'65 Hubcaps

**Noel K.** · August 16, 2007, 10:22 AM

Re: '65 Hubcaps

i lost all points for originality and condition at a chapter judging meet. The hubcaps look nice, but they are, apparently, chromed - not stainless. Judges comments " repro wheel covers - should be polished stainless not chrome"

10 point deduction for originality 10 point deduction for condition. Brand new spinners were purchased at the same time as the hub caps were marked "GM restoration part" on the box. I lost all points on these also. Judges comments "centers too deep." 5 points originality and 5 points condition.

30 point deduction in total ! ! ! ! !

Comments from folks after getting the judging sheets back indicate the judge may have been a little (sic) overzealous.

best of luck

Noel Kendall

**Noel K.** · August 16, 2007, 10:24 AM

Re: '65 Hubcaps

BTW,

the car scored 93.2. I cannot bring myself to do the math to see what and additional 30 points would have done ! ! ! 8 >)

**Gary B.** · August 16, 2007, 12:17 PM

Deducts for repro hubcaps, spinners; judging error

Noel,

I think you got an unknowledgeable judge. Originality is based on 5 factors: configuration, installation, completeness, finish, and date. Chrome vs. stainless would be finish, so in my view you should have received a 20% or 2 point originality deduct for the repro wheel covers and you would then have likely recevied all the condition points. So, instead of a 20 pt deduct, you should have gotten a 2 point deduct.

Regarding the spinners, I think the deduct should have been for configuration, if centers to deep was the only obvious difference and the deduct would have been 20% of 5 pts = 1 pt; plus you would get all the condition points. So, instead of losing a total of 30, you should have lost 3. I really don't see how the deduct could have been more than 3 for originality.

Gary

**John S.** · August 16, 2007, 12:47 PM

Re: '65 Hubcaps

Noel,

I don't know if the hubcaps on your car are the latest reproductions available from Corvette Specialties of Maryland. My understanding is that the hubcaps manufactured by the Corvette Specialties of Maryland are stainless steel and are very accurate reproductions and should thus recive "full" credit.

**Jack H.** · August 16, 2007, 04:15 PM

I agree, BUT...

The concept of giving partial credit on originality based on Finish, Date, Installation, Configuration and Completeness is frequently dumped into the waste receptical by some judges based on a seemingly contrary judging rule...

In the Judging Reference Manual, go to Section 4, Standard Deductions, Rule 10, Incorrect Replacement Parts. Note it says,

"Non-GM replacement parts which are incorrect are subject to a 100% deduction on both originality and condition."

Then, contrast that to Rule 6, GM Service Replacement Parts and to Rule 7, Reproduction Parts. Pretty quickly you'll see the wording used is technically obsolete now and downright confusing!!!

These rules were written well before GM did a spin-off creating Delphi and are badly in need of update/clarification. For example, today, technically everything that has AC, Delco, Packard, Etc. on the box is NON-GM!!! So, we ought to be enforcing Rule 10 and taking FULL DEDUCTIONS for these parts, giving generous partial credit for poorly crafted reproductions and making owners PROVE the AC/Delco/Packard parts they bought and installed were pre-Delphi, bona fide old stock....

Methinks this is NOT what Rule 10 was intended to do!

Further, you can buy reproduction parts through many Chevy dealership parts departments. Does that change the part's status from non-GM/Reproduction to a GM Service Replacement Part?

We had a situation like this come up at a local Chapter meet two years ago where I was doing Shark chassis judging. One car was a pretty straight old girl (factory original paint & interior) but the shocks lacked their correct Delco Remy emboss and date codes although they were painted properly.

I asked my team leader for a copy of the Judging Reference Manual to consult the standard deduction rules and he replied, "You don't need that, they're obviously non-GM and automatically qualify for a FULL DEDUCTION."

Being the 'nice guy' I am, I replied, "You can replace me as a judge or over rule me on appeal, but until then I make the individual scoring calls along with my partner." He backed off...

In my book, the key operative in Rule 10 is the word 'incorrect'. Without further clarification from the top, that means it fails ALL FIVE of the originality axis (Finish, Date, Installation, Configuration and Completeness) to me. These shocks were NOT the correct Configuration and not the correct Date, but they passed muster on the remaining three axis (Finish, Installation and Completeness).

That's how we ruled. We took a 40% deduction on originality and gave full credit for condition.

After the score sheets were turned in, I went with the team leader to talk to the owner. Guess what? He'd purchased the shocks through GM Service at a local Chevy dealer. They came in a Delco box marked 'Made in Mexico' and were built by Monroe (if memory serves) under contract to Delco!

Yep, he'd repainted the shocks. They DID have embossed marks quite different from factory original Delcos of the era along with a slightly different geometry and method of date coding.

Bottom line it can get confusing out on the judging field. Different judges interpert our rules differently. But, absent a specific guideline in either the Judging Guide or the Judging Reference Manual for a total deduction on a specific part, I don't think owners should simply 'knuckle under' because a given set of judges believe this/that part qualifies under Rule 10 for a total deduction...

**Gary B.** · August 16, 2007, 05:34 PM

Rule 10 vs. five originality aspects

Jack,

I agree complelety with you that the interpretation of Rule 10 revolves around the intent of thw ord "incorrect". And I too would interpet that word to mean that an item must fail all five of the originality aspects in order to be incorrect and for the Rule 10 deduct to apply. If that is the rubric we use, then Rule 10 and the five aspects can be viewed as consistent.

I don't believe the intent of Rule 10 was to lead to total deducts for items like the repro wheel covers. A total deduct in such cases would be inconsistent with my philosophy of judging, which is to err on the side of the owner in confusing, ambiguous or inconsistent judging guidelines.

But I also agree, it's up to the owner to challenge the judges in cases like the wheel covers.

Gary

**Mike G.** · August 16, 2007, 07:44 PM

Originals ARE Chromed!!

Noel: Original '65 caps are stainless steel, but they are also flash chromed.

Anybody who contests this is just showing their lack of knowledge. By the way, '66 caps are the same: flash chromed stainless.

Mike

**John S.** · August 16, 2007, 07:51 PM

Re: Rule 10 vs. five originality aspects

Gary,

Please keep in mind that this is a "hobby" and challenging judges only plromotes a confrontational environment and takes away from the fun of the sport.

**Larry L.** · August 16, 2007, 09:34 PM

Re: '65 Hubcaps

I was one of the three judges that judged your hub caps. We may have been a little too hard but the hub caps were all wrong. They could not even pass as stand - off scale.
It is harsh to you but to give points is unfair to the guy next to you that had a perfect set of 65 hub caps on his 65.

You have made a substantial improvement in the cars quality and correctness.

Don't be too bumbed out about the hub cap scores. We also gave you a pass on a reproduction antenna because it looked almost like an orig. except it is too short.

The goal is to help you get it right and suceed in you restoration.
If we gave you a top flight and you took it to a regional, you would not get a top flight. This would reflect negatively on our chaper judging and judges.
Several owners have had good luck with our judging of their cars. If they get a top flight at our chapter meets, they fix the things that need to be fixed, At the regional and national they do well.

It would also be a wasted of your time and money. You paid to have it judged so you would know what is wrong and we would be doing you a dis-service by not being truthful.

**Gary B.** · August 16, 2007, 10:38 PM

'65 hubcaps deduct; Larry, can you clarify?

Larry,

SInce I'm always eager to learn more about the judging process, can you tell me your thought process for the total originality deduct on the '65 repro hubcaps? Was it based on Rule 10? If so, when do you apply Rule 10 vs. deducting via the the five aspects of originality at 20% deduct per aspect?

Thanks,

Gary

**Dick G.** · August 17, 2007, 10:05 AM

Re: '65 hubcaps deduct; Larry, can you clarify?

Speaking of 65 hubcaps. Can someone tell me what paint they used for the correct color when restoring their hubcaps. I thought I had read that NAPA's cast gray was correct? Thanks DG

**Jack H.** · August 17, 2007, 10:58 AM

Re: Rule 10 vs. five originality aspects

You can talk to judges and appeal a scoring without being argumentative or 'rude'.... Remember, this is our club and on any given day some of us play the role of owner while others are judges. But, we're all MEMBERS of NCRS and we pay the same annual dues.

'Discussing' a judge's ruling on the Flight Score Sheet is a basic right and if done in a nice, friendly and non-confrontational manner is perfectly legitimate. It's when folks 'lose it' and throw temper tantrums on the judging field that problem(s) result...

**Page C.** · August 18, 2007, 02:50 PM

5 Factor Judging

One thing that I don't agree with in the 5 factor scoring is giving 20% to some items that can't be installed but one way. Why should a hubcap or shock receive a automatic 20% of the 5 factor scoring when it can only be installed one way.
IMHP a judge needs to weigh what is most important in the FDICC scoring and not take the easy route of giving the 20% for items that I all but meanless.
Regards,
Page Campbell

**Jack H.** · August 18, 2007, 05:07 PM

Not all replacement parts install the same way...

Consider a set of Made in Taiwan trim rings with 360-degree, all-grip. They install quite differently from factory original trim rings that sported four discrete, over the rim, clips. Those parts WOULD lose originality points based on Installation.

It's simply a way of life that the majority of non-original, replacement parts actually do install the same way as the real McCoy original components. But, it's not a universal truth for all parts.

Yep, the 5-axis scoring system does suffer when you consider Installation and Completeness, but that's what we've been taught (equal weighting along each axis). So, the issue should be addressed with the one who commissioned the late John Woods to conduct these judging schools since that's where 'policy' was set...