[Judge273]

No wonder you were busy last night. Probably took down many blue mountains to compose yourself....

[njsteve]

Good info! Thanks. Do you have your own spot welder machine?

[njsteve]

Here's one that was on ebay. It has the welded on later ears.

[transam1972]

I have owned 2 N.O.S. SR shaker scoops in my life...one is currently planned to go on my car...the welded on taps line up fine, so did my other in 1979, although I have seen ones that dont...it is a GM part and it works for me...as far as I am concerned NJSTEVES shaker is comparable to an original installed shaker...it features the original metal base plate...and everything is O.E.M...if you are atleast 50 years old, all of this should make perfect sense...if you did not live through the era, this is where the misunderstandings come along I think...this is where the hobby gets weird to me, but since I have lived through it, I can laugh...if someone needs an inexpensive functional shaker they do make a repop for $300

[Formulajones]

While it is nice of you Norwood to take the time to provide information, most of which is well documented if you do your research, it's obvious to me and many others that the forsale thread was not about whether or not NJSteve made a nice copy, because it obviously is. I think the gripe for most came from the original post as being described at first as an original restored 71-72 piece and it wasn't actually disclosed as a couple of scoops that have been put together from different sources (albiet correct) until someone else brought that to light in the first couple of posts.
That's where the descrepency became apparent for other people. I believe if NJSteve would have just come out and explained that in the add without 80 pages of links to read through then none of this would have started to begin with.
No one is arguing that this one forsale from NJSteve isn't correctly done. So I personally don't see the point in all this. Obviously it's really bothering some of you guys and you seem hell bent on pushing the issue about correctness, LOL we all clearly get that part of it.
Some good info here though for others, thanks for taking the time.

[bird72]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

While it is nice of you Norwood to take the time to provide information, most of which is well documented if you do your research, it's obvious to me and many others that the forsale thread was not about whether or not NJSteve made a nice copy, because it obviously is. I think the gripe for most came from the original post as being described at first as an original restored 71-72 piece and it wasn't actually disclosed as a couple of scoops that have been put together from different sources (albiet correct) until someone else brought that to light in the first couple of posts.
That's where the descrepency became apparent for other people. I believe if NJSteve would have just come out and explained that in the add without 80 pages of links to read through then none of this would have started to begin with.
No one is arguing that this one forsale from NJSteve isn't correctly done. So I personally don't see the point in all this. Obviously it's really bothering some of you guys and you seem hell bent on pushing the issue about correctness, LOL we all clearly get that part of it.
Some good info here though for others, thanks for taking the time.

the problem to me was putting the thread in the 70-73 sections. The 4 sale sections don't have "discussion threads" and putting down seller or part is not really allowed, per se. I have been tempted to put "FYI" threads in the 70-73 section about stuff I had for sale and in the 4 sale section (to be helpful like Steve did) but have resisted due it going south somehow...... and it IS inviting discussion, so I think this is the teaching, really....

[njsteve]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

I believe if NJSteve would have just come out and explained that in the add without 80 pages of links to read through then none of this would have started to begin with.
No one is arguing that this one forsale from NJSteve isn't correctly done. So I personally don't see the point in all this. Obviously it's really bothering some of you guys and you seem hell bent on pushing the issue about correctness, LOL we all clearly get that part of it.
Some good info here though for others, thanks for taking the time.

The problem seems to be that I assumed that everyone had the same basic knowledge of these component parts and their interchangeability between years. Thankfully Norwood is presenting the facts for them, now.

But be that as it may, I have learned my lesson and will be happy to request that the moderators remove the my offending restoration thread(s) if that's what the majority of people want.

[transam1972]

actually please do not remove that thread...it contains a lot of technical information that would be lost...I credit that thread for getting me back into my restoration over a year a go...somehow I stumbled on to it and that's what makes PY a different company than the rest..it was the T.C.S. thing that did it for me...I am not a car show person and thanks to the web and that thread...that kind of stuff is not in the service manual...especially over this shaker...now we have a thread about the different shakers, I wont even mention the 1974 G.T.O. functional shaker