What's wrong with this picture??

[TwoBryans]

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

http://www.kcclassiccars.com/ebay/69Z28/doc1.jpg

1969 Z28 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2488202037)

[JChlupsa]

With a VIN of <font color="red"> 124379N710772 </font> i dont see anything wrong. Your thinking of a 11A build date of 1968 where no "X" codes would be present but this would be a Nov 69 build.

[TwoBryans]

I was thinking of the tag, the area around it and the mounting rivets and the area around them. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Jeff H]

Yeah, it looks like it had a different size tag at one time. Then this tag was added. I wonder what the VIN is or the hidden VIN.

[SuperNovaSS]

And the rivits don't have goop in them. Looks like a replaced tag to me. It definitly wasn't removed to clean the area around it. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

[Verne_Frantz]

I agree with Byron and Jeff
I would bet a paycheck there was another tag on that car for most of it's life. The crud that acculates under the edges is there, and possibly painted over before this tag was installed. The area around the rivit also looks like it took a "HIT" to drive home the re-riviting job. There's also no dum-dum in the rivits. There should be to seal the opening when the feet of the rivit are splayed outward with the push tool.

Be very careful with this car!

[DaveC68]

I've noticed on my 70 Monte Carlos that the LA trim tags are smaller than the Baltimore trim tags.
Not sure if I'm sharing the obvious on this one...but just thought I'd share http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Jeff H]

The early 69 trim tags were wider and not as tall. This car looks like a pre X code car that someone had a new tag made up for. I would definitely check the hidden VIN to make sure it matches the title and paperwork.

[allcamaro]

Looks like someone just did a crappy job of taping it up one time.

[camarojoe]

From what I have seen and read, the late style large trim tag was not phased in until at least the last week of November, this car is 1st week of November. Also, X codes werent found on the larger tags until Approximately December 1, 1968. The tag on that car almost HAS to be a repro.

[427TJ]

This car is on eBay at the moment and in the mid-30's. As for trim tag replacement, doesn't the guy at trimtags.com tell you how to do the rivets, etc., so that it looks factory? This one sure does have tell-tale 'hit' rings around the rivets. Hmmm.

[DarrenX33]

Joe you think it's a repo? I have seen some repops and they are horrible quality. Looks legit to me. I would think this tag was a case of "bought it off ebay". http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[jg95z28]

Rivets do pop out. One of the rivets on our blue 67 coupe looks like that.

http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/12/web/240000-240999/240075_55_full.jpg

If everything else matches, I don't think you can automatically assume its been retagged. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[DarrenX33]

Post deleted by me.

[camarojoe]

I'm not tag expert, nor have I ever claimed to be, but according to Jerry MacNeish's Difinitive 1969 Camaro Z/28 Fact book, an 11A car should have the early style (smaller) tag, with no X codes. Has anyone ever seen an 11A car with a late style tag/X code?

[camarojoe]

Duh... thats a late 69 car not an early one...I forget that they built the 69 Camaro so late into the year...The car was built in Novemeber 69 not November 68. As I said, I'm no tag expert, and just realized my error... the tag is likely legit, looks to have been removed/reinstalled, but the tag itself seems ok.

[Jeff H]

There's quite a few things wrong with this car and I think it's a rebody from an early car. That trim tag had been reinstalled and the outline below it matches the early style tag. I would check this over very closely before buying.

[Mark_C]

The tag itself is real and has been removed from the (a) car and reinstalled on the car. The outline on the firewall below it does match the shape of an early (pre december 68) tag. Hope whoever is bidding on it does their homework.

[69RSZ]

if the car is a possible fake z then it will not have a X3 or X7 behind the rear seat on the pass side in yellow chalk. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[NCGuy68]

Gents...In all do respect,

I've never seen 69 Norwood rivets that look like that.

They look bogus to me!

[SMGCO]

Additionally the way I read the description of " a factory repaced dz block " it has either a ce block, someone has installed a restamped block or put in a non number matching dz block.
However, I don't think we can question the authenticity of the protecto plate.

[JBB]

I don't understand how this car was produced in Nov. 69, but was nor delivered until April 70? That seems strange.....

[Mark_C]

Who's going to buy a Z28 in the dead of an Ohio winter? the car was deliver to the dealer around the end of November, or the begining of December 1969. It didn't get sold until the April date on the POP when the snow finally melted.