DY ‘69 Z28 on BaT in Tacoma WA

[olredalert]

----That pad has great broach marks and not one criss-crossed broach scratch (for want of a better term) . The only way I can see this being a restamp is if the block was never stamped from the factory. Very unkikely!....Bill S

[SupremeDeluxe]

Originally Posted by olredalert

----That pad has great broach marks and not one criss-crossed broach scratch (for want of a better term) . The only way I can see this being a restamp is if the block was never stamped from the factory. Very unkikely!....Bill S

You could fill a library with what I DON'T know about Camaros (though a DY 69 Z is on my bucket list--timing is all wrong here), but I think any Corvette guy would be proud of that pad. I would bet the farm those broach marks are factory.

Slightly off topic.... A pad (below) came up (in a 300 horse 63) on CF recently that had very good broaching, probably adequate to pass judging. There is some subtle criss-crossing on the leading edge, but the surface looks good in other areas. Could have been due to someone cleaning it off with sandpaper or the like. Most people called it real. I was the first to call restamp, then a couple other highly-knowledgeable people agreed. Coincidentally it was the same engine build date as my original 63 (known original engine), so I compared the two and the characters were very different. The owner concluded it to be a restamp after the discussion.

I think you can get to 80% certainty based on the pad surface, but true validation requires a library of known-good stamps to compare characters. That's why Al Grenning is so valuable to us Corvette weirdos.

When people are going to such lengths to stamp a 300 horsepower small block, it's underscores how much of a jungle it is out there...