1964 Dist cap

[Don M.]

Does anyone have experience with the Long Island corvette 327 non f.i. dist cap. It is Pat pending with no R. Does that pass with no deductions at a Regional level?

[Louis T.]

Re: 1964 Dist cap

Hi Don,



While some judges have had issues with the thickness of the lettering, and/or the depth of the casting indent holes, these are not the problem with the repro, as GM had multiple sources for their caps (they made hundreds of thousands of them after all) and they varied in these details. I have seen a number of original caps at a Judging School

Below are pictures of both sides of the adjustment window frame from an original D308 to illustrate this detail.

Louis

[Don M.]

Re: 1964 Dist cap

Louis, I would think there would be some sort of structure to the deduction. NOS no deduct, close repro -1, napa or whatever -2. I lost 1 point for an off brand cap. Why bother to buy the repro? Don

[Wayne M.]

Re: 1964 Dist cap

Hi Don,

..... as GM had multiple sources for their caps (they made hundreds of thousands of them after all) and they varied in these details....

Louis -- Weren't all Delco C1-2 distributors, including caps, produced in Anderson Indiana ?

It would probably be more instructive to DB participants if someone would post close-up pics of the areas in contention on a KNOWN REPRO. I've heard (maybe just a rumour) that there's also a noticeable difference in the plastic boss (for the sloted screw on each side) where it intersects with the main body of the cap.

[Jack H.]

Re: 1964 Dist cap

There IS a structure to deduction(s). It's been taught MANY times in various NCRS Judging Schools and Seminars....

In the absense of specific scoring guidance in the JG book AND what's presented in the rules of the NCRS Judging Reference Manual (see Standard Deduction section), judges should view the component in a 5-axis universe: Finish, Date, Installation, Configuration and Completeness.

Then, the deduction is 20% of the available originality points for each axis that is violated by the existing part in comparison to a known original. Fractional point deduction(s) are not allowed, so judges round up/down accordingly.

Now, the matrix scoring method isn't as clean/simple as I've indicated. The complicating factor is the structure of a given scoring line item.

They usually consist of at least one major item and may have multiple minor line items. For example: right front bumper, includes the bumper itself, the fasteners that affix it to the car and, perhaps, one or more attaching braces.

In this case, judges have to interpolate how many of the available originality points for the line item to assign to the major + minor components that constitute the line...

[Louis T.]

Re: 1964 Dist cap

Don,

I would venture to say that your judges were extremely generous if they only took off 1 point for an off-brand cap. The norm for an off-brand item is usually a total deduct for whatever points are attributable to that component. That said, it’s not easy to apportion 15 originality points within a system that includes the distributor itself, the cap, and the vacuum advance. The distributor alone has so many aspects to it including the ID band, tach drive mount, and mounting bracket and bolt. As Jack mentioned, we have the Standard Deductions and the Matrix Judging System, which attempt to standardize judging (where possible) and provide a framework to help keep deductions reasonable and consistent within their overall context of the component or system being judged.

Getting back to the cap, I’d have to estimate that it’s worth 3 points, 4 max, out of the 15, hence I personally wouldn’t deduct more than a point for the new repro's minor detail difference. We have to remember how long we’ve waited for a good repro cap. We can hope but realistically can’t expect all repro manufacturers to be as diligent and successful in their results as Tom Dewitt. If we don’t reward good efforts, we’ll have to live with crappy repros or none at all. One doesn’t have to go beyond this TDB to see the issue of so many parts not even available in a reproduction form that would come close to passing judging. We should always recognize and reward owners for original and correct parts, but also need to continue to balance rewarding original while providing reasonable credit for good repro efforts thus encouraging manufacturers to provide repros that are accurate or as accurate as reasonably and practically possible.

By the way, Wayne, you may be right about where they were they were produced - maybe it was one source but different molds over the years. Maybe Vinnie Peters can convince Bill Armstrong to photograph his D308 collection and write an article about this for The Restorer.

Louis


PS – Since we touched upon the off-brand issue, here’s an interesting twist for consideration. I’ve seen judges take a total deduct for a current service replacement AC Delco 40083 fuel pump, because the new ones have no identification whatsoever - the judges’ position is that they have no way of knowing that it’s not an off-brand. Not unreasonable thinking, but troubling to the car owner who did all the right things (buying one from a GM dealer or authorized AC Delco supplier) for what he expected was to be partial credit. I expect we’ll see a lot more of this in the future where the only place it says AC Delco is the box.

[William C.]

Re: 1964 Dist cap

Realisticly, the Judge doesn't see the box, only the configuration of the part. The fact that AC no longer makes mechanical fuel pumps means the part in the box isn't what it should be. At this point, AC-Delco is only a marketing arm, not a manufacturer.

[John H.]

Re: 1964 Dist cap

Delco had to make 1500-1800 of those caps per hour, so there were multiple (and multiple-cavity) injection molds; it wouldn't be uncommon to see minor differences from cavity to cavity. They didn't have the CNC mold-making technology in the 60's that we have today.

[Jack H.]

Re: 1964 Dist cap

"

That's a problem in my book! We have three discrete judging rules in our Standard Deductions. One deals with reproduction parts, the second deals with service replacement parts, and the third deals with 'incorrect' parts. I've seen WAY TOO MANY judges taking full deductions in this third area for my taste!

With the spin off of various GM producing divisions to Delphi, now complicated/compounded by GM's restructure under Chapter 11 emergence, the distinction on what constitutes a 'GM Service Replacement' part is VERY fuzzy.

The total deduction rule has two prerequisites:

(1) The part is non-GM
(2) The part is wrong

The Catch-22 here is the lack of definition(s) for what constitutes a 'GM part' and what does it mean to be 'wrong'?

Most all of the parts we buy today from Chevy, AC/Delco, Delphi, are now brand labeled and supplied by independent suppliers. Consider shock absorbers. They'll come in a Delco box with Delco PN, but what's inside is probably made in Mexico by either Gabriel or Monroe. Is that a GM Service Replacement part? Hey, you can show the judge the box and invoice... I'd say it IS!

On the issue of 'wrong', since we have the matrix system policy (Finish, Date, Installation, Configuration and Completeness), is it a matter of being a little bit wrong (just detectable) or all the way wrong (fails scrutiny tests on all five axis)? Personally, I'd opt for the later as there were running changes on bona fide service replacement parts from GM anyway and we routinely grant these some partial credit...

Last, on the full deduction criteria for the part being 'non-GM', why in *&^^ is that a condition? There were THOUSANDS of parts in these cars that were purchased rather than made by GM!

So, if I interpret this rule literally, as written, it can NOT apply to parts like fan clutch, turn signal flasher, wheels, Etc. That can't be how we intended the judging rule to be interpreted!

[Harry S.]

Re: 1964 Dist cap

I think the only way to get a full deduct is to show up without a fuelpump. Just my 2 cents.