C2 1967 engine pad

[Jimmy B.]

I thought I would share this with you. My car does have the tank sticker and protecto plate. It also come factory equipped with pb and ac (C60) (NO power steering). What are your thoughts on the pad stamp?

[Gary B.]

Re: C@ 1967 engine pad

When I saw in England I thought it was correct.

[Jim T.]

Re: C@ 1967 engine pad

If I was buying the car, I would think it is the real thing. I am not any authority on engine pads. What make of car is the first one listed in your profile?

[Jimmy B.]

Re: C@ 1967 engine pad

forgot to mention that these pictures were taken by Gary Bishop when to came to visit me in the UK. Thanks Gary.

[Joseph T.]

Re: C@ 1967 engine pad

Jimmy,
I had a 1967 Coupe with 327/350 HP ,A/C, Power steering and Brakes with the same "T" stamped separately on the pad. I know mine was original and it looks exactly like yours. Apparently they did not produce many cars with those options.

[Dick C.]

Re: C@ 1967 engine pad

Noticed the inverted 1 in the vin stamp.
The "T" looks ??????

[Rick A.]

Re: C@ 1967 engine pad

Jimmy,

certainly no expert, but I don't see any problems

[Nick C.]

Re: C@ 1967 engine pad

Just to stir things up...

7114182.jpg

[Jay G.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

Nos. have that NOT fresh and some what faded look I like to see. Broach marks are there. The real deal.

[Joe C.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

I thought I would share this with you. My car does have the tank sticker and protecto plate. It also come factory equipped with pb and ac (C60) (NO power steering). What are your thoughts on the pad stamp?

To me, it looks like a very weatherbeaten pad. Much rust and pitting. Hard to distinguish broach from all of that rust and pitting. Almost looks like the engine was left exposed to the weather for many years, without the benefit of a grease/grime/dirt hat. The "T" can well be fine, but I need to see the broach marks first.

Suggest cleaning the pad better, and then sending a hi-res photo for our perusal.

Joe

[Robert C.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

The pad's Letters look fine until you get to the "T". It looks like an overstike. It obviously wasn't included in the gang-holder on the 1st strike. Look at how faint the "H" is. It's possible the "T" was even more faint the first time around and that the past owner or the factory guy just had to restamp it. The pad "surface" is gone and would recieve a full deduction for lack of broach marks. Regards, Bob

[Joe C.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

The pad's Letters look fine until you get to the "T". It looks like an overstike. It obviously wasn't included in the gang-holder on the 1st strike. Look at how faint the "H" is. It's possible the "T" was even more faint the first time around and that the past owner or the factory guy just had to restamp it. The pad "surface" is gone and would recieve a full deduction for lack of broach marks. Regards, Bob

"What came first, the chicken or the egg?"
That's why I like to ser REAL (not belt sander) broach marks FIRST.
I cannot see broach marks on that pad........it's just too "beat-up". Without cleanup and better photo, it's useless. Might as well be painted.
The numbers........
Well, the "T" was a restrike.
I can't see evidence of another letter below the "T". So I'll bite, that it was just a faded original stamp that was "restruck".
I still need to see the broach marks.

Joe

[Joe C.]

Re: C@ 1967 engine pad

Just to stir things up...

[ATTACH]195[/ATTACH]

That looks real to me!!!!
REAL, subtle broach marks are visible.
Not the exaggerated kind created by forgers!
If somebody went to the trouble to restamp, then I would think that they would have included the alphanumeric date/suffix string.

Joe

PS: Upside-down characters were done quite often! Most of the time, those guys loading the stamp gangs were three-sheets-to-the-wind.

[Nick C.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

Still stirring... here is one a few hundred away.

[Dick C.]

Re: C2 1967 engine pad

double "V" restrike??