F.I. tag explanation please.

[Dick G.]

7017250 B LO 04 04. This tag is on a 60-61 7320. Thanks DG

[Dan H.]

Re: F.I. tag explanation please.

I have a later tag very similar, B is an inspector, L0=Dec 1960, 04 04 are also inspector marks, best I can do for now! Good luck!
Dan

[Dick G.]

Re: F.I. tag explanation please.

Thanks for the reply Dan. Still would like to know what that first number is. DG

[John D.]

Re: F.I. tag explanation please.

7017250 B LO 04 04. This tag is on a 60-61 7320. Thanks DG

Dick, I would guess at least 20 years ago Brian Futo wrote an article in "The Restorer" on the triangle foil tag known as an inspection tag.
It is still pretty much correct today. The "B" stand for the updates on the FI unit. The LO is for the date of manufacture. The 04-04 are inspector number. An original 7250 tag is a rare item. An original foil tag period is a rare item. John

[Dan H.]

Re: F.I. tag explanation please.

Thanks John, went brain dead on the 'B', remember now Brian's excellent article! Also mention that only 57's had 'punchmarks'? in the foil tag.

[John D.]

Re: F.I. tag explanation please.

Thanks John, went brain dead on the 'B', remember now Brian's excellent article! Also mention that only 57's had 'punchmarks'? in the foil tag.

Dan, WE all could use another article on the triangle foil tags-inspection tags as there seems to be some mis-information out in our favorite car club about these tags. You seem to know more than a lot do though.
Yes you are 100% correct. Only some of the 57 tags had punch marks in them. Sorta like the old paper boys used to do when you paid your delivery bill when I was a kid living at home.
I know for a fact that the 57 '7014520 tag had punch marks. I don't know if the 7014800 had them or not. Maybe someone out there does know. But as far as 58 to 65 FI they DID NOT have punch marks.
There are judges out there dinging people for this though. I have gotten a ton of calls on this subject of punched inspection tags. If it can be proved otherwise let us hear it.
Dan Patch I believe had a real deal 57 "4520 punched tag. One of three I have ever seen. Dan are you out there? Thanks, John D.

[Dan H.]

Re: F.I. tag explanation please.

John, I've maybe seen only a dozen 'original' tags, all 58 to 64 era, none had punch marks. My tag on my 64 380 unit is a nice original 380 tag, reads 'B L3 04 04' but I got dinged a point for no punch holes. Up til then I'd never heard of it. (Flagsfaff 2006) I then started asking about them, thinking I missed something, but no one had seen any punches in FI tags except for maybe some early 57 units. Need more info on which units 'may' have had the punch marks to better define guidelines on judging these tags!
Dan

[John D.]

Re: F.I. tag explanation please.

John, I've maybe seen only a dozen 'original' tags, all 58 to 64 era, none had punch marks. My tag on my 64 380 unit is a nice original 380 tag, reads 'B L3 04 04' but I got dinged a point for no punch holes. Up til then I'd never heard of it. (Flagsfaff 2006) I then started asking about them, thinking I missed something, but no one had seen any punches in FI tags except for maybe some early 57 units. Need more info on which units 'may' have had the punch marks to better define guidelines on judging these tags!
Dan

Dan, Just from personal observation and talking to people over the years let me say once again that the 58 to 65 tags had NO punch marks. The truth of the matter is that any repro tag would warrant a minor deduct though. But not for the lack of a punch mark. Like I said the only 57 tag I personally have seen that is punched is the '4520 tag. I have an original or two of the 7014800 tags and they are NOT punchmarked. I think the confusion stems from the fact that a lot of the old carb triangle tags were punched. JD

[Mike M.]

Re: F.I. tag explanation please.

Dan, Just from personal observation and talking to people over the years let me say once again that the 58 to 65 tags had NO punch marks. The truth of the matter is that any repro tag would warrant a minor deduct though. But not for the lack of a punch mark. Like I said the only 57 tag I personally have seen that is punched is the '4520 tag. I have an original or two of the 7014800 tags and they are NOT punchmarked. I think the confusion stems from the fact that a lot of the old carb triangle tags were punched. JD

none of our c-1 and c-2 FI vettes that have their original tags have any holes punched in them.mike