When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
It looked easy at 1st glance, but I suspect the cowl tag has been manipulated. I know of no GM Assembly plant w/ a code of NAN. I suspect this should be LAN (Lansing) - an error by Fisher Body Works lineman, perhaps?
However, note the disparity/difference between the both numbers "3" in font style. I'll double-check but I don't believe there is a TR 303.
Somewhat suspicious of the cork insert into the RH rivet - not sure what that's about.
Just for yuks, here's the image of the body cowl tag in the 1969 chassis service manual. I note a few of things.
Note how tiny the paint code numbers are compared to all the other letters and numbers.
The rivets are shown as being in the lower left and right corners, but the real tags always have them about half way up the side on each side.
All of the 3's have a flat top. All of the 3's on the cowl tag in question have round tops except one, the second one in the trim code.
The time-built code is shown as being in the upper left of the tag above the STyle line. But in the subject tag, the code is below the trim code. I recall seeing the time-built code in this location often, so I doubt that means anything. But it is a deviation from what the manual says.
Like much of the documentation that we pay so much attention to nowadays, I'm sure that, back then, the goal was not precision and accuracy but rather to simply stamp out these tags as quickly as possible. It's likely no one worried about the fonts or the exact placements of the codes. I agree that the NAN assembly plant code is certainly wrong, but maybe this was an end-of-shift stamping, the guy doing it was tired, and he didn't pay close attention. Then the post-assembly inspector, if there was such a thing, if he saw it, probably just said the hell with it and let it go by. The goal was to get these cars out the factory door and into customer's hands, not worry about what people will say about the tag more than a half-century later.
In the days of drafting boards, engineering drawings were modified by making a wash-off mylar (a copy of the original drawing photo-reproduced on mylar backing). The water-soluble ink was readily removed with a small water sponge tool and a power eraser. This made it easy to create a new drawing with minimal labor. Unimportant details (like the size of the letters) were just reused if they didn't require revision. Don't read too much into this.
And yes, I'm old enough that I made more than a few drawings from wash-off mylars in my day.
If it helps, I actually have worked on certification tags in the modern world. There's two kinds of rules, Federal regulation, and company design rules. You shouldn't break either. It is possible to over constrain a drawing in both dimension and in style. In other words, as long as the product meets everything on the drawing, it's in spec. If it's not on the drawing, it doesn't matter. Quality engineers don't like to hear this; I've had to destroy more than one ego to explain that what the printer can do is not the same thing as what the designers want.
All of that means, there can be variation in tags and still be within spec as long as that variation does not violate the design. Like, on this tag, maybe the paint code has no real constraint going left and right. If someone pulls up one with a different offset, who are we to say it is wrong if it wasn't?
