Visual Aids For Judging

[Harmon C.]

Re: Doesn't Judging Reference Manual say different

Mike I can only talk about 73-77 stamp pads as this where I judge as my first choice and you can see the broach marks on every block I have ever judged in this class over the last ten years with the naked eye so if one shows up that looks blank I will not need anything to make a decision. Lyle

[mikemccagh]

Re: i have a question

i once judged a 962 cast block BUT the cast # ran inboard to outboard.. owner couldn't explain the peculiarity. BTW, the owner had recently purchased the 396. I suggested we take my pen knife to the last digit in the casting # and lo and behold it was Devcon or JB Weld. Most 961 396 non-gusseted big block cases run inboard to outboard. the vet 396 gusseted 962 run outboard to inboard. mike

[mikemccagh]

Re: Visual Aids For Judging

Charlie: welcome to best old car hobby group on the planet. The reason i use magnification tools(my favorite is an otoscope) is to determine if the broach marks are factory or not. if they aren't then it probably isn't the orig case or its the original case that had been broached after it left the factory. in either event, the engine block(case) isn't as it left the st. louis or bowling green or flint assembly plants so a standard deduction of 38 out of 4500 points is in order. If at some point in the future the judging chairman and his team leaders elect to not deduct for absent factory broach marks(doubt that'll ever happen), then those owners of cars STILL POSSESING THEIR ORIGINAL ENGINES WITH ORIGINAL BROACH MEARKS will become unhappy campers. By the way, engine stamp pad isn't only area where i use magnification: mid-64 thru 65 375 hp plenums and delco generator tags to name a few, also get the otoscope. I've met a few owners and forum participants that use of otoscope in their ears might reveal absence of BETZ Cells(NEURONS).. again, welcome. mike

[Todd H 26112]

Re: Do you legally want to find this detail?

Thought provoking post - never thought of all that.
Well Mike NCRS doesn't have a problem w/ designating it's own service replacement tire sizes despite the fact no tire maker will validate NCRS's own designations. NCRS encourages driving and encourages original ancient tires on the judging field without making a clear distinction between the inherent risk of these two behaviors in combination. I suspect NCRS has yet to get burned and I sincerely hope we never do but time will tell...

[Clem Z.]

mike my question is

do the all judges check ALL casting number for being fake like they do the stamp pad?

[mikemccagh]

Re: mike my question is

Clem: since the casting # (and casting date for that matter) are painted at factory and hence judging field, magnification usually of no benefit. I don't magnify cast # or cast date( they are a pain in the butt to view with otoscope). The issue of looking for factory broach marks today would be a non-issue had the general elected to paint the engine pads, or rather not remove paint after engine painting. painted pads hide lack of or incorrect broachmarks. mike

[Clem Z.]

if the judge is not allowd to touch the stamp pad

i would think that you could use a photoresist technique,like they use to make micro electronic devices,the CPU in your computer is made this way,to dupe the broach marks. all you need to do is make a negative from a picture to transfer the marks to the pad and etch with the proper acid.

[Clem Z.]

Re: mike my question is

do the judges scrape at the numbers to make sure they are realy cast onto the block not just added by fakery?

[Patrick H.]

Re: Visual Aids For Judging

It's the only reason you ever used an otoscope after you left med school, right? Dermatologists usually have the rule never to touch the patient, much less actually get close enough to use an otoscope.

Patrick

[Todd H 26112]

Need clarification on 'giving back points'

Gee Lyle - that attitude of yours may be consistent but is it going to produce consistent results on the judging field?

===========

Seriously thought, several people have cited examples of using magnification devices to 'give back points'. At first I thought great! - this is an issue that does indeed cut both ways and should make for some interesting comments (presuming you understand the distinction regarding such devices)

But Lyles remarks got me to thinking about that particular aspect again... (always a dangerous thing folks!)

Now bear w/ me here and never mind that you can't put time back on the clock except in Olympic basketball...

1) The judge scrutinizes the gizmo w/o benefit of enhanced magnification
2) The judge deducts for incorrect fonts, surface texture, marks, whirls in teh wood or whatever...
3) From (#2) we can deduce that no doubt existed because "the benefit of the doubt always always always goes to the owner and fellow NCRS Member" (Judging School 101 reference card dated 12/97 by John Woods)
4) Judge reaches into his pocket and pulls out a macro capable digital or powerf optical device for magnification and...
5) BUT WAIT! Back up the truck! This is a non-sequiter - if no doubt existed and the points were already deducted - why would the judge even CONSIDER this action? #4 clearly implies doubt did exist which contradicts #2. Hmmmmm....

But let's let this play itself out regardless and see where it may lead us...

6) Judge sees more detail thru the benefit of magnification and is able to 'give back' the points deduction - owner is thrilled and is convinced for life that magnification is the only way to go on the judging field. End of story.

Or...

6) The judge does not see anything to change his 'doubtless' prior decision. OK but for one potential problem: The potential perception at this point is that the magnification enhancement only served to deduct the points or reinforce their deduction - I'm concerned many owners will not note that the points were ostensibly already deducted BEFORE the device was used to magnify. In fact how many judges themselves make such a distinction? FWIW Personally I've not seen any judges make this clear PRIOR to using their magnification toys. It's potentially a Catch-22 lose-lose scenario. The owner may never be enamored of using such devices on the field. Valid or not - NCRS may be blamed for overzealously deducting points w/ such devices. Perception can sometimes become pesky reality.

===

A) Where is the consistency in all of this on the judging field? Some use them, others don't? Depending on your situation you either don't care or hope that the judge uses one or hope that the judge doesn't? (For an example see Lyle's post above)

B) Can anyone help rationalize how we get past the 'benefit of doubt' issue and the use of magnification in giving points 'back'?

C) And how does one reconcile magnification w/ the word "appearance" being the stated standard? I've only seen one comment on this and I think it is a VERY KEY interpretation of the standard as it exists today. One interpretation being that appearrance is limited to 1:1 period - and thus no 20X or macro/zooming or whatever allowed.

In fact I must say I am impressed at the number of ramifications about this practice that are brought to the fore by folks contributing to this thread. THere is a lot more to it than what we see on the surface (no pun intended).

[Todd H 26112]

...but you can get something else

Like being stigmatized for merely bringing up the topic of magnification gizmos

Hey I use those disposable latex gloves when working on cars to cut down on scrubbing afterwards - would those help?
Seriously though I think EVERY judge should carry a small Maglite or whatever and a 1.5" diameter telscoping mirror - or at least 1 set per judging team or associated w/ each car. Heck as an owner - I think it's a good idea to bring 'em along and loan them as needed to your judges. (But I'm still ambivalent on the magnifications issue).

[mikemccagh]

Re: Visual Aids For Judging

Pat: have worn out or lost about 3 otoscopes on ncrs judging fiels. still have original vin #'d med school otoscope collecting dust at the office. Derms never touch because "Syphilis is the great pretender" and i'd recommed you glove up when examing rashs or engine pads.regards, mike

[John H.]

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

Or maybe it's just not that important in the grand scheme of things; this is a hobby organization, supported by volunteers who contribute their own spare time, interest, expertise, knowledge, and travel expenses to judge cars - it's not a Defense Contract that requires every issue to be microscopically specified in Mil-Spec terms for subsequent inspection and audit to ensure contractual compliance. It's a hobby, not a moon shot, and it's supposed to be fun, and a learning experience - get over it.

[Dick W.]

Re: Visual Aids For Judging

Pat, we don't call Mikie "Dr. Zit" fer nothing

[Joe C.]

Re: Doesn't Judging Reference Manual say different

Mike:

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

In theory, this sounds fair, but sometimes in practice, the rules can get corrupted. See the very first post in this thread, and then decide.