Visual Aids For Judging

[Bill Braun 33186]

So Mark...

sounds like you have a lot of experience in judging T3s...



couldn't resist - all in fun...

Bill 33186

[Charlie P.]

Re: Visual Aids For Judging

Thanks for the welcome, Mike. I guess what it boils down to is that any part that is serialized to correlate to the vehicle VIN must have been factory-installed in that car, or the assigned points will be deducted. Non-serialized parts need not have been factory-installed on the car. Fair enough.

However, if magnification is required to make a judgement on engine stamp pads, or any othe component, and not every judge uses a standard optical magnifying device, or doesn't use one at all, that in my opinion, does not seem equitable. It sounds like such practice is inconsistently applied, and that really shouldn't be.

[Brian McHale]

Trim Tags

Visual aids? Hang onto your hat's.

[Patrick H.]

Re: Visual Aids For Judging

Mike,

I don't touch rashes. Still plenty of other stuff I don't want to catch in FP land despite the small amount of syphillis still out there (although its numbers are up again).

Patrick

[Bill Stephenson]

Re: Missed those - But... Aides vs Enhancements?

Todd,

------I have nothing against you personally.Really,I dont,but you have managed to give me a whopping headache.This is like a three Exedrin Plus type!If you ever did say what you do for a living,I missed it.Do you write those uncomprehendable government how-to manuals?........Bill S

[Tracy C.]

stigmatized for merely bringing up the topic ?

Todd,

I've followed this thread for the same reason many people stare at train wrecks...

If you feel "stigmatized" I assure you it is not for "merely bring up the the topic", but rather because of your defensive approach. Seems you belittle anyone and everyone who shares a difference in opinion.

I gather you are a smart fella and probably made good grades in school. How did you feel when someone you knew got an "A" and didn't really deserve it? Maybe you knew they....cheated?
Hmmm..

This organization is the best on the planet because of Compulsive Anal Retentive Volunteer Enthusiasts (CARVE?) who do in fact carve out time from their own busy schedules and give it to ALL of us in one form or another.

NCRS Disclaimers or not, A Top Flight certificate IS a form of appraisal that seller or buyer might use to establish the value of a car. Particularly the big money cars. Bet you use magnification to buy a diamond huh? Gee, they all "appear" to be the same...

Yes, I'm fully aware this certificate is only good while the car is still on the judging field. Once the cars return to the confines of the owners home, who knows what may or may not be removed if the owner is planning to sell it.

But what if the potential buyer is "waiting in wings" at the judging field and will instead be the one to drive the car home? Does this ever happen?

Maybe...
Kinda puts a different spin on it from a judges perspective though.

Trust me, I want to know the limits of acceptabiliy as much as anyone. I'll never make a dime on my car, but I'd at least like to know I might break even on it someday. How and where I spend my hard earned cash is very much a Top Priority. Don't get me wrong, my car is labor of love....I just have a limited amount of resources and watch a pretty close budget.

My ole man always told me honesty invites scrutiny. He also told me no matter how stupid the person I'm speaking with is, If I can make 'em think they are smarter than me, I'm one step closer to making a friend.

Friends are what we need here Todd. I define that as people helping people.

Enjoy your car, make friends and don't forget to wave......

tc

[Todd H 26112]

Re: stigmatized for merely bringing up the topic ?

Whoa - Like waaaaaaaaaay of topic in places but I dug the 'truth' commentary.

As far as stigmatized goes - it was mentioned w/ a " " - But since you mentioned it, I find when one asks open ended questions that lead otherwise intelligent folks to logical conundrums of their own devising per their own rules - it's a price ya pay I figure and par for the course.

For me it's not so much about knowing the limits as it is about understanding the underlying philosophy or concepts or practices that led to the system we know today. Some of the common mistakes people make in considering some issues like this is dealing with it at a superficial level, making presumptions about others perspectives or thinking only from the perspective of their own experiences. I don't think it's a bad idea to sometimes think big or think outside the box.

I too have watched the thread and perhaps 90% of the posts dance around or completely avoid the core issues. On the other hand there have been some well articulated posts both for and against magnification enhancement in judging (of which neither position I've belittled).

"... defensive approach. Seems you belittle anyone and everyone who shares a difference in opinion."

In response I can only suggest you stop and consider the fact that there have been 3 or maybe 4 serious responses to the issue & they have voiced positions both for AND against enhanced magnifications beyond 20/20 and I have not belittled EITHER perspective. As for others who have time to play games w/ symantics, deliberately act obtuse or even bait - sure I can give as good as I get w/ such people that choose to sling their flatulance - but that's just trivial background noise easily dismissed as a byproduct of asking provocative questions. So respectfully I can't accept that I belittle folks voicing opinion either for or against. That simply hasn't happened.

So tc, tell us where do YOU stand on magnification?

thanks,

[Tracy C.]

[Mike M.]

Re: Missed those - But... Aides vs Enhancements?

Bil: you got off easy. I ended up with rectalgia after following todd's pseudo-intellectual ramblings. . In a previous post, todd h accused the past national judging chairman, dennis clark, of "condescending arrogance, being a kwow it all and paragon of anti-positivity". I've know and followed dennis's ncrs judging instructions for better than 20 years. Dennis joined ncrs in the early 80's and attained national judging chairman status, as well as restoring and having judged about 4 Duntov corvettes, ten years before TODD H joined NCRS( just curious how many corvettes Tood h has had judged or has judged in ncrs---probably fewer than .1% of what dennis had done). at one point in todd h's replys, he asked dennis what could have been Done to make " MAKE THAT INVITATION TO LEAVE A LITTLE NICER". [thats all i've got to pass on to you bill and thanks for your input] Tood h.-- the rest of this message is for you : if you will supply me with what it will take to make you a memory in ncrs, i'll do my best to comply.This is the last time i'll respond to any of your pompous, verbose, self-serving posts. The typical ncrs members i've gotten to know over the past 29 years are unlike the todd h's that i've come to know on this forum over the last year of my forum involvement.Hope you find happiness in a non-ncrs forum. my phone # is in the restorers of the 90's if you want to discuss my thoughts on this issue but believe me, i'm non-negotiable on dennis clarks's integrity. mike

[Geoff C.]

Re: Visual Aids For Judging

I don't approve of artificial aids, enhancements or extenders. Judgement should be on what you can readily see in the day light. But if they begin to allow these extraneous devices, then you never can tell where that will end. How infinite will it get? If 90% of the folk here were to walk into a showroom in 1967, they probably would not accept the finished product. They would beat it to death.

Geoffrey Coenen

[Todd H 26112]

[mike cobine]

Here's where I'm at

Both of my cars the engines were apart about 25 and 23 years ago. One I simply took apart after attempting to changing rear main seal and then found a main cap bolt broken. In the process, the heads were off. Before putting them back on, I did a quick sanding across the deck to clean the rust and junk off so the gaskets would seal well.

Even in '78, I was well aware of the numbers and was using a fairly fine grit to clean with minimum pressure to not hurt the numbers. However, what does that pad look like to a judge with 20x optics? Will he decide it is fishy and declare it not original? Will he deduct and thus imply that the engine is not original or is fake?

I know what the car is. I've owned it since '77 and that was before anyone thought of making a big profit on anything but '63 coupes. No one would have faked the engine back then. But can I afford to have someone cast doubt on it now?

Unfortunately, it is in long term storage right now so I can't check and ease my mind on this topic.

The other one is about the same. The engine was professionally built, but wasn't decked. I was definite about it. But it is quite possible that the same clean up was done on the deck and thus the same questions of originality can arise. Unfortunately, I'll have to clean the paint off to know and that may do something that deducts points because I didn't have a piece of masking tape on it 23 years ago.

(I hate to think of all that have been painted and then the paint scraped off with a knife so someone could read it.)

The first car, I know everything that is changed from original. I changed it. With the exception of the rag top, I could change everything back in a weekend.

So what do I have to gain by judging? Nothing. What do I stand to lose? A great deal. And only because someone will look with 10x or 20x and see things no one else will ever see and then cast doubt on the authenticity of my cars.

In fact, if I wasn't in NCRS for fun, I'd take offense at someone questioning my honesty in such a manner. But I know that this isn't that, it is simply part of the judging.

With cars that are 30, 40, and 50 years old, you find that many have had engines apart and in the same boat I'm in. They really stand to lose more from such magnification than they could gain. They know their engines are original. They don't need a judge to tell them that. Some bought their cars new and so they really 100% know that the engine is original. But over the years, they drove them, they had them rebuilt, and now they could have serious doubt placed because no one 25 or 30 years ago anticipated anyone looking with microscopes to detect abnormalities to the broach marks. If they had, they could have simply had the decks cleaned but not the pad.

And judging is a fun activity for them, one where they can test themselves at how well they returned it to being just like it left the factory. But as soon as a judge begins to record and make a doubt on the originality of their engine that they know is original, the fun will begin to fade.

Of course, how are NCRS and the judges to know it is the honest owner who has had the car for the last 25 or 40 years instead of the guy who just bought the car 3 months ago from _____ Corvettes, Inc.? They can't. In order to catch the craftiness of the second, you may burn the first.

[Clem Z.]

block and head surface cleaning.

before the final cleaning i always used a "martin-senour #260 fast file" to clean the deck and head surfaces of any foreign material and these use a "sandpaper" insert. most rebuild shop use the similar device and would leave a different surface finish than the "broached" surface. mike cobine has a excellent point.

[Eugene B.]

Re: Painted pad?

Mike,
Here is an honest question for you, not a lure or bait.

In the above post, you state that the General removed the paint from the stamp pads. This is not the case on my '65. It is totally original, 44K actual miles, and I have owned since 1970. The stamp pad is painted.

I'm not an expert on all Corvettes, but I consider myself an expert on my car, since I know so much about it. Was there a time when the General did not remove paint from the pad or did someone on the production line miss removing it from my car? What are other explanations why my pad has original engine paint on it?

Thanks,
Gene

[Mike M.]

Re: Here's where I'm at

Mike: unless you sanded the pad for several hours with fine grit paper, i doubt you'd have removed enough pad material to also remove the original broach marks and with magnification, an experienced judge will be able to visualize your factory broach marks underneath the scrath marks your sanding caused. mike