This may not be of interest to most at this time, but I'd like to comment on something "William" said in this thread that was referenced earlier. I took a look at it and had forgotten the overspray issue was discussed and I had posted some photos. I feel a follow-up is necessary.
https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/ubbt...opics/402777/2
His quote was:
"The Manufacturers Statement of Origin [MSO] is generated by the firm producing the vehicle. It is in effect a title sent to the dealer of record and NICB. Back in the day it was probably in the paperwork the new owner took to DMV to title and register a car. As stated some race cars were never registered and could be "on MSO" forever. These days the buyer never sees it as most states now require the dealer to immediately title & register vehicles upon purchase. Point is no car got out of Chevrolet without an MSO. They did sell cars Engineering used for evaluation; the Pete Estes '68 Z/28 convertible is probably the best known and had considerable documentation to back it up. The '67 and '69 Indy 500 track cars are also well documented examples. As I stated, back in my COPO tracking days I did many title/registration searches. To conclude anything about a 41 year old car showing no registration history [as you seem to have] is folly. Back in '69 some states did not title cars; some registered them by county-there was no state-wide system. Cars that go unregistered for a few years are deleted from the system.
Chevrolet has insisted for many years that it has no build records at all prior to 1977. How the GM Heritage Center was able to verify your car is of considerable interest to many Chevrolet muscle car owners.
As for the car itself there were errors made in the restoration. I posted a photo of an excellent example of factory engine paint-how can there be overspray along the sides of the intake when the entire top of the engine was covered during paint? I was in the parts end of the business for 15 years; we had dozens of used HP aluminum intakes and I have seen hundreds more in the last 35 years. I have never seen more than a very slight amount on either end.<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline"> How 409s with painted rocker covers may have been painted doesn't apply.</span></span>
No one has stated you car is not what you claim it to be. Unfortunately the hobby has become inundated with fake body & VIN tags, re-created "aged" paperwork, re-stamped drivetrains and all sorts of fast-buck types making claims. Completely fake cars have been sold and are now in litigation. The audience has become quite jaded as you can imagine. Making claims about a historic provenance of ANY muscle car requires more than you have shown."
If the same procedures were used to protect aluminum manifolds in '62 as in later years, why does the '62 evidence not apply? A vacuum formed plastic mask was laid on top of the intake prior to painting in '62 as in later years. The results are shown in the photos I posted in that thread. I don't understand the relevance of the comparison to "painted valve covers" to the topic of intake overspray. Certainly there could not have been ONE mask that covered both the intake AND the valve covers. In that case, there would be no paint at all on the intake surface of the heads. In the 409 era, Tonawanda used disposable plastic molded valve covers on the heads when the engines were painted. They were also used during the test runs prior to paint. I just wanted to point out that if the procedure was the same, then the results were the same.
Verne
