Judging Conventions vs. Originality

[Edward B.]

The latest issue of THE CORVETTE RESTORER has a nicely illustrated article (page 18) about refreshing a 1972 differential, which work was occasioned by a points deduction at the 2014 National for incorrect axle side yokes. Upon reading the article, including the author's self questioning about replacing a U-bolt assembly that may well have been original to the vehicle simply because it does not meet current judging guidelines leads me to once again question the authoritative stance encouraged by NCRS and supported by "standards" that seem to leave no room for production line anomalies. When an owner is forced to make a substitution for a part that may be original "to avoid any deductions in the future," it throws into question the rigor with which we defend standards that are sometimes arbitrary and capricious. Anomalies should be celebrated and preserved, not condemned solely because they do not meet our later date paper ideal as to how things were back in the day.

[Gene M.]

Re: Judging Conventions vs. Originality

Ed, i suggest you put photos of the questioned yokes that were replaced. This will enable members here to see for themselves if the yokes are correct or not. To get full credit under CDCIF all the parameters must be met. If not expect deductions. Close enough is good in horse shoes but not Corvette judging. Being they were replaced puts doubt in one’s mind as to yokes appearing as original. That’s my reason for good clear photos.

Time period, configuration, markings, parting lines, finish, are just a few of the things that must pass mustard to get full credit.

It is not fair to complain about the judging without presenting a photo of the concern.

[Patrick H.]

Re: Judging Conventions vs. Originality

The latest issue of THE CORVETTE RESTORER has a nicely illustrated article (page 18) about refreshing a 1972 differential, which work was occasioned by a points deduction at the 2014 National for incorrect axle side yokes. Upon reading the article, including the author's self questioning about replacing a U-bolt assembly that may well have been original to the vehicle simply because it does not meet current judging guidelines leads me to once again question the authoritative stance encouraged by NCRS and supported by "standards" that seem to leave no room for production line anomalies. When an owner is forced to make a substitution for a part that may be original "to avoid any deductions in the future," it throws into question the rigor with which we defend standards that are sometimes arbitrary and capricious. Anomalies should be celebrated and preserved, not condemned solely because they do not meet our later date paper ideal as to how things were back in the day.