1962 Engine Pad

[William Liddle]

Re: 1962 Engine Pad

Verne, I'm not picking on you. All I'm trying to say is that it isn't the poor guy restoring his Corvette in his garage that created the problem. It's a combination of the professional restorers and the two orgaqnized judging bodies that are promoting and encouraging the deception. The need to document the originality of the car only came about because of organizations such as Bloomington Gold and NCRS. Whether you accept it or not, in the public's eye, when you place the blue ribbon on a Corvette you just verified its originality. I'm sure these were not the intentions of the founders but this is what it has come to. If you can tell me that there is no difference in the resale value between a known bogus big block and one that has been certified or top flighted, then I'll keep my mouth shut. I think its misplaced criticism when you step on a person for doing exactly what is promoted...bring it back to its original state...stamping and all.

[Christopher R.]

Re: 1962 Engine Pad

I'll go look at those little numbers again next week.

I know about restamping. My question was more:

1. Should I keep the factory broach marks and the wrong numbers on the pad;

or,

2. Grind everything off and display a blank pad.

[Roy B.]

Re: 1962 Engine Pad

Grind everything off and display a blank pad.

[Verne Frantz]

Re: 1962 Engine Pad

William,
We are saying some of the same things. I fully realize that the practice of creating something that appears "as original" equates to a higher value when the result is declared "correct" by some sanctioning body. Having an original engine in a Corvette certainly raises it's value more than having the right bolts. Whether the sanction of counterfeiting engines was done overtly or merely by interpretation of the rules, the result is the same. More desirable cars are created out of thin air than Chevrolet ever produced. This may sound corny, but I believe the extra value given to a re-created car is false and it is disrespectful to the few remaining truely original cars that have survived.
I do understand the reality of the hobby today, and also know that I can not change it, but I reserve the right to disagree with restamping practices.
Verne

[William Liddle]

Re: 1962 Engine Pad

Verne, I agree wholeheartedly with your response but there should be a place for the individual who is just trying to be correct and that includes the stamping. There seems to be no problem with replacing anything else on the car with date coded parts that are original looking but certainly weren't original to the vehicle but because the engine can determine the value of the car, we look at restamping as counterfeiting. Unfortunately, a nod of approval from one of the judging bodies has become as good as documentation. Several years ago I sold a well documented 67 big block but out of the 15 or so prospective buyers, only a few wanted to look at the documentation. Most were concerned whether the car had been judged and how it fared. If it weren't for the abundance of counterfeiting going on for the sake of profit, I don't think we would have problem with the individual who stamps his recently purchased 327/250 as a 327/250.

[John H.]

Re: 1962 Engine Pad

Chris -

Strictly from a points perspective, leaving the pad "as is" would result in a 50-point deduction (two incorrect stamps at 25 points each, surface OK), and a blank (decked) pad would result in an 88-point deduction (stamps missing, surface not OK).