Speaking of the CF and their 'censorship', what's new with #29 anyway?

[Tyler Townsley]

Well, tell ya what....

Roger is more than willing to pay to have me and a group of experts come out and inspect his car.

So, if I get the vacation time from work and I decide to go - I think you should come with me. In fact, I think a bunch of you should come with me.

:eyerole

One person, Ken Kayser is all I need to look at what he represents as # 29, did Roger mention he also owns 53 # 98? Britt located and verified that car for him several years ago.

I will call Ken tomorrow. He lives in Mich so its not a far drive.

Tyler

 

[Tim_A]

I really only have one question for Roger at this point. I'm not trying to bash anyone, just have one question.

How did he come up with VIN #29 for the car in IN?

I only ask because when you hear about cars with the same VIN # registered in different states, it normally means the frame and body have been separated at some point. He stated that he has a reproduction VIN plate for #29 (was stated in a CF post) and the original #29 stamped frame is sitting in our shop, so where did the vin # come from?
Guess it's two questions, but they are related.

The FL car has a matching VIN plate and frame stamp, same owner for 40+ years, pics of the owner and car from the 60's, and a valid FL title. It has been inspected in person by someone with more knowledge on 53's than most people have, pics have been inspected by Ken Kayser and others, and can be inspected by anyone who wants to in January.

Maybe I'm missing it, but not sure what the argument is.

 

[Golden53]

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

 

[53 Blue Flame]

One person, Ken Kayser is all I need to look at what he represents as # 29, did Roger mention he also owns 53 # 98? Britt located and verified that car for him several years ago.

I will call Ken tomorrow. He lives in Mich so its not a far drive.

Tyler

I will say my peace and bow out of the fight for good. It's not mine to fight.


Ken would be the man to do an inspection. There IS a difference between an EARLY 53 jig assembled floor pan and outer body and a later 53 or early 54 jig assembled floor pan body. And it's not just the 1044 cloth. Ken will know what to look for. He was in Flint.

We can all sit around and compare jig assembled pics of floor pans. It doesn't mean squat. Period. Not all 53's have a jig assembled floor pan anyway. Most do, but not all. Want to argue that point? Let's do it. I am embarking on my seventh restoration of these 53's and there's alot of differences.

Sure, if I had a jig assembled body (or two) 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.
Just to make sure that experts know what they are looking at, let's have them inspect all three cars at the same time. They were all submitted for the Registry. The IN 029, 098 and 259 that's wrecked in front, still retaining it's original drivetrain, as reported by the owner. Lay all the cards on the table. End the controversy once and for all.

Here's what it all boils down to in a nutshell.
Show the "verifiable" documentation to prove which car did not fall from the sky.
Fight it out for yourselves. The lack of documentation will prove the real car.


Done

 

[Mike Terry]

It is to my understanding that Indiana has revoked the title on the # 29 Corvette in Indiana. If and IF I say that is true I would think that it is going to be very hard to retitle that car in Indiana (hope the same policeman who checked it the first time don't have to check it a second time) and get a vin tag for it. I would also think that it will be very hard to try to sell that car now, after admitting there was a Vin tag made for it on CF. I would think it would be very hard for the Indiana owner to sell any thing that is Corvette related after this is all over. This is my last post on this subject. See you in FL. in Jan.

 

[Rob]

It is to my understanding that Indiana has revoked the title on the # 29 Corvette in Indiana. If and IF I say that is true I would think that it is going to be very hard to retitle that car in Indiana (hope the same policeman who checked it the first time don't have to check it a second time) and get a vin tag for it. I would also think that it will be very hard to try to sell that car now, after admitting there was a Vin tag made for it on CF. I would think it would be very hard for the Indiana owner to sell any thing that is Corvette related after this is all over. This is my last post on this subject. See you in FL. in Jan.

Revoked? Or Surrenderd? I believe Brett or someone else has mentioned that it was surrendered. And you're saying it was revoked?

Interesting....

 

[vettebrett]

In the CAC 1953 Registry, it was submitted by Roger, that:
"1953 #029 was now fully restored with 132,000 miles on it." It also stated that it had a D 10 3 engine block with a stamping of LAY340001. He needs to show pics of what he has submitted to Rob for the Registry.

Why is there no picture of this fully restored car as well as a picture of the D 10 3 engine sitting in the engine compartment?

 

[Golden53]

The FL car has a matching VIN plate and frame stamp, same owner for 40+ years, pics of the owner and car from the 60's, and a valid FL title.

Tim-

Has the car been in Florida the entire time? Or did the owners move to Florida at some point to retire like many others? If the owners retired in Florida, do you know the state where the car was stored for what looks to be a very long time?

Thanks,

Russ

 

[Tyler Townsley]

One person, Ken Kayser is all I need to look at what he represents as # 29, did Roger mention he also owns 53 # 98? Britt located and verified that car for him several years ago.

I will call Ken tomorrow. He lives in Mich so its not a far drive.

Tyler

Ken said when, where and he will be there.

Tyler

PS The article will be in Vette Views on sale Dec 1 with a followup article Jan 1 edition.

 

[vettebrett]

Has anyone just asked roger the name of the person who he bought the car from and then do some leg work about that person and see of he owned the car at all??

 

[vettebrett]

When Ken Kasyer and crew go to visit Roger, maybe this would be a good time to see 029, 098 and also 259 with it's original drivetrain that Roger reported on the CF????

 

[Rob]

When Ken Kasyer and crew go to visit Roger, maybe this would be a good time to see 029, 098 and also 259 with it's original drivetrain that Roger reported on the CF????

Brett,

If you come with us to Roger's house, I'm sure your questions will be answered.

 

[Rob]

When Ken Kasyer and crew go to visit Roger, maybe this would be a good time to see 029, 098 and also 259 with it's original drivetrain that Roger reported on the CF????

By the way, any further details on the breakin you posted about on CF and a red pickup truck?

I do believe it was you, correct?

 

[vettebrett]

Brett,

If you come with us to Roger's house, I'm sure your questions will be answered.

I am all up for that, I have friends that live up there that I could drop in on while I was there. When is the trip planned for??

 

[Rob]

I am all up for that, I have friends that live up there that I could drop in on while I was there. When is the trip planned for??

Not sure yet as I need to arrange for vacation time in work.

I'll keep ya posted.

 

[Tom Bryant]

I'm out of vacation time but if it's on a Sunday or Monday I'd like to tag along too. Maybe I can hook up with Ken on his way down from Michigan.

Tom

 

[53 Blue Flame]

I just corresponded with Ken Kayser. The Vette Vues article about the real #029 in FL is out. Has anyone read it yet?

 

[Rob]

I just corresponded with Ken Kayser. The Vette Vues article about the real #029 in FL is out. Has anyone read it yet?

It's in my hands right now, but haven't had a chance to read it yet.

 

[53 Blue Flame]

I just got off the phone with Vette Vues. My copy should be here by Saturday. They have a pretty good Xmas subscription special for $25.00 that includes a Best of Vette Vues 35 Yrs book as a gift.

 

[vettebrett]

We need someone to scan it for those of us who so not receive that magazine. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE