[Mcronk]

I have been out of the "loop" for a while. Not sure if you have the data on my car 00047. It is a pattern Judge 01D with A/C , automatic and Parchment interior built at the Atlanta plant. Sold at Jack Smith Pontiac in Huntsville Alabama. Sorry for the low quality of the PHS copy.

[johnta1]

Yes, it is in there.



Link to the webpage is 4 or 5 posts from this one.

[Singleton]

All that’s left from what I assume is a pattern judge. Belongs to someone local to me, removed long ago. Car was in rough shape and it is unknown what happened to it.

[johnta1]

Do you know the VIN for it?

[Singleton]

Originally Posted by johnta1

Do you know the VIN for it?

No, sorry, I wish I did

[OneJudge]

The primary documentation on VIN 242379G125205 — including the surviving broadcast sheet showing the official factory assignment date of January 9, 1969 (“99 01-09”), body sequence ZGA453185, the original dealer order confirming pilot batch 00017 with dealer code 29-991, the 01B cowl tag, and full PHS verification — was first introduced and discussed in this forum in 2015.
Attached is a screenshot of that original thread where the registry operator posted the same documents and asked the community for help determining whether this car could be the first Judge built. In the years since, no one has produced direct physical or documentary evidence (PHS report, surviving broadcast sheet, dealer invoice, or allocation records) that disputes the January 9, 1969 assignment date, the body sequence, or this car’s status as the lead unit of the documented 5-car corporate pilot batch 00017.
Both sides should stick to what the documented evidence actually shows rather than speculation about unknown cars or unverified VIN ranges. After more than 11 years of the same primary records being publicly available in this forum, conclusions should be based on the evidence that exists, not on what might exist.
Submitted for the historical record.

[north]

Originally Posted by Singleton

All that’s left from what I assume is a pattern judge. Belongs to someone local to me, removed long ago. Car was in rough shape and it is unknown what happened to it.

Interesting, that trim tag is by far the lowest body number of any of the Judges in my listing (556355). It is a 01D but all the ones I have that are 1B or 1C have much higher body numbers. Perhaps they had produced a bunch of Judge (TT with trunk wing holes punched) bodies ahead of time and built them out in substantially different order?

[johnta1]

Here's a page I made for the Baltimore cars/cowltags that I have.
These are not just Judges but all Baltimore that I have,
Interesting data I think.


Baltimore built cowl tag data


Also added the PHS shipped date if I have that data.

[johnta1]

Updated data on Balt. tags. (from NORTH mostly)

69 Baltimore Tag Data

John, can you check the tag for 172765? I think it may have been misread?
I have checked a lot of my 69 Bird tags and found some I misread after seeing 'wrong' sequences.

Also the vin 170503 I think the period after the BAL should have been a '5' which aligns with the other data?

I have found when doing the 69 Firebird tags that the BDY # seems to be in sequence as they were sent to the Bird factories, this came from camaros.org (Kevin Sonen maybe?). It explained a lot of weird sequences between LOS/VN, U and NOR.

I would have to look and see if some other A-body plant used that?

If you sort by the BDY tab at top of table it will show when the BDY order was sent to factory. The VIN may not be sequenced with BDY, which would depend on when it went to the line. The 'UNK' # will kind of say when it went to the line, while the Date code will follow if no extra detours (work on it) was needed.

We need to find someone who was in the 'upper' management on how this work flow worked.

Look at camaros.org on the tag section for some insight.

[johnta1]

Added my tag data to it now.

[north]

I double checked 172765, the info I provided is correct. tag looks legit, photo is clear and car was a low value car in poor condition, not likely fudging going on. probably a typo at the factory

As for 170503 (a judge ragtop btw), the tag also looks legit, there is a comma where you should have the 5. probably also a factory typo.

Some other plants used Body numbers that were specific to each body style and model. I suspect that the UNK# number at Baltimore might be some kind of order number that Fisher body received from the car division. I'd love to see trimtags for other car makes produced at Baltimore the same model year.

Originally Posted by johnta1

Updated data on Balt. tags. (from NORTH mostly)

69 Baltimore Tag Data

John, can you check the tag for 172765? I think it may have been misread?
I have checked a lot of my 69 Bird tags and found some I misread after seeing 'wrong' sequences.

Also the vin 170503 I think the period after the BAL should have been a '5' which aligns with the other data?

I have found when doing the 69 Firebird tags that the BDY # seems to be in sequence as they were sent to the Bird factories, this came from camaros.org (Kevin Sonen maybe?). It explained a lot of weird sequences between LOS/VN, U and NOR.

I would have to look and see if some other A-body plant used that?

If you sort by the BDY tab at top of table it will show when the BDY order was sent to factory. The VIN may not be sequenced with BDY, which would depend on when it went to the line. The 'UNK' # will kind of say when it went to the line, while the Date code will follow if no extra detours (work on it) was needed.

We need to find someone who was in the 'upper' management on how this work flow worked.

Look at camaros.org on the tag section for some insight.

[OneJudge]

I appreciate the discussion on VIN sequencing and pattern numbers. After 11+ years of research, including direct mentorship and review of primary factory documents, my conclusions are based on the surviving broadcast sheet (showing official assignment date January 9, 1969 and body sequence ZGA453185), the original dealer order confirming 0000017 with dealer code 29-991, the 01B cowl tag, PHS verification, and the fact that this remains the only documented 01B-tagged Framingham Judge in the 132-car registry.
If there is specific physical or documentary evidence (PHS report, broadcast sheet, dealer invoice, or trim tag) that directly shows another Framingham 01B-tagged car was scheduled or built earlier, I would genuinely like to see it so the record can be as accurate as possible.