[John V.]

I usually try to avoid commenting about property that isn't mine, but this ebay listing caught my eye.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1964-64-PONT...ZUoMxv&vxp=mtr

I believe that this block has been restamped. See the attached pix. I'm wondering what you all can detect. In fact, I think the evidence is obvious.

The cast date code (K293) is a good match to the Engine Unit No. 163195, I don't think the EUN stamping has been messed with.

I don't know if the asking price is reasonable for a '64 block. But seems to me that guys will way overpay for the "right" engine manifest code stamp so I think the asking price may have been inflated based on the 76X.

If I'm correct about the restamp, it reinforces my opinion that one should never pay a premium for a particular engine code on any Pontiac block, but especially not for a '64 GTO engine code.

Take a look at the pix and see what you think.

[BOB VIDAN]

Looks like 77 under the 76.

[aceaceca]

LOOKS FACTORY TO ME.

[Frank R]

The obvious thing is the double stamping. The strange thing is the block wasn't machined so it could be re-stamped. It has the corrosion and pits you would expect. The numbers have the correct spacing and fonts. I've seen plenty of re-stamped blocks that are easy to spot. This one is a tough call.

[60sstuff]

I see a 77 J under the "new" stamping.
The straight lines of both 7's and the curved J is obvious!

Below is a legitimate 77 J on a real 64 Tri-Power Automatic.

[John V.]

Interesting that you guys think it was 77J.

The obvious thing to me is that the 76X is not straight like they should be, looks like the characters were stamped one at a time and didn't get lined up well.

All other original '64 3 character Engine Code stampings I have seen always line up very straight, see the 77J stamping. You will also notice the spacing between the engine code characters is a little too tight compared with original '64 stampings, again compare it to the 77J for an example (plenty of others I compared it to as well, not just GTO engine coded blocks).

I also saw the obvious 7 between the 6 and the X.

But what I believe I am seeing is a 27P code.

This is a very common '64 code.

I agree with Frank R., on first glance this wasn't a typical "obvious" restamp. On closer inspection, it seems apparent. Whether it was a 77J or a 27P (IMO, most likely) isn't real important.

I'm pretty curious how it was done. I'm thinking perhaps a little hammering with a chisel or punch to close up the original stamped characters? Whatever, it would fool a lot of folks I'm sure and after engine paint, likely the original stampings wouldn't show even in a photo.

Oh yeah, one more thing. While it was certainly possible to have a base 3 spd man trans backing the tripower GTO engine so that no secondary trans code would be called for, it would be unusual. Most got a 4 spd so would have gotten a secondary trans code stamping. And even some with the base 3 spd were stamped with an additional "X" at the Final Assembly Plants due to misunderstanding of the secondary trans code instruction on the line. That is the first thing that piqued my curiosity and caused me to look closer.

I'm not opposed to the practice. As stated in my O.P., I think this should serve as a red flag to anybody that thinks a GTO coded block is more valuable than any other.

Thanks all for chiming in.

[Bluesugar]

The practice of restamping is just too easy to do...I will not go in to it that much but,
having to deal will a lot of chevy blocks that once are resurfaced for correct head gasket
and block issues,you will grind off all the factory stamps that were original to same.
You then can stamp anything you want it to be if you have acquired the proper size
and fonts of what was there....As far as Pontiac stamping their blocks on the face side of the upper right side of block,....well anyone with an acetylene torch can heat that area
and hammer and sand blast and come up with what they need to it to be!!..enough said..

[Tom Vaught]

99% sure a Restamp, and also agree very rare not to have the Trans Code.
As you said the stamp was a "Gang" Stamp in production which is why some letters are deeper vs others at times, Way too highlited for me.


Tom V.

[Frank R]

After closer inspection IMO it was re-stamped. My best guess is they sandblasted the area. You can see a fan line under the 76X that curls up. Probably didn't remove all of the original stamping because the casting started to dip. The 76 looks like Chevy Vin # spacing with the X stamped separately.
The worst stamping I ever saw was on a friends "sight unseen" internet purchase of a 67 Chevelle SS. Huge numbers that were individually stamped and a upside 2 used as a 5. The broach marks were machined off and the block was a 70 casting.

[aceaceca]

My 62 Pontiac 08B engine came from the factory with some number clearly ground off and then re stamped with the correct 08B. Someone on this forum now has that block. I was protested by the Plymouth boys that could not keep up with my poncho at Eastex Drag Strip, Texas. The officials said it had been tampered with, which it had been, but not by anyone but the factory. They told me I would have to run in Gas class. Last time I raced there. From then on I ran at the Gay Pontiac strip. The car was bought new by my father. A 1962 Catalina, 4 barrel, 4 speed,air conditioned, 3.42 positive traction. He initially looked at the 409 Chevy but it could not be had with air. My point being, who knows what actually happened at the factory regarding numbers. The car would run a 14.26 et time after time. Nothing ever broke. Amazing piece of equipment.

[Keith Seymore]

In the truck plant grinding was not an acceptable repair. The procedure was to X out the offending characters and stamp the correct characters nearby.

K