Stamping Number Question

[Monte M.]

I know putting a stamp pad on this forum is not the greatest idea. It is so difficult to tell anything from a picture unless something is really done poorly.

But, in the instance I am asking about a number. The number "3" on this pad.

All the numbers are almost perfect date wise. The block is an 870 block, cast "J 23 2" built on 10-29-62. Even the pad looks really good in person.

My question is the second and third "3" on this pad.

The car has been sitting since the 80's from what I am told. By looking at everything, this looks to be true.

So, I just thought I would throw this one out there to see what you guys think.

Thanks for taking a look,

MonteFuelie in San Mateo.jpg^3 in San Mateo.jpg

[Dick W.]

Re: Stamping Number Question

Shooting a photo at an angle has a tendency to distort characters. Pad photos need to be made looking straight down.

[Monte M.]

Re: Stamping Number Question

Thanks Dick,

I wish I would have taken better pictures when I was there.
Maybe I can get the seller to take a few, but he is not really the much help.

He inherited the car, so to him this is just a pain in the a**.

Monte

[James O.]

Re: Stamping Number Question

I'm no expert on this but just did a bunch of research on C1 pads and found example of known original pad that had totally different "4" on the same pad. Remember they were not building these cars for future judging so they would just grab fonts from a bin and put them into a gang holder. That's why they are often not perfectly straight. It's hard to see broach marks from a photo but that would be a good thing to check. Jim O

[Monte M.]

Re: Stamping Number Question

Jim,
The broach marks are there. The picture really does not show them.

I have been at this a long time. The broach marks look really good. It is just the actual number "3" that I was asking about.

I have well over a hundred pictures of different 1963 pads. A few actually have similar looking number "3" on them.

I will try to get a better picture straight on as Dick mentioned. This might clear things up.

This motor has been running and torn down with these numbers on it. But, it is pretty amazing what people will go through to make something like that look correct.

I bought my 63 Fuelie a long time ago and paid quite a bit more for it because it was a fuelie. Now, honestly I do not think it matter that much. In the last ten years I have seen at least six people convert their cars to fuelies. If you know what I mean.

The scary part is, some of those cars are more correct than my car. Over the years my car had some things changed on it and not everything is perfect. But, with their big checkbooks they just went and bought everything they needed to make it more correct than mine.

After seeing all of this I have decided just to drive my 63 and no longer worry about it. I have another car that I am going to have judged. The 63 have gone full circle as far as I am concerned.

The only reason I am looking at this car in this post is, it has almost all the original documentation. I know they fake that too, but they have twenty year old pictures of all of this stuff and I know a little bit what to look for.

Thanks for the input though.

M