Possible new series 2 owner, with lots of questions

[randomDMZ]

2 hours ago, theDreamer said:

Sorry if I’m stepping on toes here but…

 

The welded plate on the cross brace in front of the seat pad that has the chassis number stamped on it with a “U” was used by Universal Radiator. If you read the info in the links Croc and I provided you’d have seen that.

 

This from https://www.anglocanadianlotus7.ca/lotus-seven-frame-and-chassis-numbers/

 

“I found six Lotus Sevens in their records that were either on sale, or had been sold on the ‘Bring A Trailer’ (BAT) web site, and noticed that some of the cars in the records had a different letter identifying the frame build number. In a few cases the frame identification for Universal Radiators frames started with a ‘U’, not a ‘B’, as I had originally noted on this site.”

Also, Universal Radiator NEVER brazed their chassis. That too is in the aforementioned links.

 

As far as Mr. John Watson is concerned be forewarned; to say he is a character is a huge understatement. He is probably one of the best, most knowledgeable people when it comes to original Lotus 7’s. However, he can be very prickly, even down right rude. He doesn’t like to deal with non-owners. He believes his free service is taken advantage of by many. Once you own a car he will help but most of his correspondence is to be kept secret. He is very aware of how easily Lotus 7’s can be duplicated or cloned so he never publishes actual chassis numbers.

 

As with anything, the price you offer is what you feel the item is worth to you. The dollar amount the seller puts on an item is how much it means to them. Often times that includes sentimental value that is important only to the seller. This should not factor into an items actual market price but you must be aware and respect this fact.

 

The other factor to consider is that the journey is often more rewarding than merely owning the finished product. If you enjoy a good mystery, if you like working with your hands and enjoy the pride and satisfaction that restoring a car like this brings, (even if it turns out to be a clone or bittsa) then go for it. At the very least help you family friend to understand what their car truly is.

 

Good luck on your journey.

 

Definitely appreciate all the advice. I'm just not willing to invest the little money I have into a clone. That money could be better spent on other projects. That's why I'm trying to make sure all my ducks are a row before I buy it. The owner knows this also.

[11Budlite]

2 hours ago, joe7 said:

Just gotta ask! What are the 2 "domes" on the bonnet in front of the windscreen for and the 2 above the carb scoop?

 

I have no idea about the 2 domes in front of the windscreen, but I'm assuming the 2 near the carb scoop are for clearance to SU carb dashpots. Since the engine is supposedly a 1.2L it could be an BMC A-series which would typically come with 2 SU's.

Edited Friday at 04:40 PM by 11Budlite

[Croc]

14 hours ago, theDreamer said:

The Engine Number seems clearer and appears to be AEA 17 RS 1458 (possibly with a 1 at the very end)

 

 

That is a BMC A series engine number format.  

 

I once owned (a very long time ago) a Lotus 7 S2 with an A series engine - it was my first seven.  Great little engine.  

[SENC]

5 hours ago, theDreamer said:

Sorry if I’m stepping on toes here but…

 

The welded plate on the cross brace in front of the seat pad that has the chassis number stamped on it with a “U” was used by Universal Radiator. If you read the info in the links Croc and I provided you’d have seen that.

 

This from https://www.anglocanadianlotus7.ca/lotus-seven-frame-and-chassis-numbers/

 

“I found six Lotus Sevens in their records that were either on sale, or had been sold on the ‘Bring A Trailer’ (BAT) web site, and noticed that some of the cars in the records had a different letter identifying the frame build number. In a few cases the frame identification for Universal Radiators frames started with a ‘U’, not a ‘B’, as I had originally noted on this site.”

Also, Universal Radiator NEVER brazed their chassis. That too is in the aforementioned links.

 

As far as Mr. John Watson is concerned be forewarned; to say he is a character is a huge understatement. He is probably one of the best, most knowledgeable people when it comes to original Lotus 7’s. However, he can be very prickly, even down right rude. He doesn’t like to deal with non-owners. He believes his free service is taken advantage of by many. Once you own a car he will help but most of his correspondence is to be kept secret. He is very aware of how easily Lotus 7’s can be duplicated or cloned so he never publishes actual chassis numbers.

 

As with anything, the price you offer is what you feel the item is worth to you. The dollar amount the seller puts on an item is how much it means to them. Often times that includes sentimental value that is important only to the seller. This should not factor into an items actual market price but you must be aware and respect this fact.

 

The other factor to consider is that the journey is often more rewarding than merely owning the finished product. If you enjoy a good mystery, if you like working with your hands and enjoy the pride and satisfaction that restoring a car like this brings, (even if it turns out to be a clone or bittsa) then go for it. At the very least help you family friend to understand what their car truly is.

 

Good luck on your journey.

 

Not certain why you're worried about stepping on toes as I don't think there is necessarily disagreement.  Bill's excellent site is a great reference, one that I use often - but if you read further in that section you'll note that he makes special note that his findings are NOT intended to describe how things left the factory, but rather as he found them some time later and perhaps modified.  I did state that I had a recollection that the U may have been used for Universal-made replacement frames - I'm unfortunately away from my notes and other non-digital references so can't search to see if I can find such reference - but as I said that is just something in the back of my mind and I certainly wouldn't put money on it.

 

I think the main point of my post was to try to assist the OP, who appeared in early posts to have particular interest in trying to establish whether this is actually a 1965 Lotus Seven (ie., was sold as such at the time).  I don't see much in his posts nor the pictures that would make me confident in stating this is likely a 1965 Lotus Seven.  A good history of ownership, matching up some numbers with Lotus records, a certificate from Andy at Lotus, or a review from John Watson would, in my opinion, be the only way to establish this isn't a bitsa Seven.  As I stated in my original post - there is nothing wrong with a bitsa, unless having an "original, from the factory" car is important to a particular owner.

 

To the OP - these cars have long been challenging to validate as a "real deal" Lotus Seven, for lots of reasons.  There were very few to start with, many (most) were sold as "kits" and not necessarily assembled with parts as supplied; many were raced and modified and raced and modified; many were wrecked and rebuilt; Lotus records were not great to start out with and some of what did exist were lost; Lotus itself frequently changed suppliers, pulled from old stock, used stock out of sequence, etc. etc.  What I'm getting at is that it isn't easy to validate a particular vehicle even with a lot of good indicators, but with the information you've shared, IMO, it is almost impossible to have a high degree of confidence that what you're looking at is something that Lotus sold in 1965.  Could it be?  Sure!  But I'm seeing more that raise questions for me than I'm seeing evidence of authenticity.

 

To be specific:

1 - the VIN/Chassis plate is incomplete, at best, but perhaps a reproduction- as I stated earlier, if it actually starts with SB11xx, that would most likely be for a car built prior to 65 - if it starts with SB17xx, that would seem more likely around 64/65

2 - lack of a title - certainly there could be lots of explanations, but this one has to raise a question

3 - frame number and stamping - it isn't clear to me from the picture the location where, on the frame, this stamping is found - when Universal stamped the frame near the clutch and slave cylinders, that stamping is directly into the frame and NOT a second piece welded to the frame - If yours is welded to the frame down in the foot well, then it may be OK, but that would suggest to me a car built earlier than 1965.  I've not seen anything definitive on when the stamping moved from foot well to near the cylinder mount, but based in the limited sample size I've seen I'd guess that happened pre-64.  Could Lotus have used, in 1965, and older frame with a welded on U#, sure, it just raises a question for me. 

4 - lack of information on the engine, carbs, etc. - the block should have a number that corresponds with what is on the VIN plate - also engine type and any identifying cast numbers plus carburetor type and numbers MIGHT provide valuable clues (see lotus7register.co.uk for good lists by model and year)

5 - various modifications - later, S3-style rear fenders (likely needed for the larger after-market wheels and tires - given these mods, there is a decent chance you'll find a non-stock or upgraded rear axle and differential underneath); the heavily modified bonnet; the dune buggy bumper and light rack

6 - pictures of the dash, wheel, instruments, foot wells, gas tank, radiator, and suspension could all go a long way to swaying opinion, but given what is obviously modified (#5) it seems likely to me that these things may have been modified as well and wouldn't likely yield conclusive evidence to support originality.

 

So, could this be a 65 S2 originally sold by Lotus but with lots of subsequent mods and maybe a replacement frame?  Yes, I think it is conceivable - but without some solid history from the current owner and/or a definitive VIN/Chassis number and an ability to match it to a frame number and/or engine # (via John Watson, Andy Graham, or one of the few others with access to copies of Lotus records), I don't think you could ever be confident of that fact.  You more likely could, however, get confident that all the bits and parts were appropriate for a Lotus Seven, were made by Lotus or one of it's suppliers, and that the vehicle is consisten with a 60s Lotus Seven that has been used and raced and updated over its 60 year life. 

Edited Friday at 06:57 PM by SENC

[randomDMZ]

44 minutes ago, SENC said:

Not certain why you're worried about stepping on toes as I don't think there is necessarily disagreement.  Bill's excellent site is a great reference, one that I use often - but if you read further in that section you'll note that he makes special note that his findings are NOT intended to describe how things left the factory, but rather as he found them some time later and perhaps modified.  I did state that I had a recollection that the U may have been used for Universal-made replacement frames - I'm unfortunately away from my notes and other non-digital references so can't search to see if I can find such reference - but as I said that is just something in the back of my mind and I certainly wouldn't put money on it.

 

I think the main point of my post was to try to assist the OP, who appeared in early posts to have particular interest in trying to establish whether this is actually a 1965 Lotus Seven (ie., was sold as such at the time).  I don't see much in his posts nor the pictures that would make me confident in stating this is likely a 1965 Lotus Seven.  A good history of ownership, matching up some numbers with Lotus records, a certificate from Andy at Lotus, or a review from John Watson would, in my opinion, be the only way to establish this isn't a bitsa Seven.  As I stated in my original post - there is nothing wrong with a bitsa, unless having an "original, from the factory" car is important to a particular owner.

 

To the OP - these cars have long been challenging to validate as a "real deal" Lotus Seven, for lots of reasons.  There were very few to start with, many (most) were sold as "kits" and not necessarily assembled with parts as supplied; many were raced and modified and raced and modified; many were wrecked and rebuilt; Lotus records were not great to start out with and some of what did exist were lost; Lotus itself frequently changed suppliers, pulled from old stock, used stock out of sequence, etc. etc.  What I'm getting at is that it isn't easy to validate a particular vehicle even with a lot of good indicators, but with the information you've shared, IMO, it is almost impossible to have a high degree of confidence that what you're looking at is something that Lotus sold in 1965.  Could it be?  Sure!  But I'm seeing more that raise questions for me than I'm seeing evidence of authenticity.

 

To be specific:

1 - the VIN/Chassis plate is incomplete, at best, but perhaps a reproduction- as I stated earlier, if it actually starts with SB11xx, that would most likely be for a car built prior to 65 - if it starts with SB17xx, that would seem more likely around 64/65

2 - lack of a title - certainly there could be lots of explanations, but this one has to raise a question

3 - frame number and stamping - it isn't clear to me from the picture the location where, on the frame, this stamping is found - when Universal stamped the frame near the clutch and slave cylinders, that stamping is directly into the frame and NOT a second piece welded to the frame - If yours is welded to the frame down in the foot well, then it may be OK, but that would suggest to me a car built earlier than 1965.  I've not seen anything definitive on when the stamping moved from foot well to near the cylinder mount, but based in the limited sample size I've seen I'd guess that happened pre-64.  Could Lotus have used, in 1965, and older frame with a welded on U#, sure, it just raises a question for me. 

4 - lack of information on the engine, carbs, etc. - the block should have a number that corresponds with what is on the VIN plate - also engine type and any identifying cast numbers plus carburetor type and numbers MIGHT provide valuable clues (see lotus7register.co.uk for good lists by model and year)

5 - various modifications - later, S3-style rear fenders (likely needed for the larger after-market wheels and tires - given these mods, there is a decent chance you'll find a non-stock or upgraded rear axle and differential underneath); the heavily modified bonnet; the dune buggy bumper and light rack

6 - pictures of the dash, wheel, instruments, foot wells, gas tank, radiator, and suspension could all go a long way to swaying opinion, but given what is obviously modified (#5) it seems likely to me that these things may have been modified as well and wouldn't likely yield conclusive evidence to support originality.

 

So, could this be a 65 S2 originally sold by Lotus but with lots of subsequent mods and maybe a replacement frame?  Yes, I think it is conceivable - but without some solid history from the current owner and/or a definitive VIN/Chassis number and an ability to match it to a frame number and/or engine # (via John Watson, Andy Graham, or one of the few others with access to copies of Lotus records), I don't think you could ever be confident of that fact.  You more likely could, however, get confident that all the bits and parts were appropriate for a Lotus Seven, were made by Lotus or one of it's suppliers, and that the vehicle is consisten with a 60s Lotus Seven that has been used and raced and updated over its 60 year life. 

Want to go see the car next week I will take a whole bunch of pictures. The engine in the car is a 1275cc currently. I'm not sure what history the previous owner has? But I'll get a bunch of pictures and try to solve some of these puzzles. 

[randomDMZ]

4 hours ago, 11Budlite said:

 

I have no idea about the 2 domes in front of the windscreen, but I'm assuming the 2 near the carb scoop are for clearance to SU carb dashpots. Since the engine is supposedly a 1.2L it could be an BMC A-series which would typically come with 2 SU's.

I believe the two on the hood are definitely to clear the carburetors. The two domes on the bonnet I've been told are aftermarket and they were to help mitigate heat. But very few cars had them because they violated whatever the group racing rules that car was classified as. They were definitely added by the owner not factory original. As to the bumper and the mirror I believe they probably were intending it for Street use and that is required in the state of Colorado.

[panamericano]

2 hours ago, randomDMZ said:

Want to go see the car next week I will take a whole bunch of pictures. The engine in the car is a 1275cc currently. I'm not sure what history the previous owner has? But I'll get a bunch of pictures and try to solve some of these puzzles. 

If so, try to see everything.  Check for old stickers.  See if they have cleaned out old insurance papers.  Old photos - if at a racetrack, we might determine date and location, then SCCA records may help (at Lime Rock).  Any old license plate to determine it was licensed, then it was titled.  IF you find about licensing, some states will run title history, some won't.  I've researched many old, dead race cars and you'd be surprised what a detail can lead to.  Look for weld marks from removed rollbar or braces.  Take a LOT of photos.  We used to say film is cheap.  Turns out 1s and 0s are even cheaper.  

[IamScotticus]

Hate powdercoat.  It's a cheap way to do it that doesn't allow for blending in later touch-ups.  It's a shell that will trap moisture and rust a hole before you see the bubble.  POR15, Eastwood frame paint, there are better options. 

 

I really like those slot mag wheels. 

Get this book:

https://www.allbookstores.com/Lotus-Seven-Preparation-Restoration-Maintenance/9781855321533

 

See this FB group. The Lotus archivists hang out there. Best place to get frame answers

https://facebook.com/groups/641267452302116/

 

Edited Saturday at 04:49 AM by IamScotticus

[Joe Petty]

And the adventure begins!

Yes, John Watson is THE MAN! 

 

I'm not sure of the current state of Lotus Archival support and Andy Graham, but John and the Historic Lotus Register should be the starting point (www.historiclotusregister.co.uk).
Also check John Donohue SimpleSevens (https://simplesevens.org) site.
Lots of good reading and tips on the pre-Caterham 7s

 

10 years ago I found U1249/SB1478 (through a post in USA7s - Thank You!) in west Texas and drove out from Florida with all the info I could find about Seven verification and hoped for the best!

 

Your target looks good.  The Universal Radiator ID tag looks correct.  It's welded on the left floor brace and has the correct style stamping...

The rear fender looks wide and that front bumper is definitely unique, interesting to see what is under the covers!
The bonnet bumps are very odd but given the fog lights and Colorado location, I would guess that they served as defrosters.
Never considered the 7 for snow duty, but studded tires and trials heritage...

 

Always be on the alert for fakes, but considering the history, I would seriously question how much effort someone would put into faking a relatively low value 60 year old car.  Much easier to claim distinguished ownership or racing provenance! 

 

My car had been registered in California and had 2 aluminum Cal DMV assigned VIN tags, one riveted to the lower left frame rail in the engine bay and one glued to the top of the rear axle. 

 

For "your" car, the U tag and the Lotus Components plate should be the only IDs from the factory.  Take careful note of any others you might find!

 

My car (U-1249) was ex-works (that means sold from the factory) in June 1962  Hopefully, John Watson can determine exactly when your car was ex-works and possibly other unique info.  Info is available from several good sources, but John is the Gold Standard.

 

USA cars are easy since back then we changed the body style every year and you could check the date on the taillight lenses, not so with "foreign" cars!
In fact, my car was listed as 1967 model instead of 1962 since that was when it was imported.

 

When you are taking pictures, try to find and record date codes.
Lucas items usually have month and year.  I have found them on generator, starter, wiper motor, voltage regulator, fuse block and even the turn signal flasher!  Gauges are also dated, but items under the cowl are not easy to see.

Serck made radiators and fuel tanks for the 7, look for their metal tags.

 

SimpleSevens has lots of pictures, so you can quickly see differences over the years and mods people have made.

 

So Good Luck and enjoy your adventure!

 

Joe

[randomDMZ]

2 hours ago, Joe Petty said:

And the adventure begins!

Yes, John Watson is THE MAN! 

 

I'm not sure of the current state of Lotus Archival support and Andy Graham, but John and the Historic Lotus Register should be the starting point (www.historiclotusregister.co.uk).
Also check John Donohue SimpleSevens (https://simplesevens.org) site.
Lots of good reading and tips on the pre-Caterham 7s

 

10 years ago I found U1249/SB1478 (through a post in USA7s - Thank You!) in west Texas and drove out from Florida with all the info I could find about Seven verification and hoped for the best!

 

Your target looks good.  The Universal Radiator ID tag looks correct.  It's welded on the left floor brace and has the correct style stamping...

The rear fender looks wide and that front bumper is definitely unique, interesting to see what is under the covers!
The bonnet bumps are very odd but given the fog lights and Colorado location, I would guess that they served as defrosters.
Never considered the 7 for snow duty, but studded tires and trials heritage...

 

Always be on the alert for fakes, but considering the history, I would seriously question how much effort someone would put into faking a relatively low value 60 year old car.  Much easier to claim distinguished ownership or racing provenance! 

 

My car had been registered in California and had 2 aluminum Cal DMV assigned VIN tags, one riveted to the lower left frame rail in the engine bay and one glued to the top of the rear axle. 

 

For "your" car, the U tag and the Lotus Components plate should be the only IDs from the factory.  Take careful note of any others you might find!

 

My car (U-1249) was ex-works (that means sold from the factory) in June 1962  Hopefully, John Watson can determine exactly when your car was ex-works and possibly other unique info.  Info is available from several good sources, but John is the Gold Standard.

 

USA cars are easy since back then we changed the body style every year and you could check the date on the taillight lenses, not so with "foreign" cars!
In fact, my car was listed as 1967 model instead of 1962 since that was when it was imported.

 

When you are taking pictures, try to find and record date codes.
Lucas items usually have month and year.  I have found them on generator, starter, wiper motor, voltage regulator, fuse block and even the turn signal flasher!  Gauges are also dated, but items under the cowl are not easy to see.

Serck made radiators and fuel tanks for the 7, look for their metal tags.

 

SimpleSevens has lots of pictures, so you can quickly see differences over the years and mods people have made.

 

So Good Luck and enjoy your adventure!

 

Joe

Joe. Thanks for all the information. So far I can't claim any racing heritage or pedigree, there are stickers on the trunk but we literally don't know the previous owner. There's a bunch of stuff that went into that. One of the racing enthusiasts told me the bumps were designed to mitigate heat. And that this was something that was done but it violated certain race class rules so very few people did it..... How true that is I don't know but it came from one of the prominent scca guys. Mike Ostrov I believe but don't quote me on that. 

 

At this point I'm waiting to hear back from john. I hope all goes well. The biggest issue I have now is that I don't know if there was ever a title. Usually if there's a title Colorado stamps their own number on the car. And we don't see one. So I don't know if there's a title or if there's not. That's the first hurdle. 

 

But definitely thank you for the information

[S1Steve]

12 hours ago, IamScotticus said:

Hate powdercoat.  It's a cheap way to do it that doesn't allow for blending in later touch-ups.  It's a shell that will trap moisture and rust a hole before you see the bubble.  POR15, Eastwood frame paint, there are better options. 

 

I really like those slot mag wheels. 

Get this book:

https://www.allbookstores.com/Lotus-Seven-Preparation-Restoration-Maintenance/9781855321533

 

See this FB group. The Lotus archivists hang out there. Best place to get frame answers

https://facebook.com/groups/641267452302116/

 

If you knew anything about powder coating, you would know that if preparation is done correctly it won’t bubble underneath. 

[IamScotticus]

1 hour ago, S1Steve said:

if preparation is done correctly

You are correct, but I'm not implying poor prep work. Stone chips and cracks can create water ingress.  PC has its place. Its a cost saving industrial solution for large production items where hand painting is cost prohibitive.  But on a small chassis like this, one can affordably do a high quality coating by hand with rust retardant materials.

 

Regardless, @randomDMZ Look at the 7s that pass through Bring A Trailer to see what they sell for.  You will spend that same money refurbishing that car.  Or you can buy one ready to go.  I say pass on it.  If you really want a 7, there are many good ones that go on the block all year. Just watch BAT and the 4 sale thread here.  Just trying to save you from eternal project doom.

 

Edited Saturday at 07:11 PM by IamScotticus

[EdWills]

On 7/24/2026 at 7:37 AM, theDreamer said:

 

 

As far as Mr. John Watson is concerned be forewarned; to say he is a character is a huge understatement. He is probably one of the best, most knowledgeable people when it comes to original Lotus 7’s. However, he can be very prickly, even down right rude. He doesn’t like to deal with non-owners. He believes his free service is taken advantage of by many. Once you own a car he will help but most of his correspondence is to be kept secret. He is very aware of how easily Lotus 7’s can be duplicated or cloned so he never publishes actual chassis numbers.

 

As with anything, the price you offer is what you feel the item is worth to you. The dollar amount the seller puts on an item is how much it means to them. Often times that includes sentimental value that is important only to the seller. This should not factor into an items actual market price but you must be aware and respect this fact.

 

The other factor to consider is that the journey is often more rewarding than merely owning the finished product. If you enjoy a good mystery, if you like working with your hands and enjoy the pride and satisfaction that restoring a car like this brings, (even if it turns out to be a clone or bittsa) then go for it. At the very least help you family friend to understand what their car truly is.

 

Good luck on your journey.

 

@randomDMZ

 

@SENC, @theDreamer have provided great advice.   Re: JW.  Contact him at the Lotus Seven Register and see what he can provide.  I have some records of North American cars (including Canada) that were kindly given to me by a couple of Lotus Seven enthusiasts who started a North American Lotus Seven Register, but had to abandon it due to other commitments.  

 

I found 5 Lotus Seven Series 2 cars all with 'U' followed by a 4 digit number, one a few numbers away from your stamped frame number.  All 5 cars are/were registered in the U.S. as 1961 or 1962 cars as suggested by Henry @SENC.  It would seem that Universal Radiator were using the 'U' in conjunction with 'B', but then went to 'B' for right hand drive cars and 'BL' for left hand drive frames after using up  the  'U' designation (Arch used 'AM').

 

Modifications to Lotus Sevens has been going on ever since Mr. Chapman first designed the car.  If you can get a copy of Dennis Ortenburger's book, he shows modifications to the car that would make Mr. Chapman turn over in his grave.  Our city stolen auto division used acid to check for ground down serial numbers.  It is a one time only procedure, as of course the acid will completely obliterate the writing after application.  A camera needs to be at hand to record any numbers before they are wiped out.  As Lotus fitters often just scratched the Lotus chassis number (V.I.N. in N. America), there is not much of an indent.  

 

I also agree with Scott who has noted in the past that if you want to stay original, oil paint is what Lotus used, and is easily touched up if necessary.  You can powder coat, epoxy coat etc., but if any repairs are required, you will end up using oil paint over the repair anyway. Hard coatings are harder to remove, and grinding is not recommended - round wire brush in a drill seems to work o.k. and always wear safety glasses (like my hero Norm Abrams of 'This Old House').

 

I really appreciate mention of my website by both posters above.  I apologize for any confusion, but 'Ed Wills' was my handle back in the dark ages when I first signed into hotmail in the early 90s and has carried over ever since.  Cheers, William E.

[EdWills]

On 7/23/2026 at 4:54 PM, randomDMZ said:

Here's the picture of the frame tag

The frame manufacturers tag fusion welded on the frame is prototypical of how Universal completed their frames for shipping to Lotus in the early 60s.  The stamped identification letter/number was later moved to the angle bracket that secures the Ford cast brake cylinder mount. W.

[IamScotticus]

1 hour ago, EdWills said:

The frame manufacturers tag fusion welded on the frame is prototypical of how Universal completed their frames for shipping to Lotus in the early 60s.  The stamped identification letter/number was later moved to the angle bracket that secures the Ford cast brake cylinder mount. W.

Will, not that originality makes any difference in this case, but for future reference, is that serif style of stamp font typical of Universal? 

[randomDMZ]

1 hour ago, IamScotticus said:

Will, not that originality makes any difference in this case, but for future reference, is that serif style of stamp font typical of Universal? 

The historical records show this is a 61 possibly a 62

[Joe Petty]

"The Universal Radiator ID tag looks correct."

 

Yep, mine has the same font with the little end caps on the "U", "1" and "4"

 

My frame was still in original paint and it was slightly lighter than what is typically on older cars.

In fact, it is almost a perfect match with Rustoleum Charcoal Grey!

[SENC]

25 minutes ago, randomDMZ said:

The historical records show this is a 61 possibly a 62

That would make a lot more sense than 65, in terms of when it left Lotus.  Of course, it could have sat as a kit or just been used for racing an only been put on the street in the US in 65 and thus registered/titled.

[randomDMZ]

1 hour ago, SENC said:

That would make a lot more sense than 65, in terms of when it left Lotus.  Of course, it could have sat as a kit or just been used for racing an only been put on the street in the US in 65 and thus registered/titled.

No it was shipped as an assembled car, but it might have been titled as a 64/65 I do not know. As of now we can't track down the original title and the original owner has long since passed away. We don't even know if there was ever an actual title or not the year might have been a mistake passed along by the previous owner to me

[SENC]

27 minutes ago, randomDMZ said:

No it was shipped as an assembled car, but it might have been titled as a 64/65 I do not know. As of now we can't track down the original title and the original owner has long since passed away. We don't even know if there was ever an actual title or not the year might have been a mistake passed along by the previous owner to me

As Panamericano suggested, be on the lookout for stickers, etc. that may be in the vehicle or in parts boxes, etc. - it is amazing what little detail can lead to a major finding.  One such item on mine lead to me finding a record of my car being shipped from the UK to Australia.  I knew that had happened, but the details gained helped me tighten up a few timelines - that were later verified when I was put in touch with the original owner's widow (still in Australia).