63 block numbers and dates

[Chuck G.]

Re: 63 block numbers and dates

Sorry for your dilemma, Gary, but I'm curious as to what is the casting date of the block in your car.

Also, what's stamped on the pad.

I'm NO expert, but I've never seen a casting clock till 64 and later blocks. That's why I'm curious as to the date of the block in your car now.

Chuck

[Joe L.]

Re: 63 block numbers and dates

After reading all the posts, It's fair to say that I have an incorrect motor. After putting all my time and money into this car, thinking or was told by many people thats it numbers correct. Including a top NCRS judge.I would like to thank everybody for there input. Now I will be looking for a replacement block. Any leads would be great. Thanks again. Need Dec.62

Gary-----


I agree with Chuck. Before we can have any really meaningful information we need to know what the casting date on the block actually is AND what the stamp pad information looks like. A photos of either or, preferably, both would be immensely helpful. If the block obviously has a 1964 or 1965 date, then, of course, it could not be original to the car. However, based upon what you described earlier, it would seem that you believed it to be a correct block prior to the issue of the casting clock coming up. Presumably, that belief was based on something.

Keep this in mind: casting clocks were a feature of the PATTERN that was used to make the sand molds for the casting. The 3782870 block was used from 1962-65. This block was used in a huge number of Chevrolet vehicles over this period and there were likely quite a few patterns in use. I believe that the casting clock was phased into use rather than appearing suddenly on all the patterns. It may well be that phasing-in began in 1964. However, it just seems to me that I've seen earlier blocks with it.

[Gary P.]

Re: 63 block numbers and dates

Just to answer a few more questions, When I was told this was an original numbers matching motor, I just glanced at the pad, block casting and block date. How ever, The pad, numbers look good, except maybe the R in RF I was told the R has a funny shape ( has small legs) Vin looks good. It's a 870 block, Block date, at first it looked like L 1 2 But after they said the motor was wrong, I took a good look at the date again. It's L 12 AND NO YEAR, somebody removed the year. So wrong motor. I really didn't know it. I made a few calls and the last two owners can not believe it. i also called the owner from 1970 to see if it's a real FI car and it was when he got it. thats where I stand now.

[William C.]

Re: 63 block numbers and dates

Very Tough deal Gary, sorry to be part of having to explain the news. Judges generally hate to find bad news, and "Incorrect Block" is particularly tough. Generally involves the team leader and a lot more explanation from the team than what you received. Had a similar situation at Charlotte last year, and I know it was handled with a lot of discussion between the team and the owner.

[Michael H.]

Re: 63 block numbers and dates

Very Tough deal Gary, sorry to be part of having to explain the news. Judges generally hate to find bad news, and "Incorrect Block" is particularly tough. Generally involves the team leader and a lot more explanation from the team than what you received. Had a similar situation at Charlotte last year, and I know it was handled with a lot of discussion between the team and the owner.

Yup, that's one of the reasons why I gave up judging many years ago. Always very difficult having to tell an owner that the block in the car he recently purchased is not the original as advertised by the previous owner. Lot of emotion involved when someone just paid a ton of money for a car. Lotta pressure on the judge too when making an important call like that.

[Chuck G.]

Re: 63 block numbers and dates

One thing I don't understand about the total 350 deduct is the fact that the block does have the correct casting number, 870.

Don't have the sheets in front of me now, but I would think you would have gotten 175 for the correct number, regardless of the casting clock.

If you have the correct block number, then you go to the casting date. If that's wrong, you stop and then get a 175 deduct, as they would not have gone on to the stamp pad.

Is my thought process faulty?

Chuck

[Joel F.]

Re: 63 block numbers and dates

One thing I don't understand about the total 350 deduct is the fact that the block does have the correct casting number, 870.

Don't have the sheets in front of me now, but I would think you would have gotten 175 for the correct number, regardless of the casting clock.

If you have the correct block number, then you go to the casting date. If that's wrong, you stop and then get a 175 deduct, as they would not have gone on to the stamp pad.

Is my thought process faulty?

Chuck

Hey Chuck,

That is they way I understand it as well. Maybe the casting number is somehow negated since it is not the "same" casting even tho the number is the same. Will be interested to see some of the replies to this one.

Joel

[Michael H.]

Re: 63 block numbers and dates

One thing I don't understand about the total 350 deduct is the fact that the block does have the correct casting number, 870.

Good point. Maybe it would be better if the judging sheet stated; "Block Casting Number And Configuration".

[Chuck G.]

Re: 63 block numbers and dates

I've judged a lot. I'm somewhere over the 200 Level. I've also been Judging Chairman of my Chapter.

What strikes me as odd is that any and all "total deducts" must be signed off by the team leader or judging chairman.

We do these sign-offs for "Interstate" batteries and Brand X tires.

Should most definitely have been done with a total block deduct too, IMHO. Should have been discussed.

Me? I would have "allowed" the block for the proper 870 casting, and done a 175 deduct as the date was incorrect.

Chuck

[John D.]

Re: 63 block numbers and dates

Chuck,

I was at the the meet but not involved with Mechanical at all, we did Chassis. To be fair, I do recalll seeing the team leader Bill Meese and judging co-chair Bill Armstrong discuss the call at length with Gary on the judging field.

[William C.]

Re: 63 block numbers and dates

I think a read of the "judging Reference Manual" is in order, Page 20 includes this statement "Correct, NORMALLY CONFIGURED casting number and CASE CONFIGURATION, If incorrect. deduct 350 points, and DO NOT judge or score casting date or stamp pad". The presence of the clock would throw it out of the "normally configured" arena, as would a Tonawanda smallblock except in certain documented cases...

[Gary P.]

Re: 63 block numbers and dates

The only thing Bill Meese told me was that the motor was not original because of the clock and block date At that point I was so upset, that I asked him if he thought the car was an original FI car. He really didn't answer me on that. Bill Armstrong came over and tried to just calm me down by talking to me. This is the first time restoring a car, and the first ncrs meet. LIVE AND LEARN. I think all the judges did a great job including Bill and Bill. Hope to improve the car by the next meet. Gary. I also agree with the judges ruling, i was not happy, only because I was sold an numbers matching car, and it wasn't. Thanks for everybody input, there is always another meet. I'm over it now. HAVE A GREAT DAY.

[Michael H.]

Re: 63 block numbers and dates

I think a read of the "judging Reference Manual" is in order, Page 20 includes this statement "Correct, NORMALLY CONFIGURED casting number and CASE CONFIGURATION, If incorrect. deduct 350 points, and DO NOT judge or score casting date or stamp pad". The presence of the clock would throw it out of the "normally configured" arena, as would a Tonawanda smallblock except in certain documented cases...

Sounds like the block was judged 100% accurately. I agree with their decision.

[Jack H.]

Re: 63 block numbers and dates

Having and reading the Judging Reference Manual can be quite handy. Sometimes it's the 'fine print' in a given rule that bites you; in this case the qualifier "casting number and case configuration" appears to be what bit you...

I've seen small block cylinder cases from Saginaw/Flint, Tonawanda and St. Katherines and while they share the same GM casting number, there are subtle differences in configuration. It's the judges job to know the differences and be able to spot them.

Next, there's no reason to become upset with a given judging call. Remember, judging is a service done by members for members and there IS a human element to the process. Plus, you retain the right to appeal a judgement call and there's always another day for the car to be judged starting with a clean slate....

When we get upset, it blurs understanding. Most judges are quite happy to show and explain why they called the issue the way they did. So, it should be clear as a bell why this/that was done versus a fuzzy issue that one brings to the discussion board afterwards.

And, YES, every full deduction requires the Team Leader's sign-off approval. In the 'heat of battle' details can be missed. But, Tabulations should have caught the error and rejected the score sheet bouncing it back to the team leader for further processing...

[Michael W.]

Re: 63 block numbers and dates

I think all the judges did a great job including Bill and Bill.

Now that the full story has come out, maybe you should thank the two guys who were actually judging this section of the car too.