CAR No/ CHASSIS No - Californian J62 etc prefixes

E-Type
1

Raising a new topic, rather than piggy-backing the debate about the Ebay advertised 1961 roadster, Jerry raised the question of the J64 prefix to his 3.8 E-types Car No./Chassis No. to give an J64889791 Identification Number as recorded on his Californian Registration papers. As I have said the fact that the State of California chooses to list this Identification Number under a pro-forma heading of a VIN, is merely a matter of current Californian convenience, as it is not a VIN, given a VIN is a legal term as laid out in two internationally compatible (but different) standards - ISO for all of the world apart from North America, and SAE for North America only.

But I have to say, I would love to find out the local Californian logic/basis for these added prefixes - off the top of my head I cant recall when they first appeared - maybe J61, but I definitely record several with J62, J63, J64 and so on up to J70 being the last I record ? Does anyone know for sure?

And at what point were the J62 up to J70 tags actually added physically to E-types. Were they fitted by Jaguar Cars New York (on importation), or given they were only required for Californian cars were they actually added by the actual Californian Distributors Hornburg or the individual Californian dealerships. Certainly not fitted at the factory by Jaguar themselves. And confusingly, there have been some instances of E-types with these added J62 etc prefix/tags apparently sold new into States other than California?

I also wonder what was their significance was in 1962 (or 1961), as this predates any particular special build requirements for California, being no different (for Jaguar at least) from overall USA peculiarities (such as all white front side-lamps, and all red rear side-lamps, rather than the RoW Amber coloured Direction Indicator Lamps).

Certainly the Californian peculiarities came later re emissions requirements, but again Jaguar built one USA specification that suited all USA and not just California.

But Jaguar only got interested in any need for special USA identification with Series 2 E-type, with the 1R prefix used for all RoW markets, being allocated to 2R for USA only, then the UC, UD and UE prefixes added to the 1S prefix of V12 E-types (but never for California only as per the J62 to J70 tags).

Does anyone have a reference/link to anything that discusses/describes Californian MODEL YEAR regulatory requirements in these J62 to J70 years, as it seems apparent that these added pre-fix tags relate to a MODEL YEAR requirement for legal registration in California. The whole system was much more formal and obvious, if indeed a LOT more complicated for the USA 1968 Model Year Emissions/Safety requirements with special plaques added to USA market cars, so I wonder also why California still retained an overlapping J68, J69 and J70 prefix tag to Jaguars CAR/Chassis Numbers.

There MUST be someone who understands/is expert in 1960s USA and Californian Regulatory requirements - surely not my place in Australia to work it all out - but simple observations are just that, observations. There will be documented Regulatory requirements - somewhere.

2

my calif car from new does not have a J69 tag and is a 1R vin(:grinning:)

3

I was told that it was to make the car ID no compatible with the CA DMV computer system that required more digits than the 1E or 8xxxxx convention that Jaguar Cars was using at that time to uniquely identify the vehicles.

4

Thanks for that 69roadster.
As before, I do record a number of J69 and J70 prefix tags, but couldn’t understand why, given if anything to do with something to do with a Vehicle Regulatory requirement. So no physical J69 tag, but do your old Californian rego papers, or indeed current rego papers record your 1Rxxxxx car number with a J69 prefix added, as per Johns advice re CA DMV computer compatibility - albeit did CA DMV use computers in 1962/3/4/5 ?

Having said that my records of J69 and J70 prefixes are paper records, I havnt physically seen/photographed actual J69 or J70 tags as I have with earlier years. (Cant say I have been looking though).
A few of the E-types imported to Australia, ex-USA, actually found a few J71 prefixes with strangely 1Rxxxx and 2Rxxxx Car Numbers (I have a lot more - these are just a snap shot - lot of USA new E-types imported second hand to Australia).

J69 1R432166BW
J69 1R40310BW
J69 P1R42764BW
J70 1R27393
J70 P1R43532
J70 1R27588
J71 1R35551
J71 1R10695
J71 2R28440

Roger

5

Thanks for that John - hadn’t heard that explanation before,

Do we know of any other makes other than Jaguar, with similar prefix-tags added.

As before, in Australia, we added a prefix WMI code and zeros to second-hand Japanese Vehicles that only domestically used 11 to 14 digit identifiers, to comply with our Australian 17-digit ISO VIN requirements, but that was only applicable after SAE and ISO VIN standards were introduced in late 1970s.

Maybe as you say this Californian requirement from 1962 (at least) may have been making up more digits (in case of J64889791 example) to at least 9 digits, for their local record keeping, albeit still somewhat short of the late 1970s onwards 17-digit VIN standard requirement - but maybe an input, or pre-curser to the US SAE, developing the North American SAE VIN standard.

Roger

6

I have an original State of California Ceritficate of Ownership for my 1964 OTS 881824.

In the “Engine or ID Number” box it has J64881824.

7

My car originally went to a dealer in Santa Cruz CA and sold to a local and has no J tag. It is just 1E35152 on the car and on the original sales receipt. I have the registration application when it moved to Oklahoma in 1971 it looks like and it is the same on it. Not sure if this helps or confuses things about the J tag cars. I have seen a couple of cars with J tags riveted or screwed next to the data plate but my car has no evidence one was ever around.

David
68 E-type FHC

8

Roger,

There is at least one other make (and possibly more) who used similar tags. “BMC-xx” tags are apparently quite common for British Motor Company vehicles (e.g. MG, Austin/Morris Mini…) of the era. Google “BMC-64 model year tag mg” or similar and you will get multiple hits, as well as photos of those tags. Some points of note:

  • The BMC tags were black plastic with white lettering (not the stamped metal tags used on Jaguars). I’ve read that being plastic, many have been broken and lost over the years.

  • Most frequently they were attached to the front of the VIN (I’m going to call it that, because that’s what it is :slightly_smiling_face:) tag with a sheet metal screw shared with the VIN tag itself.

  • The common belief in the community (particularly MG community where they seem to be discussed quite frequently) is that they were fitted to cars entering the US at the west coast port of entry. They were a requirement in California. Oregon is also mentioned as requiring them occasionally.

  • The reason most commonly mentioned for these tags is that California had a requirement that the car identifier contained Model Year information. It is often stated that this requirement was to prevent dealers from selling “old” (not used) vehicles as “new”. At the time, US manufacturers were changing their models on an annual basis, and so it wasn’t possible to fool anyone that the shiny new Corvette on the lot was a '63, when it was clearly the '62 model…

  • BMC-xx tags seen to have existed from '62 to '69. Photos can be found online for most if not all these years.

  • I’ve also seen one reference to xx-Triumph tags, but not followed up on it.

  • I’ve not found any definitive California Regulation in the CVC (California Vehicle Code) from the 60’s era that talks about the requirement.

-David

1 Like
9

David,
I can add little but confirmation and agreement of your observations/speculation. Everything I know about the prefixes is speculation also. One E-type known to be sold new in Hawaii with a Jxx prefix, suspect it entered port here in CA and was shipped to a HI dealer, which may be the case for the OR cars as well, though I haven’t seen one of those. I’ve seen big Healeys with the prefix. For even more speculation I think the reason we don’t have documentation from registration authorities may be because those that were in charge of such decisions were not likely car enthusiasts but legislators who could care less about the chaos created in the wake of their decisions. As Roger states, in '68 the prefix became redundant in which case legislators being what they are didn’t react swiftly. Hornburg (who its assumed was made responsible for adding the tags) probably had to fight to get CA to repeal the obligation.
pauls

1 Like
10

That’s exactly the confirmation I was expecting - thanks for that.
So clear enough I think that California itself when requiring a J64 prefix added to Jaguars own CAR No., still referred to it as an ID Number (Identification Number) on their Registration paperwork.

If anyone else has later Californian Registration Papers, maybe it will become apparent when California simplified everything and as previously advised (can’t recall who) and started to just use a generic all encompassing ‘vehicle-identification-number’ label, whether an actual SAE VIN, or a Chassis Number or a Car Number (or indeed anything else they had previously allowed/grouped under their original term ID Number, and I suspect no longer accepting an Engine Number as was apparently still acceptable in 1964). But given actual VINs were not introduced until mid/ late 1970s (not sure exactly when for SAE VIN), would probably have happened then, or soon after.

Whatever, doesn’t really matter, unless you actually like being ‘correct’ in your use and understanding of terminology, but given the current Californian data base includes probably identifies 99.9% of vehicles under an actual SAE VIN, there really is only a handful of entries still using what was acceptable as an ID Number in 1964. So I wonder how they now record cars built before 1961/ 2 when they started adding the J62 etc. prefix. Surely there will be Veteran Cars recorded with pretty simple/ small numbers, even XK Jaguars only used a six-digit Chassis Number, sometimes with a prefix and/or suffix added. There must be some cars surviving with continuous Californian Registration dating back to 1950s or earlier.

Roger

11

Well done David,

See attached .

And I thought the Jaguar tags were tacky!
These BMC tags are just as bad.

But given the size of these BMC ID Numbers (as we now know California called them), nothing to do with getting more digits in to satisfy computer system requirements (in 1960s?), but as you say more likely a consumer protection issue of not buying year old cars as new cars.

12

Roger,

Your error here is the belief that once a standards organization defines a term like VIN, that no other definitions are acceptable. Provably false. It depends on who or what is in the position of accepting the definitions. In California the J64889791 is documented in 2016 as being considered the “Vehicle Identification Number”, which is regularly abbreviated VIN. I’m saying nothing more about it, but your banging on about it does not make your position more true.

Jerry

1 Like
13

I believe, but have no proof, that California the state that likes plenty of regulations, had a requirement that the VIN somehow indicate the year model of the car. That was not part of the British factory assigned VINs. Hence the extra tag J 65, BMC 64, T 67, etc. These were most likely applied by the selling dealer as it was not uncommon to update a car to the next model year if it remained in inventory, either distributor or retailer, past the usual period when buyers expected to get the next model year car. This practice should have stopped with the 1968 model year when imported car emission standards (and rapidly changing NHTSA safety standards) came into effect on a production date basis and were very specific. According to my wall chart of Jaguar VINs a universal VIN system that has a model year designation incorporated in the prefix did not come into effect until the mid to late 1970s. Certainly after the V12 E Types and the early XJS cars… .

14

Wow Jerry - straight to the jugular!
NO - I am not in ‘error’ - maybe we have a language comprehension problem here - American-English versus Australian-English.

But as I see it, your position that you keep repeating, is little more than ‘your opinion’, and not sustainable by any facts.

You choose to conveniently overlook the advised fact from abowie:

I have an original State of California Ceritficate of Ownership for my 1964 OTS 881824
In the “Engine or ID Number” box it has J64881824.

Seems California itself, in 1964 when the J64 prefix tags were being used/referenced, was happy to refer to J64881824 as an ID Number.

If you want to offer some constructive input to this subject I raised, rather than offering little more than your unsubstantiated ‘opinions’, then if you have access to 1960s/70s Californian registration paperwork, it would be helpful if you could research and advise at what time, California stopped referring to J64 style numbers as ID Numbers, and started to use a ‘generic’ term ‘Vehicle Identification Number’ to cover both ID Numbers as well as now actual legally defined VINs. I suspect some time after the legally defined SAE VIN system was introduced in mid/late 1970s (well after these J64 style numbers ceased to be issued). Indeed by 2016 I suspect the overwhelming majority of records on the Californian Registration Data Base were indeed actual VINs, with only a very few remaining ID Numbers such as J64881824 still used, so makes sense for California to lump them all together under one generic label on their registration paperwork.
As before, so did the A.C.T. for a few years, but now they separate legal ISO/SAE VINs from the now more general term of ‘Chassis Number’ (includes E-type Car Numbers) for anything without, or pre-dating a real VIN.

So maybe if you stopped “banging on” about your own unsubstantiated opinions, and offered some constructive comment, that would be better for those interested in this obscure subject, otherwise I will accept your comment that you will be “saying nothing more about it”, having nothing useful to offer.

Roger

15

Roger, maybe there is a language issue, but it almost seems to me that you are stating that once the VIN number was legally defined, the previously used VIN can no longer be called VIN, but must be called a chassis or ID number. I know Wikipedia is also not the final say, but from their information:

“VINs were first used in 1954.[1] From 1954 to 1981, there was no accepted standard for these numbers, so different manufacturers used different formats.”

From this I gather that cars starting in 1954 did have a number and it was then called a VIN. Each manufacturer was allowed to use their own format. Then in 1981, the NHTSA required the SAE format. That standardization did not mean the that previous 27 years of VIN’s could no longer be called a VIN. It has nothing to do with what a particular state may call it on their DMV forms.
Tom

1 Like
16

this june 63 build date ots has the two screws for the J tag, but no tag. were these screws factory supplied or a later addition?

IMG_5990.jpg1242×2208 1.05 MB

17

I feel like this must be what it is like at Canon Inc whenever someone says “go Xerox this for me” or when someone asks for a “Kleenex” at the Puffs plant…

18

Mine looks like it was made on an industrial DYMO label maker on Aluminum tape. It is attached to the body just where yours was, just next to the Made in England label. The Aluminum tape was very thin and easily lost or torn away, so it is no surprise that many cars don’t have them any longer.

19

69roadster; I am not aware of any hard EVIDENCE one way or the other, but my reading of the various inputs and debate on this topic, is the general consensus is that the Jaguar factory had nothing to do with these J62 (type) prefix tags at all, so Jaguar Cars Ltd neither made, nor fitted these tags, nor made any provision for them at all, by way of adding holes/screws.
Similarly, it is believed these were a local Californian State only requirement, and not required generally in any other USA States, thus unlikely that the USA Importer - Jaguar Cars Inc (New York) - had anything to do with them either, albeit not impossible.
Now according to my April 1963 (as an example) 'sales and service centres in North and Central America’ booklet (that was included within the new E-types Literature Pack), there were NINE main Distributors in USA, with CHARLES H HORNBURG JR. INC. having the territories of Southern California, Hawaii, Arizona, Southern Half of Nevada and Utah, and BRITISH MOTOR CAR DISTRIBUTORS, LTD having the territories of Northern California, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Northern Nevada, Oregon and Washington, with some 39 Dealerships in California, aligned to either Hornburg or British Motor Car Distributors.
This is where it now gets speculative, but it is in my mind, totally improbable that all these 39 Dealerships made and fitted these J62 (style) prefix tags as was apparently required by the State of California, thus more likely that either Hornburg, or BMCD, or both of them (agreed/independently?) to make them and fit them on behalf of their 39 Dealerships.

So we are outside a Jaguar factory quality-control situation, which may explain variations in exactly where they are fitted, whether screws or pop-rivets are used, and other idiosyncrasies. Maybe something worth researching one day.

But the territories of these two Distributors may indeed explain why there are examples of these tags being fitted to other than California new E-types. Paul Spurlock mentioned earlier that he is aware of an E-type sold new in Hawaii with a Jxx tag fitted. Given the Hawaii Dealership Universal Motor Co.Ltd. of Honolulu received its cars through Distributor (4) - Charles H Hornburg, chances are a car already fitted with a Jxx tag by Hornburg, intended for one of their 21 listed Southern Californian dealerships, was redirected to Hawaii, or maybe Hornburg just fitted tags to everything they handled, given California was their dominant market

The other ‘loose end’ in this theme, is whether these tags physically exist in total alignment with their paperwork Californian records. AS before, I record paperwork entries of J62 prefixes all the way to J71 prefixes, but cannot confirm that I have physically confirmed that all these actual tags physically exist, indeed most photos and real tags I have seen are J62, J63, J64, albeit I haven’t gone out of my way to look for them, but there seems to be a growing number of reports of later Californian new E-types, not having any physical tags despite being recorded on the Californian registration data base as having the Jxx prefix added to their Jaguar factory allocated CAR No. Do we have any photos of any late J6x or indeed J70, J71 tags?

Most of the good E-Type books are written/ published (as you would expect) in the UK, but don’t seem to mention these Jxx tags (fair enough - a Californian peculiarity, not seen outside USA). The recent Haddock/Mueller (USA) book that is incredibly strong on USA market 3.8 E-types, does give two photos and two captions only, both of J62 tags, but interestingly one in J-62 format pop-riveted under the factory ID PLATE (Chassis Plate - whatever), and the other in J/62 format pop-riveted on firewall adjacent the factory BODY No tag. (as it was located on very early 3.8 E’s) (Maybe - and this is a guess only, one being Hornburg made/fitted, the other BMCD made/fitted ?). But no further explanation for these tags, nor pictures/details of anything later than these two J62 tags, so nothing at all I can find re tags on 4.2 or Series 2 E-types.

Seems like a good research project for someone located in California to look into further - too hard (and not a particularly relevant priority) for me in Australia, as we only see the occasional second-hand-USA import with these Jxx tags fitted.

But I think this Topic and various inputs may well have advanced our collective knowledge of this obscure Californian-new E-type detail.

Roger

20

Tom,
I agree, Wikipedia is a bit of a love/hate relationship, but at end of day, only as good as the quality of the submissions made, albeit if you have a mind, you can submit corrections/edits. This particular entry is pretty ‘light-weight’ and I think somewhat confused. My understanding is there were two different, but very similar VIN standards - the ISO standard as developed in Europe, but adopted by all car manufacturing countries (so Japan, Korea, Australia, South Africa, Thailand, India, China etc) other than those in North America, and the SAE standard, as developed in USA as adopted by all car manufacturing factories in USA, Canada and Mexico.
Clearly there was a level of agreement/compatibility between the two standards, and indeed many manufacturers use a VIN format/structure that satisfies both the SAE and ISO standard. In Australia, our legislation accepts both SAE and ISO VINs (Simplistically, the SAE standard is more prescriptive re allocation and use of all 17 digits, whereas the ISO standard is less prescriptive, with unallocated digits free to use as a manufacturer sees fit - so they can designate free digits to be as prescribed by the SAE standard, thus satisfying both standards. In my experience/recollection (when I was directly involved with Australia’s regulatory body), Porsche was the constant problem for us in their use of ISO VINs - the prescribed digits were of course open/transparent, but their use of the free digits was an internal secret - but presumably new Porsche exported to North America, would have been legally required to have fully decipherable SAE VINs)

The Wikipedia entry is interesting in saying the USA NHTSA did not require SAE VINs until 1981. I am sure the SAE VIN system was indeed introduced and used (if not yet required) prior to the ISO VIN system, and the ISO VIN system was introduced by Jaguar with their Series 3 XJ6 model in 1979, but other manufacturers were a little earlier. So again as you would expect a transitional period of some years, which as before I believe was from mid/late 1970s, but definitely after the last E-type was made - which was actually the initial relevance of this whole subject.

But I would still like to see examples of when California State first started to use the generic term ‘vehicle identification number’ on their registration paperwork, to cover both the newly created SAE VIN system, as well as their J6x prefix system that they called in period an ID NUMBER. Surely there are Californians who have or retain their old 1960s/70s Registration Papers? (I have all my Registration Papers for my 1966 E-type from its first registration in the UK, and from when I first imported/registered it in State of Victoria in 1975, and from 1978 in the ACT - but I am a hoarder!)

But please, don’t misinterpret my agenda - I am 100% in agreement that these days, (40 years later), the terminology of VIN is widely used to encompass everything, and also as before, its actually the more prevalent (in Australia at least) use of the terminology VIN NUMBER that grates a little, with the initials VIN now seemingly having lost any general understanding/meaning.

But in a period correct sense, re Jaguars (as matters to me in research/originality projects):-

Jaguars with chassis as built in the 1940s/50s, had a CHASSIS NUMBER (according to Jaguar Cars Ltd.).

Jaguars with a monocoque body, without a separate chassis (as per E-types), had a CAR NUMBER (according to Jaguar Cars Ltd.).

Jaguars built from the 1979 introduction of the Series 3 XJ6 had an ISO VIN (but was so configured that it also complied with SAE VIN requirements that prevailed within North America), and this still remains the case in 2017.

Jaguars sold new in the State of California (only) were required from 1962 onwards (exact date not confirmed), to have a J6x prefix tag added to their existing factory allocated CAR NUMBER, and according to Californian State period paperwork, this combined-number was referred to by them as an ID NUMBER, but at some time post E-type production/new registrations, it is now retrospectively referred to as a Vehicle Identification Number.

Roger