Tweet
Other than the comments in the JG, what identifiers should I look for in finding a correct distributor cap.
Thanks for your help
John
Thanks for your help
John
-
-
Re: 62 FI Distributor Cap
double sliding windows to adjust points and Delco Remy Patent Pending. if you cn find one without the "R" after pending, that's cool. if you have to settle with R, it can be erased.good luck, mike -
Re: 62 FI Distributor Cap
In my book 'erasing' the 'R' emboss characteristic of later era, service replacement, Delco distributor cap and 'touching up' the finish of the Bakelite to minimic factory original sheen, is EQUAL to restamping a block, changing an original trim tag for a reproduction, or putting on a 'reproduction' trim tag, Mike....
WHERE do we draw the line in altering/falsifying factory original parts to fool the judges? I guess I'm from the old school...parts is parts.... If we modify or change a given piece with the intention to DECEIVE, then why should one piece (e.g. a block, a trim tag, a VIN plate) have more NEGATIVE weight in our club's judging rules than any other part?
I know the de facto answer is because that's what's written in the rule book. But, how about equal time for the de facto answer? This is an appropriate place for the NCRS National Judging Chairman to comment....
How about it Roy? Why is it 'fair game' for senior judges to advise taking a Dremel Tool and 'erase' an 'R' emboss on a distributor cap then 'cover' the deception with adroit clear lacquer when it's a mandatory BIG deduction to be caught with a restamped block or a 'reproduction' trim tag/VIN tag????Comment
-
Re: 62 FI Distributor Cap
Jack,
Interresting question(s)... Doesn't it all drill down to the definition of Restoration in the NCRS abbreviation ?
Is restoration equal to bringing an item back into its original appearance or is the definition more in line with replacing every un-original part for an original part ?
The rules regarding engine restamping is indeed quite specific on this topic but it does contradict with my personal feelings regarding restoring in general!
greetings,
Rob.Rob.
NCRS Dutch Chapter Founder & Board Member
NCRS Software Developer
C1, C2 and C3 Registry DeveloperComment
-
Re: 62 FI Distributor Cap
disagree with erasing R as being in same league as restamping pads and chaning trim tags.You thinking is analogous to comparing "holding hands" to "date rape".In my mind,modifying a piece not necissarily done so to decieve the judges but rather to have the piece resemble the long lost original piece as cloely as possible.If you're suggesting Roy and the team leaders take the time to address every part judged and give that piece a standard deduct table in the judging manual, then you best be prepaired to live about 5 more decades as the task you apparantly propose will take a lifetime to achieve. mikeComment
-
Re: 62 FI Distributor Cap
Talk to Steve Childs at Paragon - he has a bunch of the Delco double-window caps he got in a "lot purchase" of NOS/NORS parts he bought last year (I sorted through the containers looking for other stuff and found lots of them). Don't remember exactly how they were marked, but they were brand-new old Delco caps.Comment
-
Sorry, Mike, I still have a problem here....
If I take an otherwise correct original GM XYZ block, circular cut, say, the original casting date out of the rear apron, I've removed/altered that GM part's factory original configuration. Now, I fabricate or buy a cast iron 'plug' with the appropriate casting date to match my car, insert it in the apron hole and TIG it in place from the bottom then obscure the artificial parting line with filler and paint 'er Chevy orange, haven't I 'faked' a part with the intention to deceive????
I'm sorry, I don't see the difference between doing that and removing the 'R from a later era service replacement part to make it appear to be the factory original real McCoy item. Same goes for taking, say, a late era '091 coil and cutting the shoulders off the bakelite tower and drilling the bakelite to add the retainer holes. Then, go and obscure my 'restoration work' with clear paint/glaze. Bottom line, I've faked a part with the intention to deceive....
None of the above (modified block, dist cap, ignition coil) really ARE real McCoy factory original items that, but for the grace of the almighty in random inventory pull, 'could' have been the correct items that shipped from the factory on my Corvette.... But, for one of these items (block) we'll judge harshly and penalize significantly per our rules/standards. On the others, we sit back and chuckle and pass along tips on 'how to' to others who are novice.
Nope, I'm sorry, amigo, I do NOT see the distinction: fake is fake....Comment
-
(Message Deleted by Poster)
Message Deleted by PosterComment
-
Re: 62 FI Distributor Cap
erasing the "R",ain't that cheaten??????Comment
-
Re: Sorry, Mike, I still have a problem here....
Jack,
I typically support your view point. From my limited exposure to you (only this board and an occasional off line email) I am convinced you are one of the sharpest knifes in the NCRS drawer.
While I do recognize the validity of your thesis, I think the desire to replicate the factory appearance of our cars should not be limited to buying an “original” or a “reproduction” piece. If a Delco part (or a repop for that matter) can be made more correct with a little extra effort, why isn't that an acceptable alternative?
Mostly, I guess I'm struggling with the idea of "deception" as a categorical accusation here. I think that line IS crossed when a person attempts to profit monetarily from this practice and your example of the engine block (high $$ delta) is a good illustration.
Maybe we should just revisit how we define “counterfeit” as a organization….
If the car didn’t have the attribute from the factory and we introduce it later….we call it a fake. If we are only trying to bring a car back to it’s original state… We call it restoration. How we get there really needs to be left open to any available and legal means.
Shouldn’t it?
tcComment
-
(Message Deleted by Poster)
Message Deleted by PosterComment
-
Well thought out!
I appreciate the thought detail here, Tracy! At times, there's a VERY THIN line between 'restoration' and 'deception' that each of us has to struggle with according to our personal ethics. Personally, I have NO PROBLEM with a Corvette that's been restored with a restamped engine. Why?
Well, first, it's insane to 'punish' a car for the 'mistakes' of the car's past owner(s) (can't have Top Flight because it lost its factory original engine....heck, let's go crush the sucka!!!). Second, club policy has been pretty well thought out and enumerated with various points assigned to: (1) the block/casting number, (2) the block casting date, and (3) the block stamp pad. The big picture is each owner wrestles with a personal decision on what level of 'restoration' engine they go for and know how many judging points they'll lose IF their restoration effort doesn't measure up to club standards and is detected.
Cool.
We also provide a 'declaration' section for owner's to fill in on our Judging Score Sheet packages where they can declare 'exceptions' (e.g. NOM = non-original motor). Current policy is for judges not to be able to see/use the information in the owner's exception field--judging is intended to be 'blind' with each presentation of the car starting afresh without 'memory'. So, cars are judged as they 'appear' to the judges on a given day and scored accordingly. The information in the exception field is simply archieved at NCRS and can be queried by another member via the National Judging Chairman should the need to know be deemed significant (e.g. potential buyer want's to know). That obviates a potential fraud claim.
Fraud means you knew better, you did it anyway, you intentionally withheld the act/information, the buyer relied on your disclosure AND suffered financial damage as a result. If the restorer actually disclosed the act/deed (e.g. NOM), then fraud in NOT present because there WAS disclosure eventhough the judges didn't have access to that information. So, our system works: score the car according to the abilities of those judging on a given day based upon reasonable due diligence with ordinary visual inspection.
But, many indiscriminately toss around the words restoration, correct, original, fake, fraud, counterfeit without getting to the fine point of a word's definition. THAT was my focus in this thread....
Should a senior NCRS judge and key club contributor go on public record 'encouraging' other members to modify a part from its factory original configuration, then disguise those modification(s) in the interest of gaining a paltry few judging points WITHOUT also taking the time to advise of the possible consequences? Personally, I think this isn't ethical.
Why?
You can still find the non-R distributor cap if you want to look and pay the $$$. You can install the service replacement 'R version and only suffer a judging point or two loss. You might find a used original non-'R cap and use it for judging with a modest deduction in condition points. You should look at what you're doing, weigh the alternatives and THEN make a personal ethics decision before you act.
It came across as, "This is simple, just go do this and everything's OK...it's done all the time." That's what I was responding to.
No, it's not done all the time. There are some who care and go get the real McCoy item regardless of the price because we have pride in our restoration, others take condition deductions for a used real McCoy item, or take originality deductions for a correct but service replacement item.
Our world of restoration/preservation isn't black and white, it's rich with shades of grey! I think those grey areas deserve equal time when one says, "Just go do this." and that's the area of discussion I intended to raise with my 'strawman' -- why isn't this distributor cap alteration/modification akin to 'faking' a block?Comment
-
Re: Sorry, Mike, I still have a problem here....
Jack is a good amigo who knows his Corvette's inside out!
Jim Blakely Past Judging Chairman Past member NCRS UK Chapter
His name was never mentioned once over the past engine fiasco.Comment
-
Re: Well thought out!
Jack: As a relatively new so to speak member, ( 2 yrs.) I have a question that relates to your last sentence of the 4th paragragh, to wit: "So our system works: score the car according to the abilities of those judging on a given day based upon reasonable due diligence and ordinary visual inspection". According to that statement as I understand it, a judge is not permitted to use a scope to check for proper broach marks or use a magnet to check parts i.e SS exhaust extensions etc., yet in the past year or so there have been discussions here regarding the use of scopes by judges as well as magnets. How do these practices square with your statement? Len 39247Comment
-
Len... I need help...
...Where is the statement that indicates a judge is not permitted to use a scope to check for proper broach marks or use a magnet to check parts i.e SS exhaust extensions etc. ??? Thanks, DennisComment
Comment