[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by John V.

KC grouped the accessory codes so that they might read "E 2LGP 5NW". They did not code the "1" for the 1st Group codes.

Pontiac did not use the "1" for the 1st Group code, either (at least in '65).

K

[rexus31]

Originally Posted by John V.

The Cordova Top color code at KC was different, "6" will indicate Black Cordova Top for example.

That's odd. Do you have a pic of a sample you can share?

[Tom Vaught]

Glad John V chimed in. Personally I thought the Data Plate looked "funny" from the beginning. But really know nothing about the other plant cars which is why John V is such a great asset for the 64-65 Forum. Thanks John V.

Tom V.

[John V.]

Keith, '64 was different, Pontiac Plant coded the accessories in '64 as example, "1E-1T-2K-2P-5N-5Z".

rexus31, I may have messed up with that claim, thanks for catching it.

It has been discussed here on occasion but I think now it was for '65 KC builds that Black Cordova Top was coded "6". And I honestly don't recall if it was the Data Plate or the '65 Billing History Card that shows the "6".

IIRC, it was coded "6" in one place, while the other coded the "2".

In '64, Box 53 on the Chevy form coded the Convertible Top or Cordova Top color.

"6" did code the Black Cordova Top color in Box 53 while "2" coded the Black Convertible Top. But looking at some Shipping Orders (PHS docs), the Color Code shows the "2" so the Data Plate probably also showed the "2" in '64.

There was an anomaly on the '64 KC Data Plate for the Convertible Top color. KC did not code the wheel color on the Data Plate, they did code it on the Shipping Order record with a 3rd character in the COLOR box.

On convertibles however there is a 3rd character on the KC Data Plate that is NOT for the Wheel Color. When I was actively researching the '64 KC builds I was confounded by the existence of this 3rd character until I realized that it was always a repeat of the 2nd character.

I can't say why they did it, but a '64 KC convertible in Gulfstream Aqua with Black Top will show Q22 on the Data Plate or Q11 if G.A. with the Ivory Top.

Box 53 on the Shipping Record would just have a single number and the COLOR box would show Q2A or Q1A (with Black Wheels). I have no idea why they added the 3rd character to the PAINT code on the Data Plate for convertibles. Just what they did.

Sorry for the earlier misinformation.

[64-3Deuces]

Good info posted here but pretty obvious there were differences between plants on how things were done. Just for reference Pic 1 is the data plate for my PO build and Pic 2 is a KC build (don’t know why the punched holes). Different style plates and a lot less info on the KC plate. Both have the 5N for the GTO conversion and my research indicates that only the PO and KC plant used the 5N…John V????... The KC plate is a Lemans vert destined to be a GTO.

That said, the E-Bay car data plate is bogus. You need the VIN for PHS doc so as previously stated probably a re-tag. Over the years owners do remove factory parts-geezz this thing has a SBC in it!!!!- but who would get rid of the 64 GTO hood?

[geeteeohguy]

Great information on this thread. Thanks, guys.

[60sstuff]

Baltimore plant build 1965.

Data Plate - Y6
Billing Card - Y2

Both equal Black Cordova Top. I think this is true with the 65 KC builds.

Chris.

[Rich-Tripower]

Perhaps build sheet is the wrong term, but our document looks a lot different. Perhaps because it was a Fremont build. Our document is easier to understand but looks a lot different than what was shown for the car in question.

[64-3Deuces]

[QUOTE=Rich-Tripower;5773396]Perhaps build sheet is the wrong term, but our document looks a lot different. Perhaps because it was a Fremont build. Our document is easier to understand but looks a lot different than what was shown for the car in question. QUOTE]

The PHS documents are what they get from the respective build plant. Obvious there were record keeping & documentation differences among the various plants. My 64 Pontiac plant build has the same PHS docs as shown in the listing so that is legit. Whether the car/vin is legit is another question.

[400 4spd.]

I'll be posting this one in the For Sale section in the coming weeks. Black/black 4 speed with Tri-power. It has a '66 drive-train though. Tons of work done to it here.

[Greg Reid]

Come on powerball!

[John V.]

Rich, my '64 is also a Fremont build so I am very familiar with the Fremont record. This was the copy retained by PMD, I believe a carbon copy of this document was the Shipping Manifest that traveled with the trucker (and car) or rail and wound up at the Dealership (and consequently not retained by PMD but perhaps by the independent dealership). You'll notice that your doc says "PRODUCTION RECORD" along the bottom, many/most '64 Fremont PHS docs are cut off and won't show this but IIRC, the copy that traveled to the dealership may have been marked "SHIPPING RECORD". I think I have seen such a copy that was obtained from the dealer, not from PHS. I'm not real certain, so don't take that as fact, point is just that I believe this was a multi-part form with each copy serving a particular record-keeping purpose, none of which had to do with the "build sheets" that governed the Body Assembly build up within the Fisher Body Plant or Final Assembly within the Car Assembly Div. Plant.

For what ever reason, the records that PMD kept (and were later acquired by PHS) for '64 builds varied by Plant as I described in the previous post.

In '65, all records were retained as IBM Hollerith Cards labeled as the Billing History Card regardless of Plant.

'64 Fremont records are easy to decipher but the '64 records from the KC and Balt Plants actually contain a lot more info about the build. And they all also were imprinted with the Ident-O-Plate that was shipped in the warranty booklet in the car.

60sstuff, thanks for confirming the use of the "6" for Black Cordova Top on the '65 Balt Data Plate. I agree, pretty sure it was same in '65 for KC builds since they were both Chevy controlled Plants and did things about the same.

64-3Deuces, the two Data Plate examples help depict many of the things I mentioned.

Fisher Body at ALL 4 A Body Plants used the 5 Group coding system and the 5N code on the Body Trim Manifest indicated the GTO option, the Trim Manifest was the document used to govern the Body Assembly build within each respective Fisher Body Plant. A Body Assembly showing no 5 Group codes on the Trim Manifest would be built per the "standard content" Body with no need for any modifications to the standard "recipe" for a given Model Body Assembly. Each 5 Group code dictated a modification to that recipe performed by Fisher Body to add an option (such as tinted glass) or an accommodation for an option that would be installed at Final Assembly later in the process.

Fisher Body did NOT rely on the Data Plate to build the Body Assembly, they simply regurgitated certain bits of information from the Trim Manifest to the Data Plate. Errors on the Data Plate (and they do turn up) were inconsequential as long as the Trim Manifest was correct.

While Fremont and Baltimore Trim Manifests did use the 5 Group system, only the KC and Pontiac Plants bothered to regurgitate the 5 Group Accessory Codes on the Data Plate.

Attached is a pic of a '64 Balt Trim Manifest, I think has been posted here before. Evidence that Fisher Body at Balt used the same 5 Group coding system, they just didn't regurgitate the codes on the '64 Data Plate.

[400 4spd.]

Originally Posted by Greg Reid

Come on powerball!

Nooooo. Just a decent scratch-off or two!