Broach marks, stmping and castings

[Ronnie Rains]

As an owner of several vettes I often loose my focus as far as judging is concerned in this area. I have seen a number of post with every question you can imagine. I have seen double stamps, crooked stamps, repaired stamps and even casting numbers ground off and restinciled and I believe these to be from GM. Broach marks are equally troublesome, should we attempt to restore an original pad if the numbers are judged correct and the broach marks are not? Some of these blocks have been buffed, brushed, shot peened and who knows what may have happened when these cars were nothing special and in the hands of guys like me in the 60's and 70's.

I agree if iron blocks have radial broach marks we have a problem. I have seen an allum ZL1 with straight marks and correct numbers, we know this is a problem as the marks should be radial. I personally have a problem monkeying with a pad I know is original.

Secondly what do we do with a car that we want to restore but the car has no motor or an incorrect block? I don't agree with changing the configuration of a car but I do agree with the restorer putting it back as close to the way it was born as possible. In my earlier restoration days I did a lot of research on broach marks and restamping and think I can fool just about anyone. I would simply represent the car as a "restamp". If you volunteer this information to a judge you loose points. That brings up the question " how is the next guy" going to represent the car. These days I put all the correct parts and ignore the numbers and the pad. If it is not the org. block just loose those points. I represent these cars as NOM numbers matching.

I guess my point is do we want to define our objective or continue either giving up the points or try to fool the judges?
RDR

[Michael W.]

Since "here we go again *NM*" is not

considered PC, I won't be the one to say it. These issues have been well and truly beaten to death.

Ronnie, I don't know if you're just using the term too loosely, but if you believe the goal of doing a top class job of restoring a car to factory original condition is 'fooling the judges' I think there's a problem with your attitude, not the system.

[Ronnie Rains]

Re: Since "here we go again" is not

I use this forum gain or gove information only, I enjoy my cars and could care less what others choose to do with their cars. As far as fooling judges, I have spent more time defending original pieces that were deemed "not original" than trying to fool them. My attitude is if it is your car do what you want to with it. I have many cars and I drive almost all of them. I do have a couple of trailer queens but enjoy my drivers much more. This forum does not have anything to do with judging, if it did do you think you should jack with a deck that is original or leave it be? I say leave it be.
RDR

[Jean C.]

Re: Since "here we go again" is not

Mike,
Did Ronnie say that "...restoring a car to a factory original condition is fooling the judges"? As I read his post, his comment "..or try to fool the judges" was meant to express one of a couple of directions that a restorer could choose to take.

If his restoration results in him having correct properly dated parts on the car and some of those parts can be tied to the car via a "numbers match" test although the engine is NOM, he says that he represents the car that way. As I read his post, it seems to me that he does not try to "fool the judges" on the engine pad. I understand Ronnie to say that his choice is to loose judging points if the pad is incorrect.

Best regards,
Charlie

[Verle R.]

Re: Since "here we go again" is not

Mike,

I have met Ronnie and had the privilege of a private tour of his extensive collection. Original unrestored, finely restored, derelict, and everything in between. He is a straight forward individual, doesn't put on airs or misrepresent what he has.

I hope you just misread his post.

Verle

[Michael W.]

Re: Since "here we go again" is not

I have no reason to doubt your word, or the quality of his cars. I do have reservations about the use of the term 'fooling the judges' when it comes to presenting a car for flight judging. I will assume there is no intent to trick, deceive or otherwise 'make a fool' of either the judges or the judging process.

There's no room for any antagonistic behavior on the judging field.

[Chris Patrick]

Re: Since "here we go again" is not

Mike, I think NCRS brings this on themselves. Should we fool the judges? No, but if you don't, you lose a lot of points.

Ronnie's comment "but I do agree with the restorer putting it back as close to the way it was born as possible. In my earlier restoration days I did a lot of research on broach marks and restamping and think I can fool just about anyone." says a lot.

If you fool the judges into thinking it is original, you get the 25 points for VIN, 25 for assembly, and 38 for broach. If youdon't fool the judge, you get zero for whichever one they detect as not being like original.

In most places, you can restore to whatever ability level you have, and be judged accordingly. However, in the stamp pad restoration, you either do a perfect job, or you should not even bother.

Why? Since NCRS accepts that these pads are being restored, and that they do not necessarily indicate the car is original, why do they not judge them on a scale like every other part on the car? If you do a backyard paint job and it isn't great, you get some deduction, but not all, unless you are a really bad painter. But if you are a home garage pad stamper, odds are you have just lost all points because "you didn't fool the judges".

[Michael W.]

I give up...... *NM*

[Roy B.]

Re: I give up......

I've seen more problems with Corvettes being judged then worry about the stampings, if you have a good right on Corvette you can still get a top flight. I would not try to fool the judges , that's their job not to be fooled if their good at it??

[Harmon C.]

Re: Since "here we go again" is not

I have seen many pads that got credit on the judging field but I would not buy the Corvette thinking the pad was factory original. I think a better word than fooling the judges would be appears correct enough that the points were awarded. I doubt many old timers are really fooled.
Lyle

[Ronnie Rains]

Re: Since "here we go again" is not

I think most ouf got my point. You can reproduce any marking or stamping and be ok except the pad. If you reproduce the broach and the numbers and some BJ guy buys it for mega bucks and later finds out he has to swim with it. This one may come back to haunt you.

Verle thanks for the compliment I have added many since your visit and you are always welcome back.
thanks RDR

[John M.]

Re: Since "here we go again" is not

Mike,

It may just be semantics, but almost everything we do to restore our Corvettes for flight judging, is to "fool the judges". If not, we would not spend the inordinate ammount of time that we do in trying to make it look like it was built yesterday. This is just my opinion, but the only portion of judging were we are not trying to "fool the judges" is during Bowtie judging. It would be real nice if all of us could have pristine, original cars that needed no restoration to present for Flight judging, but many of us have to put together cars from complete basket cases, and "fooling the judges" is what restoring an old hulk is all about. Every time we add the two extra holes to a 3 hole C1 horn relay bracket to make it correct, we are doing so with the express intent of foolin the judges. This is why we put orange-peeled lacquer paint on our cars rather than a slick, BC/CC paint job.

It seems like there is a subtle shift taking place within the NCRS, where the concept of flight judging is slowly changing from "appears as original" to "must be original", and when the pendulum swings too far in that direction, a lot of us will just leave the NCRS.
I am a craftsman, not a collector. I build cars, and I enjoy the process more than the ownership of the cars. I seldom keep a car very long, as for me, it is all about the restoration. I have no interest in owning a pristine, original car that I can drag around from meet to meet in a trailer. I get way more satisfaction out of turning a rusted hulk into a Top Flight Corvette, and when it gets to the point where attempting to "fool the judges" is frowned upon, then there is no reason for me to continue to belong to the NCRS. JMHO

Regards, John McGraw

[Mike M.]

Re: Since "here we go again" is not

don't jump ship john. we need to retain the likes of you. regards, mike

[Dick W.]

Re: Since "here we go again" is not

John, I do not perceive the shift to "must be original". I just think that the knowledge has increased and the judges are looking for "original appearing" items. There will always be the dyed in the wool purist that insist that everything has to be original, but like you, I have never had the fortune of having a totally original car to start with. One car I had had only one original door, gas tank with the sticker, the convertible deck lid and tub that was salvageable. Restoration engine, nos frame, interior, etc. I could not afford an original so I brought this one back from the grave....

To me this is the fun of showing. Showcase your skills.

[Michael W.]

I don't think any judge here

wants to be labelled a fool, nor should the hobby of restoring cars be called 'Lets fool the judges'

To do so shows a lack of respect for all concerned.

The goal of the hobby is to restore the car to factory original appearance. The measure of success is the Flight Judging process. The participants are the owner/restorer and the judges. The judge's job is to evaluate how well the car has been restored- NOT how 'original and unmolested' it is. There's a huge difference right there that many or most seem to overlook.

Any experienced judge knows full well that the car in front of him has been restored- meaning that any given component may or may not be the one that came on the car from the factory, in the condition that it is being presented.

There is no attempt to determine if the given component is actually THE factory original, merely if the component LOOKS LIKE the original.

This is irrespective of whether it's the paint, the engine stamp pad or the radio antenna.

If there is no deviation visible to the judge that he/she can quantify, no deduction is made and the judge moves on to the next area of interest.

Who has fooled who here?