Is this a 1961 409
- Thread starter gypsyred
- Start date
According to the official production records all 61 engines cast and assembled at the Tonawanda Foundry and engine assembly plant all 61 model year engines had been shipped as af July 7, 1961. 61 production offically ended on 25 July, 61. 61's could not be ordered in September of 61, only 62's. They weren't building 61models then.
62 VIN stamps were not done with a nice neat gang stamp until later in production.
Warranty replacement could be a possibility but it would not have been VIN stamped unless an installing dealer did it and it would not likely have been done with a gang stamp but with individual hand stamps. Dealers wouldn't have gang stamps.
The 068 blocks were in use in late 61 MY production mostly in June and early July. Any 068 blocks cast after July 7, 61 were being batch poured and stockpiled for coming 62 production, thus the delay between casting date and assembly date as typically seen in early 62 production. Also the hold imposed on 409 orders in January 62 could be an indication that the stockpile of blocks had run out and it was time to play catch up but then casting was shifted to Central Foundry Division in mid to late April which may have been the main reason for the hold on 409 orders. Anybody out there have any 068 blocks cast Jan, Feb, or March 62?
The 068 blocks were in use in late 61 MY production mostly in June and early July. Any 068 blocks cast after July 7, 61 were being batch poured and stockpiled for coming 62 production, thus the delay between casting date and assembly date as typically seen in early 62 production. Also the hold imposed on 409 orders in January 62 could be an indication that the stockpile of blocks had run out and it was time to play catch up but then casting was shifted to Central Foundry Division in mid to late April which may have been the main reason for the hold on 409 orders. Anybody out there have any 068 blocks cast Jan, Feb, or March 62?
Oldskydog says they did use 068 in 61. The vin would be easy to fake without gang stamp. It would be easy to just stamp a vin. Nearly impossible to find gang stamp.
I have a Los Angeles built second week of Feb car with a L 28 61 dated 068 block assembled T0120QB with a gang stamp VIN.
Is the gang stamp have smaller capitol L at beginning? Is there anyway i can see pic of it? I just don't believe this vin stamp is a forgery. Thanks
The problem with the VIN you keep referring to though is a 61 VIN, supposedly stamped into an engine that was assembled in Nov 61 several weeks after the end of 61 MY production and the beginning of 62 MY production. Assembly date of the engine will predate the assembly date of the car. Once you accept that, then it leaves 2 possibilities 1 it was a 62 MY VIN that was erroneously stamped with a 1 instead of a 2 or 2 its a forgery, either scenario eliminates it being one of the few original 61 MY 409 blocks.
OK tell me this if it's forgery why would someone use gang stamp when others are messy. Why go to trouble if finding one if you could. I think it's more likely it's a replacement or the car was in hold for some reason. I've seen 1000s of gm vins and this isn't a forgery. Unless it was a forgery with gang stamp
Gang stamps have been out for decades. I can replicate a VIN stamp that looks like it used a gang stamp. This has been going on for decades
Why would you gang stamp if you could random stamp without it
I'll give you 100 bucks any day if the week you go find me a gang stamp and the gm size stamps. They aren't common. I've got them but they aren't common
Ok, I think I have this figured out and thanks gypsyred for bringing this up. I have spent about 20 years researching and studying the 348/409 engine history and I always appreciate new information and discoveries.
-I believe your engine stamping is original but it is for the 62 production not 61 in spite of the 1 at the beginning of the VIN stamp. I will explain further.
I have located pics of several early 62 production VIN stamps and they have the 1 shown just after the production plant code. since VIN stamping 409 engines was a new thing in the 62 model year it was done on Corvette engines since early 60 MY production. Somewhere I have a copy of a GM directive that calls for VIN stamping optional engines over 300 hp. Since Corvettes were already getting stamped that directive had to apply to the other engines and in 62 the only engines besides Corvette that were over 300 hp were the 409's. Since all Corvettes were built in St. Louis, there was an established procedure on the assembly line for the VIN stamping but in all the other chevy assembly plants it was all new to them and they pretty much made it up on the fly it seems. That explains the various erratic and sloppy VIN stamps on early 62 engines. I believe what happend at Flint (F) and Van Nuys (L) if not others is that they used the calender year as the first digit after the assembly plant as is seen in the attached pics and that agrees with the VIN stamp on gyspsyred's engine as noted. The conventional protocol as we all understood it was that the model year was the first digit on the VIN stamp but apparently, due to lask of specific procedural instructions, or possibly it was spelled out to do it that way, or just plain in error the 1 was used for 62 engine stamps during the 61 calendar year part of the 62 model year production. This would be a self correcting problem on Jan 1, 1962. another possibility is that the 1 was a placeholder digit or was the code for Chevrolet in the GM lineup. Chevy was 1, Pontiac 2, etc.
apparently Los Angeles was the exception with a gang stamp available.
62 Flint Block cast in 61, assembled on Jan 1, 62
G-15-61 Block, assembled 04-11-62, hard to tell assembly plant but I believe it's Flint.
Here's a really odd one, can't make it out looks like it is 000-1-T58532, strange fonts.
Cast G-16-61, with 11-25-62 assembly in a Los Angeles built car. I believe this is a day after gypsyred's block. and the VIN number should be very close.
-I believe your engine stamping is original but it is for the 62 production not 61 in spite of the 1 at the beginning of the VIN stamp. I will explain further.
I have located pics of several early 62 production VIN stamps and they have the 1 shown just after the production plant code. since VIN stamping 409 engines was a new thing in the 62 model year it was done on Corvette engines since early 60 MY production. Somewhere I have a copy of a GM directive that calls for VIN stamping optional engines over 300 hp. Since Corvettes were already getting stamped that directive had to apply to the other engines and in 62 the only engines besides Corvette that were over 300 hp were the 409's. Since all Corvettes were built in St. Louis, there was an established procedure on the assembly line for the VIN stamping but in all the other chevy assembly plants it was all new to them and they pretty much made it up on the fly it seems. That explains the various erratic and sloppy VIN stamps on early 62 engines. I believe what happend at Flint (F) and Van Nuys (L) if not others is that they used the calender year as the first digit after the assembly plant as is seen in the attached pics and that agrees with the VIN stamp on gyspsyred's engine as noted. The conventional protocol as we all understood it was that the model year was the first digit on the VIN stamp but apparently, due to lask of specific procedural instructions, or possibly it was spelled out to do it that way, or just plain in error the 1 was used for 62 engine stamps during the 61 calendar year part of the 62 model year production. This would be a self correcting problem on Jan 1, 1962. another possibility is that the 1 was a placeholder digit or was the code for Chevrolet in the GM lineup. Chevy was 1, Pontiac 2, etc.
apparently Los Angeles was the exception with a gang stamp available.
62 Flint Block cast in 61, assembled on Jan 1, 62
G-15-61 Block, assembled 04-11-62, hard to tell assembly plant but I believe it's Flint.
Here's a really odd one, can't make it out looks like it is 000-1-T58532, strange fonts.
Cast G-16-61, with 11-25-62 assembly in a Los Angeles built car. I believe this is a day after gypsyred's block. and the VIN number should be very close.
Last edited:
Awesome this is the research I'm asking for and i will except that! Only issue now is the vin on my block after the 1 is 378202. That is 378 thousand which is at end of 61 production. I'm not trying to argue its just throwing me for a loop. If this was sitting in a engine bay of a 61 what would we all say. The one thing i know is nothing is absolute. I know how suffixs codes and date codes work. Every stamping in pictures above show earlier production numbers. Oldskydog i appreciate your time and research
000L158532 TO120QB. That is what I see from the the photo above. Exact same spacing as my engine and same fonts.
000L165725 T0120QB
000L165725 T0120QB
