JG

[Roy B.]

Re: JG: Now, that scares me..."why"

Dennis!
What did I ever do, to have you dislike me, look at all my posting, have I ever said anything against you or made a smart remark ?? No one here can say I have said anything about any person on this forum beside kidding with "friends".You can write me off line and educate me !

[Roy B.]

Re: JG: Now, that scares me..."why"

Dennis!
What did I ever do, to have you dislike me, look at all my posting, have I ever said anything against you or made a smart remark ?? No one here can say I have said anything about any person on this forum beside kidding with "friends".You can write me off line and educate me !

[Rick S.]

Re: JG: Now, that scares me..."why"

Roy,
It sure seems that he has issues with you....
Rick

[Rick S.]

Re: JG: Now, that scares me..."why"

Roy,
It sure seems that he has issues with you....
Rick

[Gene B.]

Re: JG: Now, that scares me..."why"

The future problem is that as individuals new to Corvette restoration come along, they are sometimes lead to believe that a specific repo part is either referred to as NOS or completely original. Roy at least is dealing with correct information, based on the all of the info/knowledge, and NOS parts, both factory and dealer installed items.

Sometimes an owner believe his or her car is original becasue the person they bought it from told them that it is completely original. I even had an individual who owned a 54 that he had obtained from a family member. This family memeber had install a parking light assembly in the trunk. He had a toggle switch to turn on the light. When I judged the car, obviously this was a deduct from original, but the owner could not believe this was not original, since it had the original lens and parking light assembly. Mounted as a parking light this would have been totally correct.

In the 53-55, and especially in the 55 there is limited judging knowledge, since there are so few original cars left. With the limited number of 53 and 55s built, there are very few, if any that are still completely original. This is slowly the case on later C1 and many of the earlier C2 cars.

Hopefully bad information is not being passed down to future generations having interst in restoring cars, like this repo part being told to an OJ as being original.

In the case of my 58, which was judged by an individual that owned a 59, told me I had extensive repairs made to my 58 because of the stabilizers mounted under the front fenders. Not ever having looked at an original 58, he thought the 58 was just like his 59. This guy was a master judge. Obviously he accumulated a lot of points judging C2s or 58-60 cars with no 58s in the field.

Gene

[Gene B.]

Re: JG: Now, that scares me..."why"

The future problem is that as individuals new to Corvette restoration come along, they are sometimes lead to believe that a specific repo part is either referred to as NOS or completely original. Roy at least is dealing with correct information, based on the all of the info/knowledge, and NOS parts, both factory and dealer installed items.

Sometimes an owner believe his or her car is original becasue the person they bought it from told them that it is completely original. I even had an individual who owned a 54 that he had obtained from a family member. This family memeber had install a parking light assembly in the trunk. He had a toggle switch to turn on the light. When I judged the car, obviously this was a deduct from original, but the owner could not believe this was not original, since it had the original lens and parking light assembly. Mounted as a parking light this would have been totally correct.

In the 53-55, and especially in the 55 there is limited judging knowledge, since there are so few original cars left. With the limited number of 53 and 55s built, there are very few, if any that are still completely original. This is slowly the case on later C1 and many of the earlier C2 cars.

Hopefully bad information is not being passed down to future generations having interst in restoring cars, like this repo part being told to an OJ as being original.

In the case of my 58, which was judged by an individual that owned a 59, told me I had extensive repairs made to my 58 because of the stabilizers mounted under the front fenders. Not ever having looked at an original 58, he thought the 58 was just like his 59. This guy was a master judge. Obviously he accumulated a lot of points judging C2s or 58-60 cars with no 58s in the field.

Gene

[mike cobine]

Re: JG: Now, that scares me..."why"

The problem already exists. There have been cases where cars with carpet installed in the '70s is believed to be original because it was 30 years old or so and the owners have used it to form a basis of what "correct" reproduction carpet should be.

The same with seat covers. Most people cannot accurately gauge the age of an object simply by its condition, so an old 30-year-old item can easily be assumed to be 40 years old or 50 years old.

A car with a 30 year old restoration could easily be assumed original by many, because it is so old, especially if it is not in perfect shape today.

Then you have the "NOS" parts. Many assume NOS means they are correct in every way to the original, but they aren't necessarily that way. Anyone trying to detrmine if a part is original who is using experience with NOS parts could easily judge an original as wrong, because it may not compare to an NOS part.

The issue is that parts are often claimed to be original by owners and others because they are so old, unless they know exactly what an original part looks like and any deviations. You can print a 1000 words, or a single picture, to educate. And that has been seen on here many times, we have the 1000 words many times until someone like Roy or Michael Hanson or someone posts a picture which often clears the confusion immediately.

[mike cobine]

Re: JG: Now, that scares me..."why"

The problem already exists. There have been cases where cars with carpet installed in the '70s is believed to be original because it was 30 years old or so and the owners have used it to form a basis of what "correct" reproduction carpet should be.

The same with seat covers. Most people cannot accurately gauge the age of an object simply by its condition, so an old 30-year-old item can easily be assumed to be 40 years old or 50 years old.

A car with a 30 year old restoration could easily be assumed original by many, because it is so old, especially if it is not in perfect shape today.

Then you have the "NOS" parts. Many assume NOS means they are correct in every way to the original, but they aren't necessarily that way. Anyone trying to detrmine if a part is original who is using experience with NOS parts could easily judge an original as wrong, because it may not compare to an NOS part.

The issue is that parts are often claimed to be original by owners and others because they are so old, unless they know exactly what an original part looks like and any deviations. You can print a 1000 words, or a single picture, to educate. And that has been seen on here many times, we have the 1000 words many times until someone like Roy or Michael Hanson or someone posts a picture which often clears the confusion immediately.

[Roy B.]

Re: JG: mike-gene

The stories you tell will never stop ,that's why it's up to you to keep a pic file if many people agree to know what a real part looks like,and for get the JM, it ant going to happen in our life time. But if your a concern person of what is really correct keeping a pic file to pass on to your family or the next owner of your Corvette, then time might catch up to it.

[Roy B.]

Re: JG: mike-gene

The stories you tell will never stop ,that's why it's up to you to keep a pic file if many people agree to know what a real part looks like,and for get the JM, it ant going to happen in our life time. But if your a concern person of what is really correct keeping a pic file to pass on to your family or the next owner of your Corvette, then time might catch up to it.