COPO BLOCK New Pics

[hman84]

Can someone please tell me if this is a restamp
THANK YOU

[69 Post Sedan]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hman84</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can someone please tell me if this is a restamp
THANK YOU </div></div>

It's sure looks like a restamp to me. Look at the &quot;N&quot;....it's crooked compared to the &quot;M&quot;. Plus, it appears to have been tampered with with all of the pits (acid).

The letters are not as clean as an original. IMO

Kurt

[jannes_z-28]

I think that the MN is tampered with, could originally been LI.

BTW isn't 1231 an very early date for this engine?

Jan

[Rixls6]

Look at the difference in the depth of the center v of the &quot;M&quot; on the one being asked about compared to Kurt's. That alone would make me wary of a restamp.

[Fast67VelleN2O]

You can clearly see where there used to be a vin stamped onto the engine pad as well. Right to the right of the MN stamping. It looks like a bunch of pitting now, however, there was definetly a vin there at some point.

[William]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jannes_z-28</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW isn't 1231 an very early date for this engine?</div></div>

1231 would be the earliest known MN engine date. The first Yenko Camaros built have engines dated early January.

[nova7579]

If this is from the ebay seller listed in your other post then I would say that this is a restamp. He has been listing the same restamped 1111266 67 Z28 distributor for a couple years and has not hooked anybody yet.
Brian

[Charley Lillard]

Did engines built 12-31 have the vins on the deck or by the oil filter ? Looks to me like a vin used to be there.

[WILMASBOYL78]

Fugazy....
[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/no.gif[/img]
http://www.deppimpact.com/sound/db_fugazy.wav

[hman84]

Thanks for all the replys and your opions most of you own or have owned the real deal your answers are really appreciated
Thank You Kevin