Hi all,
I am trying to understand a variation on the G.T. 350 emblem. The attached photographs shows two versions. I believe the upper is the later production version that was altered for better casting features. The lower version is a used emblem off a car in the mid 400s. It does appear to have casting flaws on the backside and smaller casting flaws on the front. You can see the divots on both sides. The later version is a much cleaner casting. Do I have it right from early versus late? Do we know when the transition occurred? I am betting all 65's got the early version and into the 66 production. Somewhere in the 66 production, the later emblem was introduced. I expect there was overlap or mixing of both versions during the transition. So there is probably not a clean break.
Thanks
Cory
Interesting Cory, will be keen to hear thoughts. I know that #373 looks like the later version from memory.
Cheers
Hi Cory,
Here's a photo of the emblem off 6S1568. I can't say for sure if it's the original assembly line one. It appears to be similar to the one you posted in the top photo. Denny
I thought originals did not have those two small dimples on either side of the posts.
Quote from: deathsled on August 07, 2021, 11:42:08 AM
I thought originals did not have those two small dimples on either side of the posts.
Later versions had the mold injection marks . The earlier versions without rehashing the other tells are machined across the back side like your picture.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 07, 2021, 11:48:43 AM
Quote from: deathsled on August 07, 2021, 11:42:08 AM
I thought originals did not have those two small dimples on either side of the posts.
Later versions had the mold injection marks . The earlier versions without rehashing the other tells are machined across the back side like your picture.
Good to know. Thank you for your elucidation on the question.
SFM5S142 came with one that was painted with something like magnesium color engine paint before black was applied in the lettering. On a trip to California in 1978 I found a new old stock one just like it in a blue and gray FoMoCo® box. Memory says I sold it to Mark Hovander for one of the restorations he did.
Hi Cory,
I had made this captioned comparison photo of my emblems and posted it on Forum v1, but it was lost into cyberspace along with everything else after the big meltdown.
As stated by others here, the original emblem that I removed from my car in 1977 is the machined version shown at the bottom, and the one on top with the ejection pin marks is a late production / early service part.
Kieth
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/52-070821131249.jpeg)
Quote from: SFM66H on August 07, 2021, 01:20:57 PM
Hi Cory,
I had made this captioned comparison photo of my emblems and posted it on Forum v1, but it was lost into cyberspace along with everything else after the big meltdown.
As stated by others here, the original emblem that I removed from my car in 1977 is the machined version shown at the bottom, and the one on top with the ejection pin marks is a late production / early service part.
Kieth
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/52-070821131249.jpeg)
Kieth ,I would like to point out that there are early service parts and later service parts. Both emblems were in the Ford service system .Through attrition one replaced the other. I have had NOS (early service)versions of the earlier style with the machined backside and NOS versions of the (later service) of the later style with the mold marks. So that there is no misunderstanding NOS in this context is understood as New Old Stock which is a service part and not a part taken off a car in excellent shape unlike what some people like to assign incorrectly.
The "casting flaws" in the OP appear to be corrosion not original flaws.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 07, 2021, 03:44:17 PM
Quote from: SFM66H on August 07, 2021, 01:20:57 PM
Hi Cory,
I had made this captioned comparison photo of my emblems and posted it on Forum v1, but it was lost into cyberspace along with everything else after the big meltdown.
As stated by others here, the original emblem that I removed from my car in 1977 is the machined version shown at the bottom, and the one on top with the ejection pin marks is a late production / early service part.
Kieth
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/52-070821131249.jpeg)
Kieth ,I would like to point out that there are early service parts and later service parts. Both emblems were in the Ford service system .Through attrition one replaced the other. I have had NOS (early service)versions of the earlier style with the machined backside and NOS versions of the (later service) of the later style with the mold marks. So that there is no misunderstanding NOS in this context is understood as New Old Stock which is a service part and not a part taken off a car in excellent shape unlike what some people like to assign incorrectly.
Okay - Thanks Bob.
So, you've had both emblem versions shown in my photo, and both of them are considered to be NOS/service parts.
What I'm wondering about then, is which version would be considered to be an "assembly line" emblem? Is it correct to say that the machined version is an "assembly line" emblem?
(http://www.saacforum.com/gallery/52-070821164841.jpeg)
Quote from: SFM66H on August 07, 2021, 04:40:41 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 07, 2021, 03:44:17 PM
Quote from: SFM66H on August 07, 2021, 01:20:57 PM
Hi Cory,
I had made this captioned comparison photo of my emblems and posted it on Forum v1, but it was lost into cyberspace along with everything else after the big meltdown.
As stated by others here, the original emblem that I removed from my car in 1977 is the machined version shown at the bottom, and the one on top with the ejection pin marks is a late production / early service part.
Kieth
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/52-070821131249.jpeg)
Kieth ,I would like to point out that there are early service parts and later service parts. Both emblems were in the Ford service system .Through attrition one replaced the other. I have had NOS (early service)versions of the earlier style with the machined backside and NOS versions of the (later service) of the later style with the mold marks. So that there is no misunderstanding NOS in this context is understood as New Old Stock which is a service part and not a part taken off a car in excellent shape unlike what some people like to assign incorrectly.
Okay - Thanks Bob.
So, you've had both emblem versions shown in my photo, and both of them are considered to be NOS/service parts.
What I'm wondering about then, is which version would be considered to be an "assembly line" emblem? Is it correct to say that the machined version is an "assembly line" emblem?
I have had both styles used original taken from GT350's and also NOS versions of both. If you read the previous posts then you will see that the discussion started out as of when not if the mold mark version came into use on the assemblyline. I believe that the one with the machining on the back was used in 1965 production and some of 66. The style with the mold mark came into use sometime after 66 production started .The obvious next question is when? I don't have near enough info to make that call.
It should be pointed out that there are numerous examples of service parts changing or evolving. In this case one assemblyline style part was used up in service inventory and replaced with another style used in production.
Quote from: SFM66H on August 07, 2021, 04:40:41 PM
So, you've had both emblem versions shown in my photo, and both of them are considered to be NOS/service parts.
What I'm wondering about then, is which version would be considered to be an "assembly line" emblem? Is it correct to say that the machined version is an "assembly line" emblem?
Consider that when they were building any of these cars, some parts from the original supplier and made exactly like what was being used on either line (Ford or SA) made their way into the supply chain to be sold and used to repair the cars from almost day one. Because of this we find some NOS that are exactly the same as what was installed, because they were, and later NOS where the same company made them in another run, possibly changing due to manufacturing changes or cost or now very close, if made by a different supplier or changed for the reasons mentioned.
Agree with Bob that too many of these may have been replaced with nicer, newer ones during earlier restorations or repairs - possibly even added to cars that didn't originally receive them. Also the details we're discussing are not visible once installed so not enough examples are available to draw a conclusion at this time or likely any time in the future
Quote from: J_Speegle on August 07, 2021, 05:47:56 PM
Quote from: SFM66H on August 07, 2021, 04:40:41 PM
So, you've had both emblem versions shown in my photo, and both of them are considered to be NOS/service parts.
What I'm wondering about then, is which version would be considered to be an "assembly line" emblem? Is it correct to say that the machined version is an "assembly line" emblem?
Consider that when they were building any of these cars, some parts from the original supplier and made exactly like what was being used on either line (Ford or SA) made their way into the supply chain to be sold and used to repair the cars from almost day one. Because of this we find some NOS that are exactly the same as what was installed, because they were, and later NOS where the same company made them in another run, possibly changing due to manufacturing changes or cost or now very close, if made by a different supplier or changed for the reasons mentioned.
Agree with Bob that too many of these may have been replaced with nicer, newer ones during earlier restorations or repairs - possibly even added to cars that didn't originally receive them. Also the details we're discussing are not visible once installed so not enough examples are available to draw a conclusion at this time or likely any time in the future
+1
Don't forget later slightly larger Bill Norton (Valley Ford Parts) repros.
Quote from: 98SVT - was 06GT on August 07, 2021, 04:04:26 PM
The "casting flaws" in the OP appear to be corrosion not original flaws.
Hi 98SVT,
Yes, I did consider the divots might be from corrosion, but I still believe they are casting flaws, porosity in the casting that collapsed and created the divots. I have a buddy that is well experienced in metallurgy forensics for accident investigation. I will have to show him the emblem and get his professional opinion and get back to you. I will have to buy him lunch.
Also, I am aware of a recent sale of an early emblem advertised as NOS with the same flaws. This to me suggest casting flaw not corrosion. I will ask the seller if I can post the images.
Last, I also believe these flaws caused the supplier to redesign the emblem. I will bet they were scrapping too many emblems and that was costing them money. To save money, they redesigned the emblem to have better flow into the mold, thus the four additional casting sprues. It is my experience, that when there is a change, it typically is for reducing cost.
Thanks for your input.
Cory
Quote from: 6s1640 on August 08, 2021, 01:32:57 AMAlso, I am aware of a recent sale of an early emblem advertised as NOS with the same flaws. This to me suggest casting flaw not corrosion.
.....they redesigned the emblem to have better flow into the mold, thus the four additional casting sprues.
I'd still wage corrosion lots of moisture and even road salt could easily get behind the emblem.
Those are not casting sprues but locations were pins were to eject the part from the mold. The difference you see in the castings is more just a function of mold making from someone tooling up to make 100-1000 parts vs a mold to produce 5000+ parts on a faster, more commercial scale.
Here is the early NOS emblem with the same flaws. I'm still going with casting flaws that were eliminated with the later emblem.
Take care
Cory
Thanks for the clarification on the casting flaws. A question for you Cory. In the last photo you posted, of the rear side of the emblem, are those the original attaching speed nuts? My emblem had a different type and I suspect they were not the assembly line version. Thanks, Denny
Did all early 66s come with rear emblem?
Quote from: 6S1568 on August 08, 2021, 08:17:50 PM
Thanks for the clarification on the casting flaws. A question for you Cory. In the last photo you posted, of the rear side of the emblem, are those the original attaching speed nuts? My emblem had a different type and I suspect they were not the assembly line version. Thanks, Denny
Hi Denny,
Yes, it is my understanding this style nuts were used at Shelby American. They are called Tinnerman nuts - flat. They can be found in most hardware stores. The nut in the first images is not period, but a alternate solution to securing the emblem. This Tinnerman nut was also used to secure the running horse grill emblem. I believe they are design to just push on. A small socket works pretty good to push on.
Take care
Cory
Quote from: 66S285 on August 08, 2021, 08:46:05 PM
Did all early 66s come with rear emblem?
Hi 66S285,
All 66 GT350's should have received the rear panel emblem, but I expect some got through without the emblem. Others may confirm.
I have heard Chuck Cantwell talk about these emblems and having issues with the shop guys not getting them in the right spot. You would think a shop aid tool would have been used to locate.
Take care
Cory
Cory, Thanks so..............much for teaching me the term "Tinnerman" or flat nuts. And, yes they are the same type that hold the running horse emblem on the grill. I'll seek out a set to fit my rear emblem. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge. Denny
6S240 was one of those that did NOT have the emblem "from SAI". I added it during my ownership in the early '70's.
Cory ,
The mid 400's emblem is from 477 which "lived" near the beach for 7 years in a car port before I bought it. This caused the roughness around the letters. I am the one who painted the letters blue. The nut pictured is one of the originals. The flat "push on" retainers were included with the emblem I got from Ray Wolfe (rip) out of a box of at least 100 "left overs" from SAI.
Randy
Mine did not have one either. #285. Good to hear someone else did not. My current one was added during restoration
Quote from: 66S285 on August 09, 2021, 02:10:11 PM
Mine did not have one either. #285. Good to hear someone else did not. My current one was added during restoration
I don't think there is too much push back for adding something that was designed to be and meant to be on the car.
Agree. Just interesting some early prototype cars (mine Ford official white no stripe automatic car) didn't seem to get them.
Quote from: gt350hr on August 09, 2021, 10:44:21 AM
6S240 was one of those that did NOT have the emblem "from SAI". I added it during my ownership in the early '70's.
Cory ,
The mid 400's emblem is from 477 which "lived" near the beach for 7 years in a car port before I bought it. This caused the roughness around the letters. I am the one who painted the letters blue. The nut pictured is one of the originals. The flat "push on" retainers were included with the emblem I got from Ray Wolfe (rip) out of a box of at least 100 "left overs" from SAI.
Randy
Hi Randy,
Good seeing you at SAAC 46 and joining us at our table for the Saturday dinner and program. I always enjoying hearing your stories.
With this new information on the rear panel GT350 emblem from 6S477, I am adjusting the theory a little. I believe the emblem from 6S477 had casting flaws that were acerbated, made worse by the marine air. Thus it was a combination of corrosion and the casting flaws. I do not think is was corrosion alone. This is supported by the NOS emblem with the smaller flaws and no exposure to the elements.
Attached is an image of the rear panel GT350 emblem from 6S407. It has the similar flaws, but almost looks like the flaws were under the surface and are popping out. This car came from the lower mid west, relatively dry and no marine air. I expect there is some corrosion that has made the flaws pop or break through. I am guessing this emblem is the early version. It has never been off the car. The car was being stored outdoors with only 34,562 original miles.
The rear panel GT350 emblem to 6S407 has the Tinnerman nuts and have never been removed. I have not seen a car with the nut used on the 6S477 emblem. Not to say they were not common. I wonder if others can post images of the nut from a non-restored car.
Say hi to your wife. I also enjoyed her stores as well.
Take care
Cory
Have found some emblems with threaded pins and different styles of nuts. Haven't seen a confirmed example with nuts being used on the 66. Different nuts and style fo threads lead me to believe that the nuts were likely someones better idea - not the plants
Not sure how many pictures I have of unrestored cars but will see. Have a few hours to go looking up another detail for another thread
From examples that I've been able to I review, Cory's last photo shows original the assembly line style of Tinnerman nuts that were used to hold the emblem in place. Thanks Cory!
I have seen something like threaded pins before . In my instance what first looked like threaded pins to me on further inspection of the several that I have seen over the years was when a shell nut was used to secure the plate would cut a groove into the pin as it was screwed down mimicking threads . I do not think that the shell nut was a factory installation. It makes the most sense that the easy to install and common tinnerman push nut was the typical installation.
I removed the plate on 477 for the first time in '74 when I had the car painted. It had the "speed nut " pictured. In all my years the Tinnerman nut has been the most common too. I have only seen one other with a speed nut. Oddly it was a very late car in the 2300's.
Randy
Found a few photos of my original and replacement emblem
The differences are a lot
Quote from: Steve McDonald Formally known as Mcdonas on August 22, 2021, 02:31:48 PM
Found a few photos of my original and replacement emblem
The differences are a lot
I'd put the old one back on...
Some of the plates were made of a material that dulled like pewter and in some cases very quickly. Consequently the fix was to paint the surface with silver paint the black letters were course the same. The material was later changed and so painting was not needed.
You should get MORE horsepower by putting the original back on! 8)
Steve
Not sure it is fair to call the Scott Drake emblem a "variation"
Not much of what they produce is correct. I am a little surprised his name is not on the outside of the emblem.
Quote from: Tired Sheep on August 23, 2021, 08:46:33 AM
Not sure it is fair to call the Scott Drake emblem a "variation"
If anything, it should be referred to (with others) as a "reproduction variation or style" If just "variation" is used someone may interpret is as being an original variation or option
Blurs the lines I believe
Quote from: J_Speegle on August 23, 2021, 04:30:13 PM
If anything, it should be referred to (with others) as a "reproduction variation or style" If just "variation" is used someone may interpret is as being an original variation or option
Blurs the lines I believe
+1
Was showing the difference between my original and what was able to find as a "replacement" emblem.
On the original I was even able to save the push on clips to reinstall it.