1967 jack

[Robert D.]

Does this appear to be an original jack dated march 67?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1967-Corvette-Jack-Dated-C7-March-1967-with-handle-and-spring-USED-ORIGINAL/272948031258?hash=item3f8cf86f1a:g:-gwAAOSwCJxaFD0M&vxp=mtr

thanx
Bob

[Joe R.]

Re: 1967 jack

The jack and spring are correct for a 67 but I don't think the handle is correct for a 67.

JR

[Leif A.]

Re: 1967 jack

Robert,
I have attached pictures of my '67 jack (dated C7) and handle. They have both been judged several times with no deduct. Not to be contradictory with JR, but I think it all looks pretty good.

[Joe R.]

Re: 1967 jack

Does this appear to be an original jack dated march 67?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1967-Corvette-Jack-Dated-C7-March-1967-with-handle-and-spring-USED-ORIGINAL/272948031258?hash=item3f8cf86f1a:g:-gwAAOSwCJxaFD0M&vxp=mtr

thanx
Bob

I have made careful side-by-side comparisons of the Paragon repro '67 jack and a known original. The Paragon reproduction is an excellent reproduction, so it takes a very careful comparison to detect the subtle differences from an original.

The referenced ebay jack looks original to me, and the price looks typical for an original jack. However, if you primary goal is getting a jack that will receive full credit in NCRS judging, the less expensive Paragon reproduction will probably work just fine. I used a Paragon reproduction for judging all the way up to the National level, and it always got full credit.

While the differences between an original jack and the Paragon reproduction are (barely) detectable, they are very subtle, and most NCRS judges will give full credit to the reproduction. I think the reason is that there aren't many points assigned to the jack, so the deviations from an original are generally too small to justify a deduction.

BTW, one thing that the judges do look at is the paint application, which should cover part, but not all, of the main threaded rod. Original jacks were dipped, not sprayed. Keep this in mind for whatever jack you decide to use.

[Joe R.]

Re: 1967 jack

Leif,

You will notice the jack handle only has one hole in the top which is typical of earlier jack handles. Your handle has three holes, one on the top and one on both sides. Yours is more typical of 66-67 jack handles.

JR

[Russ S.]

Re: 1967 jack

Joe, That is the side you are seeing with the one hole. No handle has only one hole with it being in the side. I expect this is a three hole and that we just aren't able to see the other holes due to light conditions.

Leif,

You will notice the jack handle only has one hole in the top which is typical of earlier jack handles. Your handle has three holes, one on the top and one on both sides. Yours is more typical of 66-67 jack handles.

JR

[Joe R.]

Re: 1967 jack

Russ,

Better check that again. I have to admit I'm half blind. Notice the way the socket is oriented! Well , it's sold anyway so if the new owner is happy I'm happy for him.

JR

[Leif A.]

Re: 1967 jack

Leif,

You will notice the jack handle only has one hole in the top which is typical of earlier jack handles. Your handle has three holes, one on the top and one on both sides. Yours is more typical of 66-67 jack handles.

JR

JR,
You're absolutely correct...my eye didn't catch that but upon further review, pretty obvious. Thanks for making me aware.

[Daniel E.]

Re: 1967 jack

Bob,

The jack you reference looks correct to several known examples I have, but is bent/damaged/distorted at the end with the jacking nut. Not sure if it can be repaired

Daniel

[Robert D.]

Re: 1967 jack

Thanx guys i did purchase this jack ive been looking for one dated like this for along time. i think that bent area can easily be straightened out in a vise.
Joe were they dipped extended and held by one end which had no paint on that part of the rod
Thanx again
Bob

[Joe R.]

Re: 1967 jack

You can find an old article in "The Restorer" that will assist you on painting the jack and identify the parts that should an should not be painted.

JR

[Grant W.]

Re: 1967 jack

Hello Joe
I can't seem to find my restorer magazine regarding original vs repop 67 jacks
What is the ( barely) detectable item that sets it apart?
I recall it maybe the Teeth at the bottom?

Here is one on ebay that just sold ebay item 133548981226

Thanks Grant