Nothing other than pictures of the actual numbers off of the car will prove what number that car is however we thank Roger for making photos available of the car he believes to be 029. Roger has pointed out several areas in these photos that only early cars would have. Please feel free to comment on the details of the photos if you have early car knowledge. If nothing else, this whole discussion has shown me how little I know about the early '53s and I want to learn more.
Tom
I'll bite. I will address a point that most Corvettes guys don't know about - early Corvette trunks.
I own 53 #276 which is a high mileage but unhit and unrestored car. I have also spent a number of hours inspecting 53 #169, which is an unrestored car owned by the same guy since 1959 or so. Both cars are the real deal, with plenty of documentation. I have never inspected an unrestored early 53, however, so my credentials only go so far.
1953s contained a great deal of cloth. You would be amazed by how much cloth you would see if you looked closely at an unhit unrestored 53. While I have only compared #276 to #169, it is probably safe to say that the early cars hand much more cloth than the later cars. I have seen GM documents detailing that fact.
When I look at a 53, I like to look at the trunk first. GM evidently was not very concerned with the appearance of the trunk. You normally find tons of cloth in a 53 trunk - very crude. My #276 car has a ton of cloth, as does #169. I don't know if all 53s are this way - I have a GM photo which suggests that a 53 could have a smooth trunk. But if I see a really crude trunk, there is a great chance the body is a 53. I have never seen a very early 54 car, so I don't know if early 54s had crude trunks or not. My mid-54 had a smooth trunk.
Here are a couple of pics of my 53 #276 trunk:
53 #169 showed the same pattern of cloth usage in the trunk. And I have seen GM photos of early 53 bare trunks that show the exact same pattern. Thus, the trunk can tell us a lot about a car.
Let's look at the trunk pics of the Indiana car and the Florida car. First the Indiana car:
If I looked at these pics and knew nothing else about the car, I would believe I was very possibly looking at a 53 car. Lots of cloth in all the right places. Note the cloth where the wheel well joins the trunk bed and the strip of cloth that runs down the spare tire tub. The fresh paint hides the amount of cloth somewhat. But I see plenty of cloth.
Let's look at the Florida trunk pic:
Cannot tell for sure if the patterns match, but I see a ton of cloth in this trunk. If I looked at this pic and knew nothing else about the car, I would believe I was very possibly looking at a 53 car. Lots of cloth.
I don't have the time tonight to go thru the pictures of the Florida and Indiana cars and compare those pics to my pics of #169 and #276. But I do see plenty of cloth in all of the pics posted regarding the Indiana and Florida cars. Looking only at the pics posted, they both look like 53 bodies to my eye. I think a personal inspection is the only way to really compare these cars. I would not be surprised if both cars have original 1953 bodies.
The only thing that out of place so far is something on the Florida car - the irons for the soft top look tan or beige. 53s had black irons while 54s had tan/beige irons. I suspect the irons were either painted at some point or the irons are not original to the car. Tim - can you give us a better description of the irons?
I'm out of time. I would love to join the inspection tour. But living in CA makes that very hard for me.
Russ
53 #276
EarlyCorvettes.com
) I would be more than willing to have any expert come take a look and inspect it. Why not? Most people don't know the difference. Ken does though. 
