Visual Aids For Judging

[Harmon C.]

Mr. Webster Say

Visual aid n: an instructional device(as a chart,map,or model)that appeals chiefly to vision;esp:an educational motion picture or filmstrip

[Todd H 26112]

Maybe it was you I had in mind...

...when I tacked this passage on earlier as an afterthought in this very thread...

"And before anyone slices and dices symantics of 'aid' vs 'enhancement' - it is presented here in the context of comparing a device or technology to that of they human eye at or correctable to 20/20 in ideal circumstances (e.g. no obstructions or lighting issues etc in the comparision. An example of an enhancement might be a microscope or digital camera. An example of a compensating aid might be a flashlight or mirror. I hope I have made the distinction clear as it is an important disctinction some may miss while pursuing tangents not directly relevant to the subject."

Did you happen to check out that other thread I provided a link to?

[Eugene B.]

Re: Flashlight

Lyle,
Since I helped stir-up this issue, I'll step back in and add another $.02.

To me, a high powered flashlight is a visual aid. (Exactly 10 words).

I do not have a problem using flashlights and mirrors for judging. I did take exception (and still do) to a judge pulling out a frying pan sized magnifying glass and looking at the grain size of vinyl!

I'm still standing on the notion that the TIM&JG states that the judging standard is "appears as new, etc." and appears in my mind, means: to the unaided eye (with 20/20 vision) in appropriate light. So I guess the real question is: What does the TIM&JG mean by "appears"?

Regards,
Gene

[Mark D.]

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

When I was a young airline pilot for Piedmont Airlines, most of the stewardesses were very young and very pretty. They were definitely visual aides (or at least they aided me visually) and some of them even had enhancements and you didn't need a flashlight to see them.

Regards,

Mark

[Tracy C.]

Can you get Aides from Enhancements? *NM*

[Charlie P.]

Re: Mr. Webster Say

The correct term should be vision, not visual. Here's my view on definitions:

Vision correction aide: Device that corrects an individual's vision deficiency to normal (nominal 20/20?). ex: Glasses or contacts

View enhancement device: Device that improves a view that is limited due to poor lighting, sight lines, or access. ex: Flashlights, mirrors (non-magnifying)

Optical magnification device: Device that magnifies beyond normal vision. ex: Magnifying glasses, reading glasses over a certain magnification

I think that optical magnification should not be utilized for judging.

[Todd H 26112]

Re: Mr. Webster Say

Those definitions work just fine for me too - the important thing isn't to play games slicing and dicing symantecs or reading dictionaries the way Lyle wants to but to simply make a distinction. That's all.

THough clearly in the minority - it's good to see a well reasoned response by someone who understand the disctinction whether one agrees w/ the practice or not. And for that I thank you Charlie.

Oh and Charlie don't take any hits over this - when it comes to distinctions like this - you can only lead the horse to water but ya can't make it drink.

[Todd H 26112]

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

Thanks Rick and your observation regarding consistency is likely symptomatic and certainly goes to the heart of the matter. It looks like we'll have to keep on waiting for the most part. There have only been a couple of responses both for and against that actually comprehended the distinction thus far. I'm not sure if it's simply too complex an issue or if perhaps other folks have personal motives clouding their judgement. But thanks for the response.

[Harmon C.]

Re: Flashlight

Gene Good answer!!!! As a mech. 1 Judge and I will use broach marks as an example if I can't see them the corvette not the owner has lost the points and the team leader is involved at this point as it is a total deduction the only thing the scope can do is get them back by being able to see them. I only speak for myself as to how I do it. As to the grain of the door panels in the years I judge you sure don't need any special tools to tell a repop as they stick out like a sore thumb to the naked eye and the deduction should be the same no matter how big you blow up the grain. Regards Lyle

[Harmon C.]

Re: Mr. Webster Say

Charlie See my example below and I will just deduct the 38 points on your car if I can't see the broach marks it is not a problem and I will leave the scope in the bag. Regards Lyle

[Dave McDufford]

Re: Mr. Webster Say

It seems to me that if the broach marks can be so faint that they can not be seen with the naked eye, then a smooth pad with no evidence of the swirl marks of modern mill machine should get no deduct. Likewise if the grain on the door panels is close enough to original to need a magnifying glass to see a difference, there should be no deduct. In name at least, we are supposed to be restorers. To me this attitude merely promotes the elitism of the check writers who spend $400 for an oil cap and the economic interests of the guys who have a half dozen oil caps on the shelf for sale.

Dave

[mike cobine]

Do you legally want to find this detail?

Interesting thread in that many state they can't see the broach marks without magnification. This seems to be beyond the scope of NCRS.

If you want it to appear as original, and if you can't normally see the broach marks on most unrestored Chevrolet blocks, then why the fuss over seeing them?

The ONLY reason I can see that you have to verify original broach marks over "restoration" broach marks is to verify the originality of that engine.

So far, most advocating 20x or so magnification do so to see the presence of something normally not seen and to determine if the engines are original or fake.

NCRS has stated in print and on here many times that NCRS does not verify the value and originality of a car. This is to keep themselves at arm's length from any lawsuits from someone buying a Top Flight car and discovering the engine is a fake. However, determining an original engine from a non-original engine does very much determine value, as emphasized by Roy Sinor in Volume 30 Number 2 of the Corvette Restorer, Fall 2003, on page 7, last paragraph.

Do you think that a sharp lawyer could show in court to a non-auto-enthusiast jury that experienced judges with 20x magnification are actually determining originality and thus value?

If NCRS was in the business of authenticating cars for purchase and appraisal, then 20x or 50x would be an absolute necessity. If not, I think we open ourselves to many - owners, professional appraisers, and dealers.

NCRS is an organization with over $1 million in assets. It isn't the local Corvette club with $200 in the pot. When determinations are made on a judging field that may decrease the value of a car by $40,000 or so, especially if professional organizations have stated differently, it may suddenly become worthwhile to use the legal system to someone losing out.

[mike cobine]

Doesn't Judging Reference Manual say differently?

Doesn't the Judging Reference Manual say that in cases of doubt, the benefit of doubt goes to the owner?

Isn't your statement guilty until proven innocent?

If you normally can't see an item then why would you assume that item is missing?

Now if you could see the pad was mooth and none existed, yes, deduct.

If you can see the marks are wrong, yes, deduct.

If you can't see the marks, and this is a normal situation, how can you deduct?

[Charlie P.]

Re: Visual Aids For Judging

Most of this discussion, as it relates to optical magnification, revolves around the issue of determining if the stamp pad has factory-correct broach marks. Since the block has the correct part and date casting numbers, the only reason to do this is to determine if the block is original to the car. Why is this one part only held to such a high standard? Every other mechanical component of the car could be non-original to it, and we can never know that. The owner is not required to provide proof of origin of these other components.

Additionally, if in the course of machining an original-to-car block in a re-build, the factory broach marks are eliminated, that should make the whole discussion moot. Taking pictures of the block before machining? Then let's take pictures of evey other component-pictures that show identifying marks that are unique to that part only, such as casting flaws, scratches, etc. Of course, the pictures would have to have been taken when the car left the factory.

If I were buying a car, I would want the engine to be the one that came new in the car, and might take extraordinary measures to verify this, as would most of us. However, I don't think it is appropriate to apply such extraordinay measures in the judging process to only one component. Verified presence of original-to-car block should be applied to Bowtie cars, but not Flight cars in my opinion. OR,how about a "Top Flight Elite" award-signifying a Top Flight car with a Verified Original Engine?

Disclaimer: I'm a new guy just giving my view, not trying to change the world-NCRS is way cool if you ask me.

[Clem Z.]

i have a question

do the judges dig at the block casting number to make sure they are not epoxy or silicone? after i pointed this trick several years ago here on the board i received several e mails that owners found what i had posted to be true.