Visual Aids For Judging

[Mike M.]

Re: Painted pad?

Gene: i suppose a line worker could have neglected to follow orders and not wipe the pad. However your 65 apparantly belonged to one or more people/car dealerships between 1965 and your purchasing it in 1970 and i'd guess that's when the pad acquired its chevy engine orange. regards, mike

[John H.]

Re: stigmatized for merely bringing up the topic ?

Do you REALLY write this stuff all by yourself?

[Todd H 26112]

And what does that

have to do w/ the price of tea in China?

And how do YOU feel about magnification in judging fake wood or stamp pads or whatever?

[Eugene B.]

Re: Painted pad?

Mike,
Thank you for your response.

If it is not supposed to be painted, I would conclude that it was human error during the assembly process. The pad definately has the original engine redish-orange paint on it and there is no sign that any part of the engine was ever repainted. Perhaps just one of those mysteries that are associated with certain cars.

Regards,
Gene

[Bill Stephenson]

Re: stigmatized for merely bringing up the topic ?

John,

------You want some Excedrin Plus.I had to go out and get some today.Was running low!........Bill S

[mike cobine]

Re: Here's where I'm at

After we read so many comments about "it isn't the way it left the factory" in reference to the stamp pad, it makes me wonder. Will sanding marks be deductions or will they be ignored?

From what I have read, it sounds like any deviation will be cause for deductions. The sanding marks will no doubt be visible at 10x or 20x and so would be a deviation.

And while it is understandable that the deduction is because of damage to the pad, anyone not immediately involved will look at a pad deduction as the implication that is may be less than 100%.

[Mike M.]

Re: Here's where I'm at

I usually don't deduct the 38/4500 pad points IF the factory broach marks are evident mixed in amongst the sandpaper/screwdriver/razor blade scratches.mike

[John H.]

Re: And what does that

I don't worry about it - I just call 'em as I see 'em, and seek more experienced judges to confirm if necessary. There's more to life than trying to Mil-Spec people's visual acuity; if it was all that aggravating and frought with complexity and emotional consternation, I wouldn't be an NCRS judge. But it isn't rocket science, it's fun, and I enjoy it.

[Todd H 26112]

Re: And what does that

John I too am ambivalent about it though for different reasons.

Perhaps another way to look at it is that the use of such 'scopes' on an automobile is in and of itself QA inspector-like or 'Mil-Spec-ish' and smack of over analytical rocket science but the use of good ol' Mark II eyeballs is simply a fun clean simple hobbyist approach. I dunno, I guess maybe I have those two backwards.

thanks,