Incorrect "format". Also, the pad looks like a 350 pad, not a 327 pad. Note the front or leading edge. Yours is flat, the others have a projection. Chuck

 

[Tempus_Fugit]

It looks like I might be OK.

Casting #good ?, see attached pic

Pad does have correct shape, fuel line was blocking view.

Vin Derivative, also attached shows only the last 5 in the series, not 6 as called for in my NCRS judging book. Opinions?

Assembly stamping shows:

Flint
September 15th
365HP


Could not get to the block cast date with shielding in place, should I be able to?

Would appreciate any input.

thanks,

John

This is somewhat disturbing, not exactly what I needed to hear, but I appreciate the input. I did note that I am not an expert, and this development may provide evidence to that.

I will look at the other numbers (Casting & date) and report back.

thank you,

John Myers

 

[ChuckG]

It should be in the format: 4116921 You're missing a digit. Also, it begins with a "0", and the characters are individually stamped, not gang stamped.

Your assembly date of Sept 15 would be for a 1965 car, not a 1964, as they began building 65's in August of 1964. What is the casting date of the block, located on the bellhousing flange near the distributor?

A 64 with your VIN would have been assembled in early May of 1964. Chuck

 

[Tempus_Fugit]

do I have to remove the shielding to get to it?

John

 

[JohnZ]

The body number, body build date, and VIN check out date-wise, but the block pad is a pretty obvious restamp; wrong fonts, format, alignment, and spacing.

The car was built on April 22, 1964, and certainly wouldn't have a September 15th-assembled engine in it; the casting number is correct (the 870 block was used from '62-'65) - the casting date will be on the other side, behind the passenger side cylinder head.

 

[ChuckG]

Yes, remove the shielding. The Corvette Black Book shows the ending Serial Number for April to be 16865. The ending SN for May is 18805, so the Black Book shows early May.

After we sort this out, we'll get into the trim tag. Chuck

 

[ChuckG]

Football game is over. The Ravens LOST. Here's the trim tag info:


Style: 867 That's a convertible.

Body A 1041. It's an A.O. Smith body. They started building these in January of 64. Prior to then, all were St. Louis. When the AO Smith bodies began, they were prefixed A and St. Louis bodies were prefixed S. Since AO Smith began in January, their build codes begin January=A, Feb. =B, Mar.= C, and Apr.=D, and so on.

It's the 1041'st convertible body built by AO Smith in 1964.

Paint: 900A It's Tuxedo Black

Trim 899C: It what's called a two tone leather white/black interior. The seat covers should be white leather. The door panels white vinyl. The carpet should be black. The dash pad should be black too.

The D22 in the upper corner is the body build date, April 22. That's the day it went past that "station" on the assembly line and the tag was affixed. Usually the "real" assembly date is a few days later. Can't "splain" why several other sources, including the NCRS manual show early May.

That being said, you have a Sept. 15 assembled motor, which can't be original to your car. Also, it's a fairly obvious, poorly done restamp. Sorry for the bad news.

Did you find the casting date of the block? Chuck

 

[ChuckG]

Here are hopefully some better pictures. One's a 63 340, the other is a 64FI car. Chuck

 

[Tempus_Fugit]

This is a little disappointing, at least I still have my health.

What is the correct spelling of NOM? :s

Anyway, see attached, date is tough to read but looks like

G235

The good news is that my new camera works really well.

thanks for all the help

John Myers
Milwaukee





Did you find the casting date of the block? Chuck[/QUOTE]

 

[motorman]

This is a little disappointing, at least I still have my health.

What is the correct spelling of NOM? :s

Anyway, see attached, date is tough to read but looks like

G235

The good news is that my new camera works really well.

thanks for all the help

John Myers
Milwaukee





Did you find the casting date of the block? Chuck

[/QUOTE] you can thank this "matching numbers" thing for taking corvettes that are worth $25,000 and have some guy with a hammer and a set of stamps turn it into a $50,000 corvette. maybe i am thick but i can not see how a 40 year old corvette can be worth as much as a new corvette. remember i owned those corvettes when they were new and there is no way they compare to my new C-6. i know my C-6 will depreciate in value but if i was looking for a investment i would call my stock broker. there is going to be a lot of "investors" who bought restored corvettes that are going to be disappointed in the end because they are going to lose more money than i am on my C-6. JMHO

 

[ChuckG]

Your assembly date of Sept 15 would be for a 1965 car, not a 1964, as they began building 65's in August of 1964. What is the casting date of the block, located on the bellhousing flange near the distributor?

A 64 with your VIN would have been assembled in early May of 1964. Chuck

The block casting date of G235 translates as: July 23, 1965. That "fits" with the assembly date of Sept. 15. They began building 66 Corvettes in September of 65. In 66, GM "switched" to the "174" block, and quit using the "870" in the Corvette. Chuck

 

[ctjackster]

Tempus - sorry that, in your effort to help another, you have uncovered disturbing information.

I have a question about the pad milling / grinding and restamping process for John Chuck et al.: if a pad gets "decked" (happens often enough during engine rebuild) the entire pad is then fresh, so why in the world would the re-stamper pick an assembly date that is an obvious red flag? Are there instances where engines were sold with assembly date and cofniguration code but with the VIN derivative stamp area clean?

Alternatively, I suppose one could find a corvette engine and just grind the VIN derivative area off the pad and restamp that area - this would explain the crappy VIN restamp on Tempus' block together with the correct looking engine assembly date stamp - but wouldn't you see obvious grinder marks then?