Visual Aides for Judging - need clarification

[Todd H 26112]

Uh sorry guys, I'm not talking about knee pads for our aching joints or pads for our tired backs or flashlights for our so so vision or mirrors for our craning necks...

I've seen and heard tell of various small microscopes employed to view the appearance of certain items. Now are these devices kosher on the judging field or is this an anomaly the way of the rub test?

Also we have digital cameras available to us. Can we also use the zoom/macro features of a good digital camera w/ a decent functionally enhanced color LCD to the same end perhaps even w/ better results?

Are there other imaging and viewing technologies just over the horizon that may come to the fore in the future that may be potentially employed in feasibly judging the appearance of something?

Thanks

[Mike M.]

Re: Visual Aides for Judging - need clarification

todd: as long as a mech. 1 judge doesn't touch the engine pad without the owners permission, visual exams, no matter what the tool employed is A-ok, as long as there is no touchy-touchy. mike

[Harmon C.]

Re: Visual Aides for Judging - need clarification

Todd To add to what Mike said I judge Mech.1 most all the time and if you can't see the broach marks with your eyes or aided by your glasses the Corvette would lose the points as that is what you are judging. Using a scope can only help the owner get the points back if they can be seen but in most cases they still won't be their or be correct. Lyle

[Dennis C.]

Re: Visual Aides for Judging - need clarification

Todd, If you have an original engined car, what's the issue? If you don't, it would be similar to not having original type paint - it is subject to the normal judging process - and our judging standard. Really, nothing has changed since 1974, except our ability to do a more accurate job of judging.

[Dick W.]

Re: Visual Aides for Judging - need clarification

And then there are some of us old pharts that need all the help we can get to even see the pad

[Todd H 26112]

Thanks for clarification - other applications?

Thanks Mike and Lyle.

How about digital cameras - anybody using those on the field? I'm impressed by the detail that can show up w/ a digital camera in macro mode w/ hi res. I see things all the time on my computer screen that I never noticed w/ my Mk II eyeballs (whoops - er, well you 'know' what I mean).

I didn't mention specific applications but I think broach marks is probably the obvious one. What else? Trim tags? Certain finishes? 'Other' number stampings?

[Todd H 26112]

Why the presumption of an issue Dennis?

Gee Dennis it was just a generic question.
Anyway I didn't realize it was common knowledge that the use of optical devices like this have been SOP since 1974 to enhance the scrutinization of pads, tags and so on. Silly me - I had this outlandish idea that this practice of magnifying and enhancing things had actually evolved over time rather than since '74. Yes, I suppose I have to agree - questions are simply no substitute for being there in '74 w/ monocle in hand. Thanks Dennis.

[Dennis C.]

Re: Why the presumption of an issue Dennis?

Todd - All I said was that our judging standard has not changed since 1974. I stand by that. Dennis

[Todd H 26112]

Re: Why the presumption of an issue Dennis?

Dennis,

Uh, actually no you said a litte more than backpedalling to that succinct statement above.

I asked:

I've seen and heard tell of various small microscopes employed to view the appearance of certain items. Now are these devices kosher on the judging field or is this an anomaly the way of the rub test?

You responded directly to me with:

If you have an original engined car, what's the issue?

As I said before - what issue? - why do you presume such?

If you don't [have an original engined car], it would be similar to not having original type paint - it is subject to the normal judging process - and our judging standard.

Again, you presume the engine schtick and apply it to my specific case. Why? Do you know something I don't know?

Really, nothing has changed since 1974, except our ability to do a more accurate job of judging.

Given the context of the question that you responded to - you state nothing has changed with respect to and in response to the usage of "various small microscopes" as I call them (for a lack of a better term). That clearly communicates that any perception that these devices on the judging field is a newer evolutionary function was erroneous but rather they have been accepted and in use since 1974. Now I and perhaps others know a little more about this particular judging practice and it's history thanks to you. I simply had no idea it went back to 1974.

Whether you 'stand by' this amended and more succinct statement or not - What you actually said and how you said it Dennis is there for all to see as well as what it was in response to.

[Gregg Plapas]

Re: Visual Aides for Judging - need clarification

Todd,

I have seen what appeared to be a " Boroscope" being used for very confined spaces (this was not used on my car).I thought it a bit much, but I will not question this practice. I think if the Judge is using a TOOL to make his job easier, so be it. However, I will share this with you. When my car was judged, the interior team took 3 hours and 10 minutes to complete their inspection. Needless to say I had no finger nails left after that, and this was the first team to judge the car post the operations check that lasted all of 10 minutes.

After about 2-1/2 hours into the interior judging, one of the judges pulled from his little black bag, a magnifing glass the size of a small frying pan, in an effort to discern any/all diffrences in the grain structure of my door panel opposed to the door panel pull. Well, at this point my brother got up and went home shaking his head and laughing.

In the end I was given the benifit of the doubt by the judge, and I only lost 35 little points in the total interior judging.

Gregg

[Loren L.]

And that's after your Observer Judge

has been hitting the engine with a hammer so that you could follow the sound to the correct end of the car.

[Eugene B.]

Re: Visual Aides for Judging - need clarification

Gents,
Interesting post, but can't resist jumping in with my comments.

When the TIM & JG states that an item "appears as new", etc., I assume that it means 'appears to the unaided eye (with normal 20/20 vision), in appropriate light.'

Therefore, using a magnifing glass to inspect the car is inappropriate. If magnification is allowed, how much is going to be acceptable? 5X, 10X, 20X?

If I would have been with Gregg's brother, I would have got up and left too. I hope that the NCRS is not indorsing this activity.

Regards,
Gene

[Todd H 26112]

Can a 'line' be crossed w/ such devices?

Greg,

I know you didn't mean it this way but 10 minutes on operations a 3+Hrs (X2?) on interior of a motor vehicle - it do tend to put things in perspective dont' it? - Sorry couldn't resist!

---

Gene,

You make very compelling statements and dare I say 'observations' about judging aides.

First, let me clarify - not talking about flashlights, knee-pads and such. In this case, we are taking about devices that extend the acuity of the human eye well beyond it's normal capability when considering appearances.

The term "appears" is indeed the key word and crux of this perspective I suppose. I always took it to mean that the car is not disasembled (you dont' pull the dash pad or pop heads...) - other than explicit items like air cleaner and such were I designed for easy removal and allow more things to be easily observed. But I'm not so sure now...

But I think associating the passage:"Cars are to be judged to the standard of vehicle appearance, ..." Could logically interpreted as to the human eye at 20/20 or correctable to 20/20 as opposed to inclusive of enhancing devices that exceeds normal human accuity.

Now currently (and since 1974 according to one) optical devices like magnifying glasses, boroscopes, hand-held microscopes or whatever you want to call them are indeed employed. To answer your question 'how much is going to be acceptable? 5X, 10X, 20X?' my observation is that it's apparently 'all' acceptable. There is neither a limit on how something is viewed (thus digital devices can also be lumped in and applied) or enhanced, nor to what degree it may be enhanced.

Perhaps the only practical limit is the judges own personal budget and imagination in the application of such devices and technologies. Other limits may include a reasonable time period to use such things as well as a need for the devices to be relatively manageable and portable. (oh and safe - thus no X-rays please! )

My question is one of interpretation:

Does "appearance" imply the human eye specifically?

Or is "appearance" inclusive of devices and technologies functionally exceeding human eyes?

Interesting post Gene - very thought provoking.

[Warren F.]

Re: Can a 'line' be crossed w/ such devices?

Todd: The judging of these cars isn't complete anyway, so why all the inquiries. Cars that are Flight judged do not include other important parts of the car to indicate that it is complete as "factory delivered". The transmission and rear drive assembly are not checked for correct dated or numbered parts. It's not done because it is not easily accessible, I understand that, but if you're going to examine these cars, they should include the complete drivetrain assembly. I know this doesn't seem very feasible and may not be. My car has been Top Flighted nationally, regionally and chaptered, and that certificate doesn't mean a whole lot as far as correctness goes without a complete judging of all externally visual components that can be verified by stampings, design or style. So why worry about such things, when this whole judging event is reasonable, but not even close to being accurate for proper components on a Corvette without a more substantially complete judging process.

[Todd H 26112]

Re: Can a 'line' be crossed w/ such devices?

"so why all the inquiries." Uh, because we are, um, here to learn Warren? Or is that a trick question? Essentially either you know everything, you simply accept things w/o necessarily understanding them and their 'whys' and join the heard or you ask questions. I think it is self evident where I fit - what about you?

And for the record I've already learned plenty like I didn't realize these devices can be used to give some points 'back' to owners that may otherwise have been deducted and that nothing has changed since 1974.

"this whole judging event is reasonable" - I'd like to see you say that to Gregg Plapas' brother.

Anyway the question wasn't about transmissions and rear drive assemblies - I didn't see an answer - What do YOU think about such devices Warren?