E-Bay '69 Yenko Disguised As a Z-28 Clone!

[Canuck]

What is the sequence for apply a VIN on a 69 Camaro? Are the hidden vins stamped before the visual vin is attached to the dash/firewall area,or are they stamped after? Would the answer to this question determine if a hidden vin is the first or second vin applied and therefore determining which part of the car rightfully owns the number.
On full frame cars such as Olds 442 the vin is stamped on the frame in a variety of locations,all usually not visible unless the body gets removed. In the case of my 71 W30 convert the stamp reads 1M197xxx and I only saw it on the side of the frame rail below the drivers door. I never saw any other hidden vins on that body of any of the other 5 Oldsmobiles I have restored.
Have Chevelle owners found vins stamped on the body?

Tracker1 and myself will be discussing this at great lengths over a beer in a few weeks. When newfies get together.. world problems get resolved.

Paul

[black69]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PeteLeathersac</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-style: italic">[quote=black69]&quot;...Some experts in the Camaro field would have to say that the dash vin was never removed (so original paint better be present), and someone would have to say some of the original firewall is remaining...&quot;[/quote</span>]

Bergy has already confirmed the Vin tag itself has indeed been removed so suggesting ideas like this also court cases and things anyone 'would have to say' sounds felonious?.

Up 'til now I thought this thread was all about Bergy's quest of gaining information and opinions to determine what any components in hand actually are also considering possibilities of them being best consolidated both legally and fairly but including suggestions such as above in this open dialogue seems to take things from exploration to contriving?.

[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/hmmm.gif[/img]
~ Pete </div></div>

Hey, all I was trying to do is put a positive spin on what I think he could do, if ONE thing remained on the car like the vin plate. If that has been removed and reattached..then I think you have a pretty weak case getting a state to allow that car to keep its VIN. 35 pages to this thread, mistakes get made, I thought it was still original and never removed. Bergy did write: <span style="font-style: italic">I will move for a judicial declaration as to the propriety of this vin being attached to this car as soon as I have sufficient evidence.</span>. I got my head too wrapped up around that statement, and to me, this thread is more than just collecting information on his car. It opens up a lot of dialog.

[Tracker1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Canuck</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is the sequence for apply a VIN on a 69 Camaro? Are the hidden vins stamped before the visual vin is attached to the dash/firewall area,or are they stamped after? Would the answer to this question determine if a hidden vin is the first or second vin applied and therefore determining which part of the car rightfully owns the number.
On full frame cars such as Olds 442 the vin is stamped on the frame in a variety of locations,all usually not visible unless the body gets removed. In the case of my 71 W30 convert the stamp reads 1M197xxx and I only saw it on the side of the frame rail below the drivers door. I never saw any other hidden vins on that body of any of the other 5 Oldsmobiles I have restored.
Have Chevelle owners found vins stamped on the body?

Tracker1 and myself will be discussing this at great lengths over a beer in a few weeks. When newfies get together.. world problems get resolved.

Paul </div></div>

ESPECIALLY when there's beer involved. [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/biggthumpup.gif[/img]

[Big Block 69]

Does the Title still exist that matches the hidden vins?
Who owns that Title?
Would that person have any claim to this car?
I would want to get that settled before a restoration.

[C1SS396]

If their is beer and cars involved count me in on anything ..I will bring the the yuengling and tastykakes if you guys bring the sleeman's

[bergy]

Kind of an embarrasing situation occurred over Thanksgiving when I was in PA. A friend (also a Camaro judge) stopped over and, of course, we went up to my barn to look at cars. He took the cover off of #616414. After about a minute or so, he asked me why I thought the VIN tag had been off of the car. I replied that the attachment rivets were put in backwards. To my great embarrassment he told me that all 1969 Camaros have their rivets installed like that!!!! Frankly, I've never paid much attention to the VIN attachments on 1969s - they are kind of hidden up under the dash pad. Most VIN tags that I see are attached with rivets installed from the same side that the numbers are facing. The rivets on 1969 Camaros are obviously installed from the opposite side. As I recall, another person who commented in this thread (or maybe it was vfitom in a PM) also erroniously thought the rivets were installed backwards when he inspected the car in 2000. Anyway, for those who have followed this thread - I wanted to appologize and clear up the confusion that I have caused with regard to the VIN having been off of the car. Also, according to my friend, there is corrosion at the base of the attachment rivets which indiates that they have been in place for a long time. Of course, all of this (including the rivet heads) has to be photo documented when (and if) the car gets disassembled.
The project involving locating old owners is progressing (slowly). The number of owners in PA since new is 21! Hopefully, I can document discussions with most of them - it would make great reading. I have gotten tied up on one rabbit trail that inolves PA title sequence number 17 (issued in '01 or '02). Ths title doesn't appear in the continuous ownership history of the car. Maybe it's where the &quot;car in an envelope&quot; story came from? I'm certain that the VIN tag has been continuously attached to this car throughout that period. If anyone has any info regarding this (or heard any rumors worth my following up on) I would appreciate an email.

[x77-69z28]

that is certainly encouraging bergy! what do you mean IF it gets disassembled? i hope you are not getting discouraged!

[x Baldwin Motion]

So 616414 is not or was not ever &quot;in an envelope&quot; ? That's good news as long as there is not another car #'d 616414. Good luck on the rabbit trail !

[bergy]

Thanks for your encouragement.
If the &quot;in an envelope&quot; rumor ever had any basis in fact, it would have had to involve just a paper title. I say this with certainty because the vin tag has definitely been attached to this vehicle throughout the period (long before &amp; to my knowledge was never off) the rumor started. Let's face it, nefarious people can get a title for any car (and make up a car to go with it). They could do it with any of our cars. That's why concrete histories of sellers and buyers are soooo important. When (and if) the states comply with the mandate to tie together computer records, it will be more dificult. It's a shame to sully the reputation of any of these great cars when these rumors are repeated, but I have myself to blame for adding support to the rumor by indicating that the vin tag had been removed in the past. Once again, it's my embarrassing error.
I'm not getting discouraged. However, I only restore/keep cars that I have 100% of the history on. I'm not there yet with 616414, but I'm getting a lot closer. I've done this histoical search routine a lot of times, but never on a car with THIS many owners! Once again - if anyone has a memory of a RG Yenko running around the streets in eastern PA - email me your lead(s) and I will follow them up!

[Unreal]

We're pulling for ya, Bergy. And I appreciate your candor.