I dont see a need to post the reason why this tag is a reproduction.
I dont want to help anyone get better at making these undetectable. You can blame the reproducers for my reasoning. Not sure why I am the bad guy here.

I am here to help and will continue to do so.

If that is what you REALLY wanted to know, why didn't you ask that question instead of the other four questions; especially considering you were already well aware of the answers and the reasons for the answers.

I think it is perfectly logical for Kurt and Mike NOT to disclose too much info on a public forum. You don't think that it is logical. We can disagree. I appreciate what they are doing for the hobby, just like I appreciate things you have done for the hobby. It doesn't need to be a pissing match.


As for this statement, I have no idea what you are driving at: "I think offering an informed opinion is a vastly safer position to take when you were not there and do not have first hand knowledge that you are willing to share."

One didn't have to be there in 1969 to spot a fake tag made in 2015 (or whatever year). Go do some reading on Team Camaro. Fifteen years ago, the fake tags were so bad, that anyone with better than 20 40 vision could spot it. Guys kept calling out the fakes and pointing out problems with them. What happened? They got better and better. "Being there" in 1969 has nothing to do with it.

Phil (70 copo), I don't like the tone your taking with respect, or lack thereof to our members. I have gotten several complaints and it's not from the members you have literally called out in the thread. Please refrain continuing this nonsensical behavior!


Chris Slawski- regarding the tag:
Standard operating procedure is not to identify specifics characteristics which identify fraudulent trim tag or stampings. It is my opinion that detailing the errors will only assist the fraudsters'.

I can tell you with certainty it is a repop. Take the time to look at others tags that are known to be real and it will be obvious. The companies repopping these are catching on because of the information we inadvertently pass along trying to help fellow hobbyist.

Please Steve calm down. I never worked at Norwood a day in my life. What I did was meet the men who built the cars and to prove that I take them to car shows all over the country to meet the public and the hobby.

Several years ago after I assisted Pilot Car registry and documented Camaro VIN 0001 I was banned from the CRG. The same issues that were present then are present now. If I posted at Team Camaro I was attacked there, now I am being attacked here at Yenko.net.

What we have here is an opportunity to learn. The Norwood Retiree who ran the machine says that there is nothing wrong with that body plate, and further opined that the plate was likely pressed right after a maintenance cycle on the machine.

You see Steve I broke no rules - insulted no one but I appear to be under some thin skin here by simply asking a question- a question coming from the guy who ran the plate embosser.

Now history is replete with beliefs and and science being rewritten due to new research and discovery. Sure there are lots of fake "Trim Tags" out there but please consider this-what if a percentage of these tags considered fake are actually legitimate and not recognized as such simply because some people jumped to conclusions as to what was "real".

Have we really closed our minds to learning new things about our cars?

Think about that for a minute.

"The angle of the strike and the position set of the die characters relative to the final adjustment could change the look of the plate but we were permitted little variation, however we also had two suppliers for characters used and the shapes did vary on the angles slightly between suppliers and character shape"

"One supplier was primary and used for the majority of the work"

Phil,


We agree on one thing "we were not there". I'm not sure why you constantly bring the factory workers into the discussions, yet you are their sole voice. Although we were not there, many of us have had a passion for these brands for 40 plus years and OUR observations and the data collected is vital to move this hobby forward so we can gain knowledge.


It seems to me you have a closed mind. For instance the fender extension marking discussion. You tried shut down the dialog (closed mind), rather that letting the observed fender data points provide information that would lead to a possible discovery (which it did). Instead you tried to make the markings fit your narrative, even though it was quite obvious you were trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole.


Lastly, we all respect those GM workers that built the cars we love, and we are forever grateful for their contribution. I'd appreciate if when someone's opinion differs from yours, you wouldn't turn it into we are against those that built the cars. That couldn't be further from the truth, and you're doing them and our members a disservice to imply that!!!


In the end if you feel the tag is real that is fine, but don't try to silence those that feel different.

Another quote from the retiree:


"The body plate was not subject to legal VIN script tolerance requirements and as such was never intended to identify a coach external to the assembly process".

"We had size and spacing and dimensional tolerance requirements for the plate relative to the top script and the federal script."

Something else to add to this is if you notice it appears to have zero black paint on the tail pan but you can see frost under the blue but no black.. So that should add to the red flags on this car. No dog in the fight just sharing what I see besides the "trim tag". :biggthumpup: