Owner's packet question

[Marc S.]

It is my understanding when presenting contents of the owner's packet for judging as it pertains to the protecto plate that the information on the protecto plate is no longer considered. Therefore, as long as it is for my year car (a 1971 chevrolet car) that it would suffice for originality points and then condition will be evaluated.

Is this the same for the warranty booklet as well? What if the front of the booklet was not filled in with information (ie a NOS booklet). Would a blank booklet get a deduction for originality?

I would like clarification on this. Thanks.

[David P.]

Re: Owner's packet question

Good questions. I don't know about that; have to wait for the experts to weigh in. Here is a little info on POPs if it helps though, as I understand them. My warranty book is stamped "replacement" and is from the 2nd owner. I am the 4th.
20131115_091529.jpg
Each new owner of the car during the warranty period was to go to the dealer to get the POP updated with his/her new info on it. At that point, the POP was reissued and has a new sequence # under the tiny bowtie incremented by one to show the new owner's number. E.g. my POP shows it has been updated for the 2nd owner (see number "2"). I believe the owner name/info shown is the 2nd owner, to whom this POP was reissued.
20131115_091513_MirrorImage.jpg
The "339" reflects 33,900 miles on the car at the time of updating. The 5-50 is the original warranty period, 5 yrs/50k mi, of the drive train. The 1-1 is the date the car was originally put into service, January of '71.
Again, this is as I understand it. Hopefully others will correct me if I'm wrong in decoding the markings.

BTW, a neat trick to more easily read your POP is to take a picture and mirror the image on your computer, which is what I did for the pic above.

[Reba W.]

Re: Owner's packet question

I don't believe that they are judged in any way.

All judging sheets don't have the info but here is the wording from 1968-72 sheets: Warranty folder and P-O-P are not judged.

[Michael J.]

Re: Owner's packet question

IIRC, they just have to be there, along with anything else the TIM&JG says should be, and the proper year for your car, not judged otherwise.

[Jerome P.]

Re: Owner's packet question

I have a hard time understanding why the POP, etc.. was removed from judging. Doesn't the POP help add to the authenticity the car? My way of thinking is why shouldn't decals, labels and tags fall into this same category - "not judged"

The owner's packet and it's content all came with the car from the factory and therefore should be judged.

Does anyone know why the POP is no longer judged?

[Dick W.]

Re: Owner's packet question

I have a hard time understanding why the POP, etc.. was removed from judging. Doesn't the POP help add to the authenticity the car? My way of thinking is why shouldn't decals, labels and tags fall into this same category - "not judged"

The owner's packet and it's content all came with the car from the factory and therefore should be judged.

Does anyone know why the POP is no longer judged?

One of the reasons was that owners were spending sometimes stupid money for counterfeit paperwork. It was being used to document counterfeit cars and deceive potential buyers

[Jerome P.]

Re: Owner's packet question

I understand. Then shouldn't the same thought process be applied to many of the other components that are counterfeit. I am a strong advocate the decision to not judge the owner's packet along with its content, i.e. POP etc was a mistake. After all many, many dollars are spent annually on counterfeit parts and ultimately end up NCRS judged cars. The good judges are able to discern counterfeit from a true and correct component and appropriately reflect it their point tabulation.

If a restorer wishes to spend a lot of money for counterfeit parts that should be between him, his wallet and his conscience. The NCRS should return to judging the Owner's packet and it's content. Just my thoughts.

[Marc S.]

Re: Owner's packet question

A little birdie told me that the reason was indeed to prevent reproduction protecto plates. I also was told you didn't have to have the same year and make as your car. It just had to be from a Chevy. I am reading otherwise here. What is the official word on this?

[Michael J.]

Re: Owner's packet question

You need to read your TIM&JG very closely. I don't know about '71, but for '67 the contents of the glove box are spelled out precisely by part number, dates ('67 Owners Guide for instance, and dates for edition it should be), and a warranty book and POP that match the VIN of the car.

My '64 shows picture of the items, dates on them, and part numbers. Pretty specific stuff. Maybe '71 is very lax?

[Reba W.]

Re: Owner's packet question

Former judging chair Roy Sinor explained the deletion of P-O-P in his Restorer judging message about a year ago. If anything has changed with the new chairman, it has not been published.

The 1970-72 JG spells out a list of items also but that guide is several years old. The reason the 1968-72 judging sheets lists the deletion was that they were in a revision process when Roy made the announcement. I believe such an announcement supersedes TIM & JG lists.

[Michael J.]

Re: Owner's packet question

Interesting if the requirement for a POP was removed for the '68-'72, and then the '67 one I have, which just came out less than 6 months ago, 5th Edition, strengthens it from the 4th Edition. The 4th Edition just says you need an "owner protection plan and warranty book" Whereas the 5th Edition says "Owner Protection Plan Warranty Booklet including Protect-O-Plate with correct VIN matching the car (Do Not Judge POP)" Why did all the rules change in 1968?

[Dick W.]

Re: Owner's packet question

Unless it has been published to the contrary NO POP is to be judged per post Judging Chairperson Roy Sinor

[Marc S.]

Re: Owner's packet question

It is pretty clear the pop isnt judged from the replies. Is it the same for warranty booklet? Will a sane year warranty book with no information on the front be acceptable? I also take it that it should be from the year your car is also.

[Harry S.]

Re: Owner's packet question

Marc, the data is not judged but you meed the paperwork/booklets. It's all layed out in the JG.

[Terry M.]

Re: Owner's packet question

Interesting if the requirement for a POP was removed for the '68-'72, and then the '67 one I have, which just came out less than 6 months ago, 5th Edition, strengthens it from the 4th Edition. The 4th Edition just says you need an "owner protection plan and warranty book" Whereas the 5th Edition says "Owner Protection Plan Warranty Booklet including Protect-O-Plate with correct VIN matching the car (Do Not Judge POP)" Why did all the rules change in 1968?

No rules change; the wording is just a matter of where the particular TIM&JG was in the revision process when Roy made his announcement. As I recall that announcement he spelled out all his reasons in there. Why all the questions when it was only about a year ago? Oh I know = short term memory. I have those problems too.