Info on a L-89 Corvette

[Vettefinderjim]

I have a friend that has just finished a BERGER Chevrolet 1968 L-89 Corvette convertible. Is there any one out there that may have information on the car from thedealership. We have the protecto plate and are trying to find history.
Thnaks,
jim Gessner

[JChlupsa]

Have a pic of the POP by chance

[Vettefinderjim]

The car is in Tuscon, AZ and will be looked at this weekend. The POP will be photographed at the same time. Here is the engine stamp.......as weak as it is. The owner swears it is the 'real deal'Personally, i think it is a restamp. The broach marks are definately NOT factory original. What do you think?

After reading the previous Camaro questions it appears that BERGER's have no info. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[Zedder]

I'm with you on the stamp Jim http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsdown.gif

[MosportGreen66]

Jim - I am thinking it is safe to say its a stamper

[Pantera]

Jim I am with you on the broach marks. wrong angle in my opinion. I will say that they did a good job on the spacing and alignment of the numbes. Shame they didn't get the depth of the blows equal. Still, when it is painted over I would bet that it would fool quite a few people.

[Rowdy Rat]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the engine stamp.......as weak as it is. The owner swears it is the 'real deal' Personally, i think it is a restamp. The broach marks are definately NOT factory original.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jim,

I'm not sure that what you and the others are referring to as "broach marks" are what you believe they are (if so, I would agree that they are really bad). It almost looks like someone cleaned the pad with a tool of some sort... The pad surface underneath actually looks OK from the photo, but there is really no way to tell for certain until you see the car in person. A photo is better than nothing, but the only way to check the broach marks with any certainty is to look at the pad under magnification, in person... Something none of us has done at this point.

[ QUOTE ]
Jim I am with you on the broach marks. wrong angle in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Larry,

That, and the fact that they look nothing at all like broach marks. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Seriously, I think someone cleaned the pad by scraping it with a tool of some sort... Not the way to do it. If they are supposed to be broach marks, I would have to agree with you and say that they are one of the worst attempts at creating broach marks that I have seen.

[ QUOTE ]
I will say that they did a good job on the spacing and alignment of the numbers. Shame they didn't get the depth of the blows equal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depth of the blows? The original stamps (as are any good restamps) were done with a gang holder that held individual characters in single device that was struck with a hammer to produce the imprint in the pad surface. Because the characters were seperate and were changed and used at different intervals, it was not uncommon for individual characters to become cocked in the holder or wear at different rates than others... Not to mention "double stamps" that often occurred when the holder moved between strikes. In some cases they were struck as individual characters by the factory, but that is uncommon... Still, it happened. Personally, considering the production line environment that these stamps were done in, I'd be more concerned about a stamp that looked too even or perfect.

The best way to see how this pad stacks up is to look at it under magnification and compare it to other L-89 stamps from the same time period.

[ QUOTE ]
Still, when it is painted over I would bet that it would fool quite a few people.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the reasons that you never purchase a vintage Chevrolet with the pad painted over... NCRS and NCCB will not judge a pad that has been painted over either.

I'm not sure that I'm ready to write this engine off as a restamp just yet. It may be a restamp, but I'll say again that the only way to tell with any degree of certainty is to look at it in person and compare it to known L-89 stamps from the same time frame... A marginal photo just isn't going to provide sufficient evidence.

Regards,

Stan Falenski

[737Driver]

I think it would be hard to stamp one that poorly. Personally, there are broach marks that could be good. There are some 'diagonal markings' that appear to have been made by other means. The font looks good, so, I would say it bears further review with a monocular lense. I would not pass on the pad based solely on the picture.

Regards,

Mark Donnally

[Kurt S]

I agree with Stan.
Time to compare to NCRS's file pics......