Window sticker for 65

[Michael G.]

I'm trying to make up my own window sticker for my 65. Yes, I know I can buy a repro, and I know they're not that expensive, but I like a challenge. I can always do that if if screw it up. I'm trying to get pics (or scans) of two or three original window stickers from 65 Corvettes as a reference to make it up. I managed to get one on the Corvette Forum but I hoping the guys here might also have a couple.

I don't recommend posting it, but if you have one, please email it to me at migarv@aol.com.

Thanks,

Mike

[Michael G.]

Re: Window sticker for 65

My goal was three, I now have two. Is there another original 65 window sticker out there somewhere?

Thanks,

[Gene M.]

Re: Window sticker for 65

I don't think you are going to get much support for fabricated documentation. IMHO

[Michael G.]

Re: Window sticker for 65

Thanks Gene, but window stickers are not what I would call "documentation", they're more for show. Given that most were scraped off, in little pieces, I'd consider any unscathed one a possible fake. In any case, there's an impossible-to-fake number on the original, known only to NCRS. Any buyer can check.

I just don't like putting an incorrect sticker on the car. The car involved is highly documented already, it certainly doesn't need more. It also won't ever be for sale and, if it was, any fool could find the discussion here and on Corvette Forum.

It's not a trim tag, or heaven forbid, sacred engine numbers😊

[Roy S.]

Re: Window sticker for 65

Michael, if you owned a 65 that had the original window sticker you might feel a little different about your comment.

"but window stickers are not what I would call "documentation""

An aged, duplicated recreated window sticker has one purpose - deception.

Go right ahead and taint the rest of your documentation by adding a fake piece.

Or step up and put the phrase on your reproduction "Reproduction item - not intended as authentication"

[Gene M.]

Re: Window sticker for 65

Michael, if you owned a 65 that had the original window sticker you might feel a little different about your comment.

"but window stickers are not what I would call "documentation""

An aged, duplicated recreated window sticker has one purpose - deception.

Go right ahead and taint the rest of your documentation by adding a fake piece.

Or step up and put the phrase on your reproduction "Reproduction item - not intended as authentication"

Roy, thank you for the supportive words. Anytime an exact copy is sought of an original document the first goal that comes to mind is deception no matter the explanation given. Why else the requirement to be exactly as the original document if not for deception. I see no difference from a fake trim tag. Each is potentially indicating what it is not.

[Dave S.]

Re: Window sticker for 65

Roy, thank you for the supportive words. Anytime an exact copy is sought of an original document the first goal that comes to mind is deception no matter the explanation given. Why else the requirement to be exactly as the original document if not for deception. I see no difference from a fake trim tag. Each is potentially indicating what it is not.

This is an interesting thread. I have a validated window sticker for my 65 and for reasons stated I certainally would not share it publicly. I must admit I noticed Michael's post and was taken back by it. I think he's asking for people with non original stickers to respond.
I'd be interested to hear the explanation of why an original validated window sticker is not considered documentation.

[Michael G.]

Re: Window sticker for 65

Roy and Dave:

First: My 65 car is highly documented, without the sticker. It is Triple Diamond and will easily achieve Duntov in its next few judgings, should I choose to take it for more judging. Should that occur, the sticker will not be present. The car will never be sold by me, with or without with the sticker present. There is no intent to deceive anyone, period. Its for shows, that's all. I am not in the business of profiting from car sales (unlike many in this forum, including some of the posters in this thread) and don't remotely need (or want to be bothered with) such profits.

Second: An original window sticker, which I do not have, may well be used as a form of documentation, assuming the ident/shipping number on the top right of the document is present and has been validated by the existing list (in NCRS possession) associating that number with a particular VIN. Absent the validation of that number, the sticker is certainly not any sort of documentation, though someone unscrupulous and/or unknowledgeable might try to use it as such. Given that very, very few originals still exist, I believe it prudent to assume that it is a reproduction, and not a form of documentation, until it has been NCRS validated (that is the documentation) and I'd caution anyone to whom such a sticker is presented as documentation to make sure that sticker number is validated by NCRS.

Third: Those who have an original should certainly present it and not be the least bit concerned with exposing it. Since it has been questioned here, you should be aware that, given the manner in which that number was assigned, the ident/shipping number in question is virtually impossible to guess or estimate, even if you had 20,000 samples of original 65 stickers. As such, it is still my position that a 65 window sticker, no matter how accurately produced, without a NCRS validated number, is strictly for show.

Fourth: I have no problem putting a disclaimer on my sticker, Roy, but frankly, I don't see the need. Your suggestion that I need to do so tends to suggest I am not an honest person, and I resent the implication.

[Roy S.]

Re: Window sticker for 65

Roy and Dave:
Fourth: I have no problem putting a disclaimer on my sticker, Roy, but frankly, I don't see the need. Your suggestion that I need to do so tends to suggest I am not an honest person, and I resent the implication.

Michael, my comments were meant in a general nature with nothing intended or implied to make this discussion personal as it is simply a discussion, and I will tell anybody discussing the acquisition of or making of an aged reproduction window sticker the exact same thing.

Given the absolute fact that few understand the significance of or the need of document validation, it just would make life much simpler for the uninformed, which most are, if recreations stated they were recreations. Because few understand as stated that their is a need for a document to be validated and as a result assume when they see it that it is authentic, in particular if it is aged and looks the part.

[Mike M.]

Re: Window sticker for 65

mike: no one who knows you considers you dishonest. u b as honest as they come. mike

[Harry S.]

Re: Window sticker for 65

Mike, I pulled this from another thread. The number in the upper right is associated with the car. On my 63 it appears there and on the "Regular Commercial and Truck" document carbon copy 5.

[Michael G.]

Re: Window sticker for 65

Roy, your clarification is very much appreciated. Your points are valid, as generally applicable, which is the hat you're had to wear (and have worn well) for a long time.

I do not agree, though, that we need to act only in a manner that protects the uninformed (as well as the stupid or lazy) from the small army of forgers and con-men associated with the classic car business. That's way too unwieldily a task, for anyone, and they're way, way too devious. Caveat emptor, I won't let the combination of lazy people dealing with unscrupulous ones limit what I want to do with my personal cars.

Thanks,

[Michael G.]

Re: Window sticker for 65

Mike and Harry, thanks guys, you're the best...

[Dave S.]

Re: Window sticker for 65

Mike, I pulled this from another thread. The number in the upper right is associated with the car. On my 63 it appears there and on the "Regular Commercial and Truck" document carbon copy 5.

Harry,
Has that window sticker been validated by the NCRS. ? If not I think it's a slippery slope to post it.
just my $0.02

[Roy S.]

Re: Window sticker for 65

Roy, your clarification is very much appreciated. Your points are valid, as generally applicable, which is the hat you're had to wear (and have worn well) for a long time.

I do not agree, though, that we need to act only in a manner that protects the uninformed (as well as the stupid or lazy) from the small army of forgers and con-men associated with the classic car business. That's way too unwieldily a task, for anyone, and they're way, way too devious. Caveat emptor, I won't let the combination of lazy people dealing with unscrupulous ones limit what I want to do with my personal cars.

Thanks,

So just do their work for them, that "small army of forgers and con-men associated with the classic car business" and point out the things they are to lazy to figure out they should correct, you'll make them better and they can continue to advertise and take advantage of the unknowing, whom you seem to label as the "stupid or lazy".

Mike I have no issue with you and I hope you know that, you are a great guy, I have and will continue to consider you a friend, we just need to agree to disagree, I've simply been to close to too many people who are no longer in the hobby because they got screwed.