Is this a 1961 409

[BSL409]

Also their was GM strike in December of 61 at the Engine plant Believe it lasted for a month or so

 

[BSL409]

Here is 068 from a Terry town car

 

[BSL409]

Here is my 068. Date A-22-62 in my Belair

 

[oldskydog]

Would it be plausible with the late assembly date and this being an 068 block that this was built as a "service" block and the dealer stamped the vin to match the customers car???????
Jeff

It could but dealers didn"t normally do that and would not likely have gang stamps.

 

[gypsyred]

It could but dealers didn"t normally do that and would not likely have gang stamps.

I actually believe this to be the most plausible situation

 

[1958 delivery]

Why would you gang stamp if you could random stamp without it

Why? Because I could. An acquaintance at the time rented out gang stamps with proper stamps on Hemmings. This is old stuff from the early 90's

 

[1958 delivery]

What's the casting number and the casting date code? That's exactly what the engine is.

 

[gypsyred]

Here is my 068. Date A-22-62 in my Belair
View attachment 140422

It seems the number after the plant identification coinsides with casting date year

 

[oldskydog]

It seems the number after the plant identification coinsides with casting date year

Not the casting date but the assembly date. The VIN stamp was done on the car assemby line.

 

[Murphdog]

It could but dealers didn"t normally do that and would not likely have gang stamps.

I got the cart in front of the horse on that one. I didn't realize there was a VIN until after I posted and was rereading the earlier posts. And I agree the chance of a dealer stamping a VIN number would be likely, let alone with a gang stamp. Now a glove box receipt from Billy Bob's Chevrolet showing a replacement/warranty work install would be priceless!
Jeff

 

[William Malik]

This is the stamp on my 62 Biscayne.

 

[gypsyred]

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 Fremont (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 Fremont Block cast in 61, assembled on Jan 1, 62
View attachment 140378


G-15-61 Block, assembled 04-11-62, hard to tell assembly plant but I believe it's Fremont.


View attachment 140385

Here's a really odd one, can't make it out looks like it is 000-1-T58532, strange fonts.
View attachment 140392

Cast G-16-61, with 11-25-62 assembly in a Los Angeles built car. I believe this is a day after gypsy red's block. and the VIN number should be very close.
View attachment 140396View attachment 140397
View attachment 140395

It seems the g 15 61 block that was assembled jan 23 of 62 still had a1 in vin. So does other one built jan 20th

 

[gypsyred]

Not the casting date but the assembly date. The VIN stamp was done on the car assemby line.

Bsl409 pic block was cast in 62 and VIN has 2 after F

 

[oldskydog]

Bsl409 pic block was cast in 62 and VIN has 2 after F

And the car was built in 62.
With all the obvious anomalyies and apparent inconsistencies It seems the the placeholder explanation may be the answer. It was normal to use a placeholder as the first digit on the VIN sequential numbers with production planned to be more than 100,000 so the first built car at that plant would be 100001. after 199999 was built the placeholder was changed to 2 for the next 100,000 cars, etc. Let's see if that theory holds water. More VIN stamp pics please.

 

[oldskydog]

I found the explanation in the last place I looked, of course. In Colvins Chevy By the Numbers 1960-1964, page 2, the placeholder numbers are explained. There was no digit in the sequential partial VIN number for the year, only in the complete VIN.

 

[Joe R.]

Pretty interesting stuff. I appreciate the passion.

 

[BSL409]

And the car was built in 62.
With all the obvious anomalyies and apparent inconsistencies It seems the the placeholder explanation may be the answer. It was normal to use a placeholder as the first digit on the VIN sequential numbers with production planned to be more than 100,000 so the first built car at that plant would be 100001. after 199999 was built the placeholder was changed to 2 for the next 100,000 cars, etc. Let's see if that theory holds water. More VIN stamp pics please.

My car was 07A Built 1st week of July and was delivered July 13 To Ross Cheverolet, in Huron OH

 

[gypsyred]

And the car was built in 62.
With all the obvious anomalyies and apparent inconsistencies It seems the the placeholder explanation may be the answer. It was normal to use a placeholder as the first digit on the VIN sequential numbers with production planned to be more than 100,000 so the first built car at that plant would be 100001. after 199999 was built the placeholder was changed to 2 for the next 100,000 cars, etc. Let's see if that theory holds water. More VIN stamp pics please.

I'm thinking it always matches up to casting date of the block. In the pics of the early January of 62 cast blocks the changes to a two?

 

[gypsyred]

And the car was built in 62.
With all the obvious anomalyies and apparent inconsistencies It seems the the placeholder explanation may be the answer. It was normal to use a placeholder as the first digit on the VIN sequential numbers with production planned to be more than 100,000 so the first built car at that plant would be 100001. after 199999 was built the placeholder was changed to 2 for the next 100,000 cars, etc. Let's see if that theory holds water. More VIN stamp pics please.

I don't think that holds true because bsl engine is under 100k and has a 2 after F. But it was cast in Jan of 62

 

[MRHP]

It seems the g 15 61 block that was assembled jan 23 of 62 still had a1 in vin. So does other one built jan 20th

What is the casting number of these blocks? 068? Casting date code please.