Fake C2 Documentation

[Bob S.]

Hey Guys - Please educate me so I don't goof up and overpay for a car with fake documentation.

The previous owner of my '66 L-79 roadster received a Top Flight award for it. I've been confident it has a "matching number" block. The "broach marks" are linear, faint, parallel to the crank centerline, and are unevenly spaced across the stamp pad. They look more like the drag marks of a broach than machining marks to my eye. The block casting # and date code appear correct,.......but I just noticed the stamped characters for the engine assembly date and suffix identification codes are .20" high rather than 1/4" as per my '67 NCRS Judging Guide. The VIN derivative stamping characters are 3/16" as per the guide. Comments?? Do I have a fake??? Am I splitting hairs with the difference between .20" and .25"? Is this a difference between '66 and '67???? (I don't have ready access to a '66 guide.)

I have no documentation of my cars' original build configuration or history prior to the '90s. I'd like to replace it sometime soon with a nicer '67 Coupe, but don't want to be fooled by fake documentation on its original build configuration, history, or "matching numbers" drivetrain.

Just how good have the counterfeiters gotten at faking these pieces of documentation??? I'm curious about things like paperwork as well as casting and stampings numbers, and even the deck broach marks. I've always thought it would be easy to tell if a window sticker, dealer invoice or other paper documentation was really 35+ years old by the yellowed paper, tattered edges, etc. But recently I read somewhere about "aged" documents being available for the unscrupulous.

This makes me feel I've got to limit my search to only those cars which have copious amounts of paperwork dating all the way back to the '60s to feel safe....Or only buy a car from someone who can prove they've owned the car a long time. Am I just being paranoid?

What's your experience? Have there been proven instances of fake documentation that would fool all but the most seasoned expert? (I suspect that even NCRS judges are fallibibly human.)

If any of this has been discussed recently, please direct me to the proper thread(s).

Best Regards,
Bob S.

[Gerard F.]

Just post a picture of the stamp pad here

and you'll get the best advice in the world. Maybe 6 different opinions, but the experts here will figure out. (I'm not one of them)

Jerry Fuccillo
#42179

[Michael H.]

Re: Fake C2 Documentation

Bob,

There's been a LOT of discussion on the engine stamp characters in the last six months. First of all, the Flint characters were originally 3/16", (.187") not 1/4". That's measuring from peak to peak on the tool character, not the impression in the block. The actual character in the block will be slightly taller than that, depending on how deep the character was driven into the pad, but typically it will be roughly .200", the same dim you mentioned.

The VIN characters were actually 5/32", (.15625") also measured from the character on the stamp tool. This typically leaves a character impression of about 3/16", again depending on the depth of the strike.

Your character height dim's sound pretty close as far as I'm concerned.

The next dim you need to check is the entire length of each character package from left to right. Let us know what the numbers are.

As far as grain, or broach, there's really no way to describe this so it's not possible to determine originality without a good closeup pic. Hope this helps.

[Mike M.]

Re: Fake C2 Documentation

Yes, you need to be "Nit-picky".
And a little Paranoia is OK. ( even with Van Halen )
Best to post a photo of the pad and paper, if you can.
H.a.N.D.
P.S. Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean someone can't be following me.

[Bob S.]

Re: Fake C2 Documentation

Hello all - Thanks for your input on the approximate character size - it has put my mind at ease. I've also measured the lengths of the date code and VIN portions of the stamping. They are approximately 1.030" for the VIN portion and 1.25" for the date code portion.

Here's the link to a photo of my block pad stamping.>>>>>I'm not sure it's working; it doesn't seem to show a good link when I preview the post. I may need some help....obviously the first time I've used a host for this.

Best Regards,
Bob S.




[/URL][/IMG]

[Patrick H.]

Re: Fake C2 Documentation

Here's your image:

[Bob S.]

Re: Fake C2 Documentation

Thanks Patrick! There must be something I'm not doing when I paste in the URL????

Here's another shot showing the surface texture of the block pad as best I can capture it with my digital camera....photography is not one of my skills.

I don't have any paper history for my car prior to the '90s.....that's why I eventually plan to replace it with a another car.

Best Regards,
Bob S.




[/IMG]

[Roy B.]

Re: Fake C2 Documentation

Before you copy to the URL delete the http:/ that is there first or your http:/ that is added whan you use copy will not work. To many http:/

[Patrick H.]

Re: Fake C2 Documentation

Bob,

Here is what you're putting in the Image box (yes, you're putting in all this stuff even though it isn't all highlighted):


when all you need to put in is this:


Patrick

[Bob S.]

Re: Fake C2 Documentation

Roy / Patrick - Thanks for your help.

[Michael H.]

Re: Fake C2 Documentation

Bob,

The number package total length figures that you posted are exactly what they should be. Thanks.