He did the same thing with cuisanartvette......this mod has an agenda, real apparent.
Old Chevelles
Welcome to OldChevelles.com, built by Auto Enthusiasts for Auto Enthusiasts. Cars are not our only interests so please feel free to post about any subject the community might enjoy or you just feel you need to air.
We respect free speech and constructive dialogue however we don't allow threatening talk against members, nudity, or pornography. Threads are monitored and trolls are not tolerated.
This site is completely free and there are no costs. Please enjoy and provide feedback.Yikes OCS
- Thread starter 77cruiser
- Start date
kmakar
Janitor
They are sinking themselves and they can't even see it. Beat people into submission in as you will comply, or get banned? Wow.
Pathetic for sure.
Okay, this guy keeps spreading, dare I say, "misinformation". Someone with access please call him out on this as I have several times in the past concerning this subject. Tell him it's coming from me, so it rattles him a bit. The '69 Super Sport from the Baltimore plant has been verified in countless trim tag examples, with only 1 known anomoly. It's spelled out in Dale McIntosh' book, Jim Brady's accounts, Rick Nelson's accounts, Chris White's accounts, and mine. Yet, virtually every time this topic comes up, Dean is quick to debunk the "L" code based on "known examples to the contrary".....meaning 1. There is a prospective buyer basing his evaluation on a '69 that could be lead astray if he listens to Dean, who knows very little other than what his own car presents. Again, he has an agenda, not sure why, but I can't debate him this time. The thread is under "about to pull the trigger on a '69, questions".
Derek69SS
Veteran Member
Did the Baltimore built SS cars all have the "L" too?
I'm more familiar with the Leeds built cars, as that's where mine were built.
Yes, the Baltimore cars had a B, then a double space, then the L and batch number if Z25 equipped.
You may not like Dean, but what he is saying in this instance is not misinformation. While it is true that "MOST" Baltimore and KC cars with the L are SS's, there have been examples that didn't have the L and a known non SS that did have the L. With those known examples it would be misinformation to claim that the L proves SS. I know this subject very well because my LS5 car with build sheet does not have the L. Both my car and the LS6 without the L were both early Leeds cars.
I acknowledge that. Nowhere have I ever said it's proof, yet to not follow a disclaimer without putting it into context is misleading.....and is not forthright. This is where Dean falls short, and it's intentional since many have called him out on this in the past. Give all the facts and let the audience decide.
Agreed, but that's not the point of my post. It isn't personal as you suggested, it's the repeated misleading information that's incomplete without the broad picture. Dale's book has copyrights that can't be copy/pasted so otc is a pool of knowledge that is referenced on google searches to inquiring minds. Again, it's an opinion of Dean's that is inaccurate and he continues to post in every thread addressing the "L" code. I catch it when I can but this time I couldn't. Sounds like you're okay with that.
The problem we all have to accept, TC is regarded as a somewhat expert based site. There have been thousands of eBay listing, for example, that said, as per Team Chevelle, or something like that.
If TC starts boosting that the L means SS its going to put a ton of liability on everything.
I see people's books quoted all the time for known facts that can easily be wrong.
If TC starts boosting that the L means SS its going to put a ton of liability on everything.
I see people's books quoted all the time for known facts that can easily be wrong.
I think Dean's position on the subject comes from people saying that the L proves a SS. It doesn't prove it's a SS. While the vast majority of B or K cars with the L are SS's, there are the few exceptions that throw the "proof" out. You were quick to point out that you've never claimed proof. There are many people that do want to claim proof with the L. Without a legitimate numbers matching engine, transmission or a legitimate build sheet, there is no proof. I agree with you on the broad view aspect of the subject, but it's still a fact that the L doesn't prove a SS.
Yeah, you said the same thing in your earlier post. Truth is, there's more instances where the vin number stamped on the block is 1 digit off the corresponding car than the "L" code not used on a Z25 optioned B or KC car. I've got one, but you'll have a slew of nay sayers telling you it's not proof the car is a real SS. See where I'm going....it's circumstantial, but when you've studied these cars to the extent I have, and others have, known anomalies are excepted. Stating the facts as you have and as Dean has, isn't the picture, not by a long shot. That's why these conversations need to be played out. Anything else, would be remiss of the facts.
Derek69SS
Veteran Member
On a Leeds built '69 I'll call it proof.
The 2 examples of "L" on non-SS cars are one COPO 427 (Roger Day's) and one car with no known history but currently wears Malibu quarter emblems but has no lower Malibu trim. (Possible COPO? nobody knows, and nobody was going to strip paint to investigate)
Maybe more information has come to light since I last was involved in the discussions but I'd say it's quite solid on a Leeds built '69.
Since my '69s are both Leeds built, that's the information I was most interested in.
The 2 examples of "L" on non-SS cars are one COPO 427 (Roger Day's) and one car with no known history but currently wears Malibu quarter emblems but has no lower Malibu trim. (Possible COPO? nobody knows, and nobody was going to strip paint to investigate)
Maybe more information has come to light since I last was involved in the discussions but I'd say it's quite solid on a Leeds built '69.
Since my '69s are both Leeds built, that's the information I was most interested in.
No absolutes, please read and understand. You're going on a tangent, nobody is calling the anomolies clones. You take that first step, then, based on what you've learned, take another. It's critical thinking. I feel comfortable authenticating a '69 and yes, I'd put my reputation on anything I've claimed. See the difference?
No I don't see the difference.
If SS's had the L and there are tons that don't then they must be clones or copo's.
If you need to rely on "other" facts that the car is an SS to reach that conclusion, then the L theory doesn't hold much.
Am I making sense?
Derek69SS
Veteran Member
but there aren't tons.
there are a few, and they are anomalies.
(again, basing my views on Leeds-built '69s which I have studied far more extensively... not many Baltimore cars in my part of the country)