Can anyone help decipher this cowl tag please.
The car is a 1965 Cutlass conv. Cutlass emblems on fenders, rear panel and dash plate. I believe the 04C is the date code for third week in april.
I am interested in the production numbers for 65 non 442 convertibles.
Thanks---

 

trouble getting the picture loaded

 

Pics 101

When you reply make sure you are in “Advanced” If it says post a “Quick reply” hit “Advanced”

Scroll down below the box you type in and hit “ Manage Attachments” A new box will pop up.

Hit “Browse”

The hit “Upload” and wait a few secs for the pics to up load. Then close this box.
Next you can hit “Preview Post and your pictures should be there.

There is a size limit on pics

 

A little hard to read so it goes like this top down

04C
ST 65-33867 LAN 6764 BODY
TR 953-B C1 PAINT
W 2XG
5F

I believe the paint code C1 is the Provincial White w/white top

 

Mike, the link below is to a site that will help you decode your trim tag:

http://www.442bro.com/

Ooops! forgot to mention once you get there click on the tab for "Dataplate"

John

 

Thanks for that link--very helpful. Does anyone know about 65 non 442 convertible production numbers? I was at the nationals last year in Mass and there was 2 or 3 65's there--no convertibles. I do not see many in person but quite a few in pictures and ads.

 

Oh and I see my convertible top code is for black not white. I am quite pleased as I wanted to go to black. It will only be up during storage so why try to keep a white one clean.

 

Here's my contribution to your cowl tag
04C - build month/week Your car is third week of April 1965
ST-65 - model year 1965
3 - Oldsmobile Division
38 - model series Cutlass V8
67 - body style Convertible
LAN - built at Lansing
6764 - body number
TR 953 B - Blue Vinyl . I looked up the trim options. What I found is your car should have a Bench seat.
PNT C 1 - C=lower body color - Provincial White. 1 = upper body (in this case vert top)white (not a black top like you thought)
W 2XG 5F - this should relate to fisher options that would be installed on the car.

 

Thanks Allan
I thought the Lansing codes showed the 1 as a black top and the Freemont code was 1 for the white. I do not know why it would be different at different plants,confusing. Also my car has buckets and a console which I believe strongly are original. I bought the car in 87 from the second owner who only owned it for a year or so and did not drive it or make any changes. I also think the w 2xg has something to do with the console and floor shift options so a bench would be unlikely.
I also found some production numbers which I would like to discuss.
I found there were 12628 convertibles in 65 and I think 3468 were 442's so I am thinking around 9160 non 442 convertibles made in 65?? Then that would break down to 3 speed,4 speed and jetaway.

 

Allan is wrong, never ever a bench seat in a 65 convertible. Not even in a hardtop. Top was black, not white. Code 1 is for a black top.

2XG is the code for the floor console and hole for the auto shifter. No way a bench seat could be had with a console. All this info is on Bros site.

 

Allen is right, Provincial White with a white convertible top. I checked two sources.

 

'65 assy manual/Wild About Cars.

 

The top on the car was white and looked to be the original but I do not know for sure. I see that sheet says sales code--could it be different for a build code? I cannot imagine why they would do that but I also saw somewhere that for Freemont cars the code is reversed.

 

Um, uh, I know you meant Wild About Cars.
But that's okay cuz we're wild about wheels too....

Yes, 1 is white, 2 is black.

 

Hey TK,
I decided to go to the 442bro.com site, since the seat info I posted (in retrospect) is wrong. You're right about the Console and buckets for this car. That site has some very interesting info. I'm glad John posted it; I'll keep it in my favorite resources now.

They have a great collection of cowl tags with decoded info - including stuff on bench seats. Also interesting was that in the "Interiors" section, the bros.com site also shows a great picture of what the 'bench seat option' was for the Sports coupes. Really a good looking seat. So, I guess you're right about the vert/hardtop. Must have been only the posts, sports coupes, sedans and VC that got the benches. Live and learn.

Much as I respect your knowledge of 65's, I believe you're wrong on the vert top. Yes, I know bros.com says code 1 is black, but I think that is a typo. I'll believe the 65 GM Assembly manual that says Code 1 is white. So do other references I have. Tell you what, I'll send bros an email and ask, ok? The rest of the info I posted for Mikes65 is correct. So now the fisher codes that I didn't know at the bottom of Mikes65 cowl tag become clear: (all fisher options)

column 1
W - tinted windshield
2 - column 2
X - Floor mounted automatic transmission
G - Floor Brackets, Console, Floor Shift & Automatic Floor Hole, Console, Automatic Only
5 - column 5
F - remote outside mirror

 

Mike, the sales code for the vert top on your car should be "1". To the factory, this meant: To the best of my knowledge the order of the paint codes didn't get reversed at different plants. However, there appears to be a different cowl tag for Lansing and Freemont. The Lansing plants didn't have the 'magic mirror' finish text, whereas the Freemont ones did. 442bros site suggests that ALL Freemont also seem to have an extra hole punched in the cowl tag on the upper right side. One thing I noticed on that site was that some Freemont cowl tags also detailed the color of the wheels that went with the car. So they could have 3 codes. Like this: JJ J This would mean Forest Green Lower & Upper Body & Wheels (equipped with dog dish hubcaps) I didn't see that on any of the Lansing tags.

There was also some subtle cosmetic differences in the Oshawa cowl tags too.

 

Thanks Allan. I also learned a lot from bros site. I think we have it now ---all those options are present. Any comment on the production numbers?

 

The number of convertibles you stated (12,628) is right in line with info I have from JWO. However, they also state that the number of Holiday coupes produced with 442 W29 options was 46,138.

I guess it depends which site you visit and which one you believe. According to 442.com these are the numbers for 442 production in 65

F-85 Club Coupe.............1,087
Cutlass Club Coupe ........5,713
Cutlass Holiday Coupe.. 14,735
Cutlass Convertible ........3,468
TOTAL PRODUCTION ....25,003

If you believe Muscle Car Club, they quote 65 442 production with the same number, but broken down as
Holiday 2D Hardtop:.....21,535
Convertible: .................3,468
TOTAL PRODUCTION.....25,003



Total production for 1965 was 586,756 according to JWO (but that doesn't include exports). Other sources quote total 65 production at 592,804. The latter is for model year production vs. calendar year production. Autowikepedia says total Olds production in 65 was 591,701. I think someone somewhere misplaced a few Oldsmobiles or lost count...

Was this what you were looking for? Where did you find the info you quoted?

 

I don't know why anyone would even want to consider any production numbers other than what came directly from Oldsmobile. You can find all of the production numbers by model for *all* years of Oldsmobiles on Wild About Cars.
http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/cgi-b...aldisplayed=50
These are straight from the pages of "Setting The Pace" and were the official production numbers from Oldsmobile.
The following breakdown quoted is also official Olds numbers for '65 442s:
F-85 Club Coupe.............1,087
Cutlass Club Coupe ........5,713
Cutlass Holiday Coupe.. 14,735
Cutlass Convertible ........3,468
TOTAL PRODUCTION ....25,003

 

LOL! oops!

 

Actually Kurt, I apologize. I misquoted in my post, it wasn't JWO, I used the WAC site but should have said "Setting the Pace". Anyway I referenced that exact (official Olds production) page you linked in. It does not have the breakdown of production for individual models. Since we did both come up with exactly the same info, I'm now I'm wondering, where exactly does the breakdown numbers for 25003 reside on WAC? I searched the 65 specifications and I couldn't find it there. I did find the spread sheet that lists total 65 production - again with a different number than 'Setting the Pace'. So even those numbers aren't lining up. It's giving me a headache when even the 'official' numbers don't add up!

 

I cant say how accurate this number is, but total vert production may be 12,628. I say may because I have found the number for hardtops is more than what the chart the lists them as.

Sorry about the top colors Allan. I swear black was 1, Ive seen so may cars with black tops and 1 that I thought thats what the code was.

 

I found the numbers on ultra high compression.com production numbers page

 

Not following you here. That is exactly what is listed, the breakdown of production by every model.

To clarify, This is not a breakdown of models. This is a breakdown of models *with the 442 option*. We have not posted this on WAC yet.
We have 442 production numbers for '64-'72 442 broken down by model and transmission, W30, W31, and W32 likewise. We also have '70 W30, W31, and W32 production by month. All not yet posted.


Where is that?

Note: "Exact" numbers are sometime elusive. Personally going through records at Oldsmobile, I can tell you that they have some discrepancies noted, especially when it comes to totals. Even some of the *computer printouts* with rolling totals have figures that literally don't add up. So we can not be always be absolutely certain of the accuracy of all of the figures. But for all practical purposes, it really doesn't matter.

 

Your numbers are probably the same as the ones I found. FWIW I did send the bros.com an email to clarify their vert top colors. I'm waiting to hear back - will probably be after the Easter weekend though.I'll update the thread when they get back on this ok? That site has some absolutely amazing details.

Like everyone, sometimes I comment based on what I've seen too. I've been trying hard to check my posts for mistakes before submitting, but sometimes they get missed. This thread has been a great learning experience for me!
I think it was implied that we were looking at the breakdown of 442 production by looking at the way I described it immediately before the lists. Since the info wasn't available on WAC (not a criticism - just a note) I think it's completey valid to quote other sources which can be equally valuable to us as hobbyists. When the info gets posted to WAC, it will indeed be a greater resource. In the meantime, the good folks posting questions are likely looking for more immediate answers whereever they can find them, right?

http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/cgi-b...aldisplayed=50

Yup, I think we're all frustrated and resigned to the kind of record keeping GM had back in the day. Of course it's easy to criticize them for their records mgmt now, given the sophistication that's developed over the past 40+years. Given the interest new car hobbyists have about 'specific details' about their cars? They're going to go away dissappointed with some of the results they'll hear back from the Olds sector. Again - just a comment.

That seems like a strange thing to say. I understand the context, but I think it's more appropriate that 'for all practical purposes, the numbers aren't critical ' unless of course you're trying to document a car that is one of 312 vs 31,112. And strangely, I find that somewhat practical.

 

There should be no frustration and/or resignation here at all. This figures were not gathered for our use 50 years later. They served their purpose which was for *their* use not ours. And that is aside from what technology offered then vs now. It isn't like this isn't typical of businesses of that era. Bottom line here is that this is not even a case of bad record keeping. We just need to keep this all in proper perspective.
This strikes me as being akin to finding a piece of pottery on an ancient dig and criticizing the pot maker for not making a more durable pot.


I'm not referring to gross differences like 312 vs. 31,112. I'm referring to minor differences *less than* 31,312 vs 31,112. Which still fall into the realm of "for all practical purposes", for all practical purposes!

 

So is it reasonable to estimate there were 9160 non 442 1965 cutlass convertibles made. 12628 total minus the 3468 442's says 9160 cutlass convertibles. I would think there were more than that made.

 

Your math is logical. According to the Olds production numbers on WAC, there were only 12,628 Cutlass verts made. It sounds like a low number, but if you factor in the other Olds models that were also verts, the total Olds production of Convertibles tips the scale at 31,478.

Don't forget also that back in the 60's Oldsmobile didn't have the market that other brands did, and production was ramped to the cars that were proven sellers. The 442 entry to the market is what started turning heads back in 64 as an option package. Later in 68 it became it's own model; a short lived lifespan till the end of 71.

If you look historically at Cutlass/442 vert production numbers, they tend to be around 2-5% of total yearly production in the 60's.

 

Anyone want to give a guess at the survival rate? I am thinking a 47 year old car and they were not originally thought of as collector cars like a 442 may have been---maybe 20% or less live on today?? Is it possible there are maybe under 2000 still surviving? I do not think it will ever be really thought of as a "rare" car looking at production numbers, but under 2000 in the world today---that is not very many.

 

Interestingly enough I asked the same question only in regards to how many 72's survived. One of our members "Jaunty75" suggested a reasonable approach to determine attrition of the cars. His post is listed here: https://classicoldsmobile.com/forums...tml#post357467 I think you're right that there aren't a lot of these cars left in the world, but I think your estimate of 20% is way high. 1965 was also in the days when auto manufacturers didn't use anything but paint for rust protection. They also expected cars to be turned over about every 4-5 years. IMO, the cars that survived had owners that were obviously car guys or knew enough to build and use garages.

 

Well, regardless of for whom the bell tolls, people are people. You really think I believe you haven't wished, at some time in your life, that you could go back and get original or more complete documentation/statistics about your cars, or all cars, given your current status with WAC? You've never been frustrated or resigned to accept that records you would love to have were tossed? If you answered "No" to those questions, you're a much better man than I am and you shouldn't read any further.

I believe we all get that records management by GM was for 'their use'. However, corporate GM also knew there was an automotive 'collector cult following' that could probably put the records to good use. Did they offer anyone those records before tossing them? No of course not. They weren't required to, and the records were 'owned' by GM so they could do whatever they wanted with them. My comment was a retro look back at how things 'could have been' vs 'how they are' based on general enquiries by more than a casual few about production statistics. So, overall I think it's totally fair to say there's bound to be some frustration and resignation about the lack of overall records that exist for Oldsmobile statistics.

Naturally after the fact we all seem to have some vested interest in that process through our cars. Funny thing; GM Canada still has records of imports/Oshawa built cars. You think that folks in the US wouldn't love to get their hands on something similar for their cars in the US? Just saying it's human nature to want things that ultimately we can't have now.

I don't think anyone would argue that old record keeping took emmense volumes of paper storage and wasn't practical. Hence the trash bin beckons. I suspect that all the auto manufacturers to date still don't likely store any significant production records other than the ones that affect the fiscal picture.


Nope, a fragment of a pot is a fragment. Same as finding any historic buried artifact. The build process isn't what we're 'discussing' it's the records. You are aware that many museums (science, nature, auto, military etc) around the world hold detailed records dating back hundreds of years ago as proof that events did happen related to general and very specific criteria. Someone took the time to preserve that heritage, even though it was run of the mill stuff back then and WHO in their right mind would need it???. Ok, let's move on.....

Welcome to Greece. Here's a lump of clay. Do your best to make a pot ok? You'll learn as you go. Bam! Pot Making 101. You actually think they kept production records or standards for that as long as it looked close or worked? All they cared about was how many vessels were shipped in categories of 'small, medium and large'. Clay was expected to break or be broken and often was. I've seen mountains of amphoras that demonstrated that exact statement on the History channel. It's only the ones that survive that we're in awe of. Now if you were able to produce evidence about the number of pottery pieces that were built and fired in Athens, destroyed or lost at sea, painted gold, black blue, had lids, handles etc that would be amazing. Course we know it'll never happen because "no one really cares" and pot making wasn't a huge specialty. So for practical purposes, you'd be right - who cares? It's not relevant till someone makes it so.

That's the difference. The auto collectors and hobbyists do care and are asking that type of question because a lot of them want to replicate some form of automotive history in great detail using standardized and specialized technologies. They also are curious to know exact little details about how many cars were this color, had this option, had this interior etc. And very few people are lucky enough to find build sheet documentation, which is just ONE car's profile compared to the millions of cars produced that year. Perspectives are relative to the beholder my friend. And, as you're equally aware, most everyone feels they have the 'proper' perspective...

 

Just wanted to let everyone know that Wild About Cars and the Auto History Preservation Society are on a search for the production records - by vehicle for Oldsmobile for the 60s and 70s.

We have a good couple of leads and we will continue to dig.

The issue of records-keeping will bedevil us forever, because it is the uniqueness of our car that we all seek to verify. We must also remember that the numbers depend on:

- who originally asked for the info, (exports and bare chassis might be left out)
- when (in the year/month) it was compiled and for what purpose (annual versus model year production).
- who compiled it (marketing, production, finance).

Some of this will even be true today.

Then you add in that others recompiled the numbers and then published them (AMA and others, for example) and you can see how these numbers can be all over the place.

Frankly, unless you own an ultra rare piece, like say a W-30, these number differences are not going to help/hurt the value that much. Auctions like to fawn over things like "one of only 23 with a blue exterior, a tan vinyl top and a green interior", merely to boost up the bidding, but put that car in Hemmings next to 2000 with a black exterior, a white vinyl top and a white interior, and see which one will sell.

So, back to the beginning of my rambling post, WAC will keep looking for the individual production records, and then we'll see . . .

 

That's positive. Hope the search pans out.

 

Well I followed up with BRO's. Sent them an email with the details. They got back to me the next day saying they would check, but they're sure they're right. Just have to find their resources they used to post the info and get back. I sent them back an offer to supply them with the electronic copies of the manuals for 65,66,67,68 that show their 'error'. So far it's been a week and they haven't bothered to follow up. I'll wait another week. It's not a big deal to me, I believe the GM manuals.

 

Ok, got back 2 emails
#1
Then, 2 hours later:
Over yet? Sounds right defensive huh? Still going to go by ALL the Olds manuals that say white is 1 black is 2. I get that manuals can have typos in them. But to have the same typo or roof I.D. for at least 5 years shows a consistent pattern.

 

Well I had to prompt BRO's again for a reply. I followed up with this: BRO responded with:Last I checked their site (today) they have not followed up with any changes.