Tweet
A similar issue is the use of a monocular ('broach buster') to give judges a nice close-up view of the engine stamp pad. While many individual judges have one, few chapters have made the investment for this judging tool.
This is an area I really oppose. The use of such is only to determine ORIGINALITY. It has nothing to do with appearing to be as the factory built it as the depth of detail is beyond the naked eye. And these are not used on other components.
Also, to do so when not judging other major components really sends a message to the public that the original engine is the most valuable part of the car and NCRS says so.
If you look at the amount of orange peel in the new Corvettes' paint, do you find anyone deducting for lack of orange peel? That is something you can see with the naked eye.
This is an area I really oppose. The use of such is only to determine ORIGINALITY. It has nothing to do with appearing to be as the factory built it as the depth of detail is beyond the naked eye. And these are not used on other components.
Also, to do so when not judging other major components really sends a message to the public that the original engine is the most valuable part of the car and NCRS says so.
If you look at the amount of orange peel in the new Corvettes' paint, do you find anyone deducting for lack of orange peel? That is something you can see with the naked eye.