COPO BE rear on craigslist

[70 copo]

This got my attention:

http://www.camaros.net/forums/archiv.../t-176365.html

[ds1]

I agree with you. But when you put yourself out there as an expert, you open yourself up to being questioned. Just have to be careful with wording when a car or part in question does not fit what is the known norm. I am dealing with a rare car now that has a questionable part. The experts report says he "thinks" it is a restamp. The seller contends that it was not when the car was examined. We know it has been retamped but when? And because it is restamped does not mean that it is not the factory original part. This is a small ding against the car. But the cowl tag guarantees it is real as well as the second owner who is friends with a big collector here in PA.

[RST]

Very interesting reading guys,

This is why I love this site and why we always seek input from people we consider to be the most knowledgeable people in the industry to advise us on any and all cars we pursue. To me the very best documentation you have today is a notarized affidavit from the original owner stating what he or she knows and purchased. As stated by many here, these are old cars, and have in most cases been through many people’s hands over the years. They were built by people, NOT machines, the inventories on the line were done by hand, not tracked by computers, and they didn’t have cameras at every production point in the line. We know for a fact that all kinds of wired things happened on the line and we can only rely on the most knowledgeable people to provide input based on their expert opinions of individual anomalies. Thank you all who have taken the time to provide input here on this thread and in other posts.

Let’s keep our great hobby alive and well!

[ds1]

RST My personal Z28 I have spoken to the original owner several times. He ordered the car. I can not get him to put anything in writing. I have asked. All I have is our conversations. Wish I could get something. Luckily NCRS offered the shipping reports that backed him telling me he ordered the car from Berger. I have the POP that backs it options, but for some that is not enough. I come here to learn because I am a student of history. There is a lot of great info all over the internet. How someone uses the knowledge can be either good or bad.

[RST]

ds1,

That is a bummer that he will not sign a verification letter for you, some of these old timers are very Leary of anytime official, my dad paid for everything with Money Orders for years because he did not want his money in a bank. We had an issue some time ago from an original owner who did not want to sign anything, he finally told us it was because he was embarrassed because the car had been re-possessed by the bank. He finally agreed and we left that part out of the story. Keep tying with your guy, hopefully he will understand that it is an important part of documenting an important car that he ordered [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/smile.gif[/img]

[m22mike]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: m22mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The other fishy thing is the placement of the eaton posi single &quot;E&quot; under the main stamp, I have never seen one that far from apporximate center

Mike </div></div>

After looking at my pictures again, I found this one with the &quot;E&quot; a bit to the left, so I guess that may not be that big of a deal. And after seeing another , and better photo of the BE in question here I am not ready to throw it under the bus, and it is a good date, along with what Mark B added about the guts.
Some good points have been made here about the the hand done aspect of these stamps, when we find a rare housing like this we all like to see that perfect stamp, except it does not exist.
How many BE's have been not hit square and all the skeptics see a BL ?
Would be interesting to see any BL's with this date, except who takes pictures of a BL [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/dunno.gif[/img]
Keep an open mind, these cars were crap sometimes.



Another 0519

[camaromb]

Mike,
Thanks for posting the BE pics, the first 519BE you showed has the same fat ends on the E of the BE as the one in question. Most of the stamps have a more crisp straight line. I don't know myself on this BE but who would fake a BE with a real dated Copo posi unit and sell it cheap, that makes no sense. Here is a picture of the cast date of the BE in this discussion.

[69LM1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: m22mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> except who takes pictures of a BL [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/dunno.gif[/img]
</div></div>

Me... [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/smile.gif[/img] Lots of LM1's had them

Rich

[miket1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 69LM1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Here is a BL coded rear I have in the garage:



This is the one here:



To me, looks like the bottom of the &quot;E&quot; in BE looks like the &quot;L&quot; in BL

Rich </div></div>

The BE in question does Not look like any kind of stamp, like the BL stamp does, looks like it was hacked out with a center punch, and a bad job of hacking, just my opinion from owning and messing with these cars since 1967, I am not an expert at all,

[bergy]

I'm not pretending to be an expert, but I can tell you that at Tonawanda we didn't usually grind bad stamped numbers off. We would just &quot;X&quot; out the wrong number and re-stamp the correct number. It was never a good idea to turn the production/QC employees loose with a grinder when it wasn't necessary. We WOULD grind off erroneous raised part numbers and stamp the correct part number in their place. I spent a week doing that to exhaust manifolds as a GMI student :-)

Question - if you were selling a real &quot;BE&quot; rear - wouldn't you remove the paint so that people could see the detail of the stamp clearly?