Hello from an "old" newbie with a question

[John A.]

I have a 63 SWC 360 fuelie with an 841A paint code. The tags look real. Has anyone else seen a tag with a code like this? This code is not in any of the judging manuals. I think the car was originally Sebring silver, even though it's now painted red.

[Jim P.]

Re: Hello from an "old" newbie with a question

Are you sure it's not 941? 941 is silver for 63. I believe all mid-year paint codes began with a "9".

[John A.]

Re: Hello from an "old" newbie with a question

I am aware that all of the 63 codes 900 series codes, that is why this one seems curiuos to me.

[John A.]

Re: Hello from an "old" newbie with a question

I am aware that all of the 63 paint codes were 900 series codes. That is why this one is curious to me.

[Jim P.]

Re: Hello from an "old" newbie with a question

It could very well be a mis-stamp on the tag. If you do a search on this forum you will see a lot of discussion on this topic. Although not necessarily common, it happened hundreds of times. In fact, the trim tag on my 64 has a mis-stamp. There has even been a book written on the subject of trim tags that discusses these mistakes.

[John A.]

Re: Hello from an "old" newbie with a question

Thanks. Perhaps that is the reason for the "crazy" tag number.
I am going to continue looking for other 63 owners with strange tag numbers to try and find out if it is indeed a mis-stamp.

[Sydney G.]

Re: Hello from an "old" newbie with a question

Hi John,

I saw a '63 that was for sale awhile ago that had a paint code of 926A.
Of course, no such code for 1963.

However, the body number from the same tag aligned very well with the build sequence for the year. The tag looked real from the pictures.

Syd

[Joel F.]

Re: Hello from an "old" newbie with a question

John,

Do you have the trim tag book? If not, and you can post a high quality, close up picture of the tag, I am sure it can be determined conclusively if it is a genuine tag. If it passes that test I am confident that the 8 is supposed to be a 9. As Jim noted, a typo is not uncommon.

I believe Rick Smith's 67 has one and has been confirmed by Al Grenning to be a typo.

Joel