'Correct'vs 'Original'

[Mel Goff #33968]

I have a question that I and probably many new members would appreciate being clarified. After purchasing a '74 BB coupe last year with the original engine, and most all other component's numbers matching, find myself in search of a mid-year BB car.

What troubles me is that I have seen reference in some posts referring to the engine pad number as being 'correct'(vin and suffix stamp) matching what is listed in NCRS and other reliable publications for the particular car.

The reference to an 'original'(matching #'s) motor is quite clear, in that this car is equipped with the motor that was originally installed from the factory.

My questions to the above as follows:

(1) Does the term 'correct'refer to a NOM that has been carefully selected with the proper engine block number and casting date; with a re-stamped engine pad to 'correctly' reflect the car's vin/engine HP?

(2) What is the NCRS definition on 'correct' as I have described above?

(3) Is the practice of re-stamping a NOM block to reflect as 'correct' an accecpable practice?

Thanks in advance for your replies on this matter.....Mel

[Dale Pearman]

"CORRECT" is a NO-NO!

In NCRS, use of the terms, "right", "wrong", "correct", "incorrect" and "reproduction" is discouraged. Use of any of these terms on the judging firld has been deemed politically undesirable due to the impact such usage might have on the owner. In order to score well in judging a given component must APPEAR as if it is the component that was on the car when manufactured. If you choose to create an engine block, (note avoidance of the terms, "restamp", "replace" for political reasons), it's OK to do so and in order to score well the pad surface as well as stamped numbers should appear as typical of factory production.

Dale Pearman

[Chris H.]

Re: 'Correct'vs 'Original'

To me, original is the most desirable. Obviously if it's original it's correct.

Next on my desirablity scale is non original but "correct" meaning an identical part (motor) to the original was installed when the first motor blew up.

Prices reflect the stwo scenarios too.

Some people try to pass of a correct replacement by altering the stamped numbers on the engine to convince you it's original.

[Jack H.]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder....

I think Dale has stated the case very well! Plus, this has been the subject of MANY other threads on this board. At NCRS (NCCB/Bloomington as well), there are two distinct segments of concours judging. Our restored category is called Flight (Bloomington calls it Certification). Our unrestored category is call Bowtie (Bloomington calls it Survivor). A factory original Corvette that was immediately put on blocks and stored would obviously qualify for competition in both categories and there ARE a handful of such cars out there....

Now, if a Corvette has lost its factory original motor over the years, what do we do? Condemn the car, take it to the crusher and 'punish' it for the sins of prior owners?

Some say yes, others say no. This is a personal opinion issue that each owner gets to contend with and make his/her mind on.... The rules for restored cars simply require each/every part to conform to certain standards (some published, some not published -- but NCRS goes further than any other organization in Corvettedom to reduce its standards to writing) for a component 'appearing' as if it 'could' have been the original item that shipped from the factory on a given vehicle.

In original category judging, condition of a given component is mostly overlooked and originality becomes the watch word. Example: say a carb has lost the lion's share of its original plating, looks pretty tuckered out, and judges can find no evidence of it's ever having been removed -- full credit! On the other hand if that carb has correct numbers/dates to match the engine and there are obvious wrench marks on attaching fasteners, factory paint has been disturbed and the intake gasket is an obvious non-original replacement -- full deduct! Why? The carb's been off the engine and even though it appears correct, we can't trust it hasn't been replaced somewhere along the line with a functional clone.....

Back to your engine issue. Would you rather have a nice clean, healthy correct casting/casting date motor that has been 'undetectably' restamped under your hood who's only 'sin' is it spent its prior life in a Chevy passenger car/truck, or would you prefer the factory original engine that was freeze cracked and somebody went inside and made fragile welds on the casting to 'restore' the car? Not an easy answer now, is it?

Of course the best of both worlds ('correct' and 'original') is the best way out of our dilema, but this doesn't always happen. Then, there's that myraid of 'other' little parts that, in the end, add up to BIG MONEY to put right that are also dated/identifiable. Each decides in his/her own way what right is. Our rules simply require a restored car to appear correct/original....

[Mel Goff #33968]

Re: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder....

Jack...

Your answers as well as Dale's have put to rest my concerns about this issue. I thank you guys for sharing your knowledge with all of us.

Mel Goff

[Dale Pearman]

BOWTIE JUDGING 1999

Jack, in your post you state that in Bowtie judging if it is detected that a compponent has been removed, say for cleaning, and then replaced, it fails regardless if the part is original to the car or not. This removal/replacement issue is still being debated among the team leaders and Roy Sinor as far as I know. I'm not aware of a definate policy as of this point in time.

Last year at Nationals, the remove and flunk policy was in effect for 1958-60 while the reverse policy was in effect for 1961-62. Regrettably, one gentleman with a super unmolested 1960 was denied a mechanical star because he removed several original components for cleaning. I judged a 1962 and discovered removals but was instructed to pass the components if I felt they were original to the car.

I hope the more liberal policy is adopted. A 40 year old car certainly must have had the carburetor/distributor out of the engine a time or two. What about the turn signal switch? The wheel has to come off to fix that puppy.

Varooom

[Gary S.]

Re: 'Correct'vs 'Original'

I'll put my two cents in here for you. I have bought a zillion midyears and seen most every motor claim by now. If you are reading ads, don't assume they are accurate in reference to the motor (or anything else). A claim of original motor may not be. A claim of NOM may turn out to be original. Check them all out. Many people advertise "matching numbers" as a safeguard for themselves. They either do, or do not know if the car has the original engine and don't want to be sued. You have to be the judge. Don't assume all owners of these cars being advertised "know" as much as all the smart people writing on this duscussion board. Stampings and stamp pads can have abnormalities and still be original. An owner may claim "original engine" because the person he bought it from said it was. Or, he looked up the numbers in a book and they were correct. I always suggest to buyers that if they do not know how to determine if an engine is original, and that is important to them, then take someone with you who does. Nothing worse than finding out AFTER the purchase, your original engine you bought is not. Good luck.

[Jack H.]

Re: BOWTIE JUDGING 1999

Gotta agree, Dale, there's a lot of room for refinement in our policies. On the other hand, view from the angle I outlined (didn't say was hard/fast rule) -- if we can see the item's been removed, where do we elect to err?

Is it wise to encourage owners to bring cars with carbs/fuel lines leaking to the point of DANGER just to say something's the real McCoy? On the other hand, once you open Pandora's Box and look the other way on this/that critical item that's obviously been removed (for whatever reason), don't we encourage the 'manufacture' of Bowtie cars?

I'll be the first to say, "I know I don't know what's 'correct'". Plus, I was simply trying to draw (maybe by exaggeration) the slender distinction between restored and original -- this was the intent of the original thread.... Peace be with us and let all readers know: (1) this is OUR club regardless of whether you're an owner or a judge, (2) we learn new things every day, (3) if this were as simple as a solved science (no art content), we'd simply turn things over to a set of optical recognition robots, program the heuristics, and be done with it. BUT, that would defeat the enthusiasm for fun, commaraderirie, and the thrill of discovery on these cars. So, if you live by the 'pen' you die by the 'pen' and just because we have reduced our rules to writing does NOT mean we've put everything in print and there's an 'algorithm' for how to restore/maintain this/that Corvette....

[Jeff]

Give me a break...

...I flew to see a dead original, one owner, 25,000 mile C1 a few months ago. When the car was fairly new, the owners' son insisted that they install mags and wider tires so his parents went along with it. Once the original, 80 year old owner decided to offer the car for sale (just recently) he reinstalled the original wheels, tires (which had never been dismounted) and wheelcovers.

You're gonna tell me you'd want to do any deduct at all, much less a full deduct for that because the lug nuts were scraped? Are you saying the car would judge the same whether or not you showed up with the Hurst wheels and Wide Ovals or its original wheels and tires? That lends a lot of credibilty to the process.

If the guy with the (dreaded) 12 mile L-88 had pulled the engine, put it on a stand and then reinstalled it before he sold it when he scrapped his race plans, that car would lose all originality points for the engine and engine compartment? Get real.

If a 33 year old engine with 12 miles or 40 year old wheels with original paint, tires and wheel weights aren't survivors, then what is?

JP

[Jack H.]

PS

Granddad, Father, Brother and two uncles were attorneys from Big Ten. I said I wanted to be an engineer and you could hear a pin drop! They gave me the 'acid test' and humored me by letting me attend engineering school....

I learned, by being near law, you look for errors of omission AND commission in documents + you look for author intent as well as compromise. Pick up any NCRS Judging Guide and Technical Information Manual and read it closely. You can hear, see, smell the smoke filled rooms, near lethal 'discussion', and the endless manhours of interchange/compromise that went into getting to what we have today (you ought to know because your name pops up endlessly in straight axle book credit acknowledgements). You'll see the 'some original cars have been seen with...' and 'known orignals have X, Y, and/or Z marks' interlaced in the text. It's obvious there were compromises made to get to where we are today and our applause goes to those who volunteered their time, personal knowledge, and experience to reduce to writing what we have, that's admittedly flawed and incomplete!!!!

Had the opportunity two years ago to entertain the Jaguar crowd at a Denver Chapter meet. They were on a voyage of due diligence to understand what NCRS had in terms of Corvettes and how to pick the high points and consider adopting it into their concours culture (they were holding their National Convention in Colorado Springs later that year).

Between this/that routine activity in putting on a Chapter meet, Howard Loomis and I took time out to meet with, walk, talk, show and tell things to 'em. They were BLOWN AWAY when they saw the hundreds, maybe thousands, of printed pages we had for Flight, Performance Verification, Etc. Then, discussions changed to Bowtie vs. Flight and we spent a few minutes on our Recognition Programs (for Judges and Tabulators). It was like the aftermath of WW1 or WW2... the shell shock of how much ground had been covered by so many GIVING of their time to HELP OTHERS and understand/document the Corvette marque!

Yes, we can concentrate on our shortcomings and point to the discrepancies here/there, but that's NEGATIVE! The right way, in my mind, to go forward is to look at folks like Roy Sinor, Dennis Clark, Chuck Berge, and others and say THANK YOU for the time/effort you gave to this hobby of ours, however imperfect it may be today -- we have a SOLID basis to iterate on and go forward with.

Yep, I'm personally down on those who want a 'quick answer' and denigrate the discrepancies in our rules. They lack the sophitication to understand this is LABOR OF LOVE endeavor by VOLUNTEERS for the benefit of posterity. The whole idea of NCRS was people helping people and, in the end, the cars become a second place consideration because they will outlive us all. Anything that's done today can be undone tomorrow. What counts is getting the frame work better, more accurate, for the club's motto -- restoration/preservation!

[Jack H.]

Re: Give me a break...

Now put yourself in the judge's shoes.... There ARE isolated examples of cars out there that do NOT have OBVIOUS evidence of part removal. Second, one individual part or another doesn't bar the car's chances for recognition. Third, Bowtie recognition is a priviledge not a right (can only be attempted once) and once the score sheets are tallied there's a VOTE on whether or not the car merits recognition REGARDLESS of its score (criteria is whether or not the car is a SIGNIFICANT example of Corvette/automotive history). This is very much a judgement call....

These are very different criteria from the restored segment of our award categories. Understanding the rules of Bowtie and their significance to the recognition is important. They ARE published....

Also, age factor acts as a score multiplier (it's easier to find an unmolested example of, say, an '81 than it is to encounter a '55). So, there are considerations in the award that aren't straight forward. Each thread here where folks have thought about vying a given car for Bowtie and asked the NDB advice on approach have been pretty consistent -- DO NOTHING to prepare the car; leave it alone and let it stand on its own merit!

That's the thread of what I was saying. Yep, I may be wrong here/there and we can engage in Senatorial debate over what's fair/proper, but the bottom line TODAY is: Bowtie cars either are or are NOT winners -- you can't manufacture 'em and that seems to be what the club wants. Plus, the club is OUR club and everyone who wants to get active/donate their time has a say. Don't look for 'Big Brother' scheming in the background to do somebody in, because he doesn't exist. This is a volunteer organization and THEM = US....

[Jack H.]

ATTABOY!

My applause is infinte to this post! In my opinion it's the 'quick and dirty' approach that seeks to simplify things to a catch-all phrase like 'NOM' or 'numbers matching'....

Truth is it takes eleven judges and the better part of a day to run up a set of Flight scores. AND, even then, I guarantee you there WILL be errors of omission and errors of commission! There are simply too many 'numbers' and considerations on a given car to reduce things to the simplicity of a catch all phrase or too....

Some are rich in time others rich in $$$. Either way you look at it, few are rich in both assets and that's what's needed to make a truly accurate appraisal of 'original/correct' on a given Corvette. Bottom line, do you really care?

At NCRS we give points (SIGNIFICANT) for putting the car on the road, driving it to a meet, and sharing it with other members in the Judging/display activity. Anything that's 'reasonably' a second Flight Corvette can garner a Top Flight certificate if the owner simply wants to risk wear/tear and pay the gasoline costs!

On the other hand, there are some club 'sacred' awards like Mark of Excellence or Bowtie, that focus CLOSELY on the car and the owner's effort together. These are as intended, tough to toss money at and buy and/or luck into....

So, if you want a nice Corvette, you're willing to drive it, WE LOVE YOU! Forget about this/that microscopic issue. Just buy the car you want to 'partner' with and come on out! We're all waiting to share your slice of classic Corvette history with us and we welcome you into our ranks....

[Dale Pearman]

TEARS TO MY EYES-RATED PG 13

Very well said Jack, I'm wiping the tears from my eyes after your post. I sorta expected something about apple pie and the flag as well but what ya said was fine.

My point is that the powers that be oughta make up their minds and state a policy such that guys who wanna show bowtie won't screw up their chances through misunderstanding. I'm still feeling the pain of that 1960 owner with 100% original stuff that flunked due to his efforts to clean it. Bowtie cars don't have to be started so the safety angle dosen't count. Ever since the bowtie award was initiated, guys have been "manufacturing" components in varying degrees. This isn't right and as judges we need to guard aginst the practice. I've heard of some folks who bury parts in the ground for aging purposes. Just about EVERY bowtie candidate needs a little help here and there and owners are hard pressed to resist the temptation.

Is this "our club" regardless of whether we are owners or judges or is it the club of the "ELITE" created through political back-scratching? We as owners and judges must conform to the edicts of the elite! It is "our club" only if you are part of the ruling class! I've been very upset over the last few years as I see NCRS tending to go the route of the Thunderbird organization. Politics killed that club!

Yes we learn new stuff every day and our activities constitute an art rather than a science. THANK GOD! I dread the day when our reasoning is reduced to conformity with someone's algorithm. What ever happened to just putting the top down and raising a little hell on the boulevard while impressing the babes?

Rev. Varooom!

[Dale Pearman]

Re: PS

JACK! Take a cold shower, get some rest, and afterward, GET A LIFE!

Varooom!

[Dale Pearman]

Re: ATTABOY!

Aren't politicians usually lawyers?

Varooom!