Owner's packet question - NCRS Discussion Boards

Owner's packet question

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Terry M.
    Beyond Control Poster
    • September 30, 1980
    • 15573

    #16
    Re: Owner's packet question

    Originally posted by Marc Siegel (58097)
    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.
    Marc, for your 1971, and other 1968-1972 Corvettes, the PoP is supposed to be attached to the Warranty booklet. I suppose if they are not attached a condition deduction would be in order. I don't know what information you want on the front, but my original has no information (accept printing) on the front. The dealer name is ink stamped on the back and some line has handwriting on it, but I can't remember what that is. Might be my name or salesman's name. I don't remember. It has been too long since I have seen it.

    To answer the kinds of questions you ask one first has to decide what the standard 'dealer new-car preparation' was. The answer to that question is at least a four or five beer discussion and at the end of that no one participating in the discussion will care about the answer, nor will they remember the question.
    Terry

    Comment

    • Marc S.
      Expired
      • February 17, 2013
      • 224

      #17
      Re: Owner's packet question

      Does anyone have a copy of Roy sinors announcement regarding this? I like to read it.

      Comment

      • Michael J.
        Extremely Frequent Poster
        • January 27, 2009
        • 7073

        #18
        Re: Owner's packet question

        Originally posted by Terry McManmon (3966)
        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.
        You can only forget something Terry, if you actually heard or read it. I never heard or read what Roy said (sorry, must have missed that Restorer article), but now I am wondering if the parenthetical expression of Do Not Judge POP in the '67 5th Edition means all the preceding sentence is "never mind"? In other words, for '67, do you need a POP with a VIN that matches the car or not? If you still need that, what does Do Not Judge POP really mean???? In my mind, if you still need a POP with the correct VIN, and you don't have one, you will have to go get one from a person that produces reproduction POPs, right? Whether it is "judged" or not, in that case, seems to defeat the purpose of the Roy resolution on POPs to cut down on paperwork masters. I think this still needs clarification someplace (score sheets etc.) for people looking at getting their cars judged.
        Big Tanks In the High Mountains of New Mexico

        Comment

        • Marc S.
          Expired
          • February 17, 2013
          • 224

          #19
          Re: Owner's packet question

          I am still unclear on this. I am in the process of creating a packet and found some items I am considering buying. Tough to spend money when you arent one hundred percent sure what is required.

          Comment

          • Reba W.
            Very Frequent User
            • June 30, 1985
            • 932

            #20
            Re: Owner's packet question

            The article is on Page 5 of the Winter 2013 issue. Roy sent out any judging rules updates just before the Florida meet each year.

            Comment

            • Marc S.
              Expired
              • February 17, 2013
              • 224

              #21
              Re: Owner's packet question

              Originally posted by Reba Whittington (8804)
              The article is on Page 5 of the Winter 2013 issue. Roy sent out any judging rules updates just before the Florida meet each year.
              Thanks, I look on my bookshelf and this happens to be issue that isn't there. I may have packed it with my stuff last week but it is MIA. If someone could scan the announcement and post it up that would be great.

              Comment

              • Peter S.
                Very Frequent User
                • March 28, 2012
                • 327

                #22
                Re: Owner's packet question

                Marc,

                This is the bullet Reba is referring to in the Judging Chairman's Message:


                "Effictive January 1, 2013, NCRS will no longer judge or assign points to the dealership-issued GM item known in C2 and C3 generations as the "Protect-O-Plate" and in the C4 generation as the 'Protection Plan ID Card' or 'Vehicle Identification Card.' NCRS will continue to describe and reference these items in our Technical Information manual and Judging Guides, but they will not be required in the owner's packet, and they will NOT be judged. NO points will be assigned to these items. These items are the only GM document we have ever judged with the car, and there is nothing good to be gained by the continued practice."

                Comment

                • Peter S.
                  Very Frequent User
                  • March 28, 2012
                  • 327

                  #23
                  Re: Owner's packet question

                  Originally posted by Harry Sadlock (38513)
                  Marc, the data is not judged but you meed the paperwork/booklets. It's all layed out in the JG.
                  Harry,

                  Roy's note makes it sound explicitly clear that it is not required in the owners packet.

                  Comment

                  • Harry S.
                    Extremely Frequent Poster
                    • July 31, 2002
                    • 5258

                    #24
                    Re: Owner's packet question

                    Originally posted by Peter Stout (54749)
                    Harry,

                    Roy's note makes it sound explicitly clear that it is not required in the owners packet.
                    We're talking about two different things. For an example, there is no POP in 63 but the owner protection plan is judged, we just don't judge what is written in it.


                    Comment

                    • Jerome P.
                      Expired
                      • October 22, 2006
                      • 607

                      #25
                      Re: Owner's packet question

                      After all this -- Is it correct to say for judging purposes; the owners packet should contain the "New Vehicle Warranty" booklet, but not necessarily needed is the actual metal P-O-P piece?



                      Doe anyone know if GM supplied the P-O-P with the car's vehicle information embossed on it and the dealer supplied (taped) the owner's name and info on to the plate? Or in the alternative did the dealer have a supply of blank P-O-P's and did it all?

                      Comment

                      • Terry M.
                        Beyond Control Poster
                        • September 30, 1980
                        • 15573

                        #26
                        Re: Owner's packet question

                        Originally posted by Jerome Pederson (46381)
                        Doe anyone know if GM supplied the P-O-P with the car's vehicle information embossed on it and the dealer supplied (taped) the owner's name and info on to the plate? Or in the alternative did the dealer have a supply of blank P-O-P's and did it all?
                        The PoP was stamped with the vehicle data at St Louis. The dealer THEN added the first owner's data when the car was sold.
                        Terry

                        Comment

                        • Michael J.
                          Extremely Frequent Poster
                          • January 27, 2009
                          • 7073

                          #27
                          Re: Owner's packet question

                          OK, I'm trying to understand, so in other words, a portion of the words written in the 5th Edition TIM&JG for the '67, issued Sept., 2013 that says the glove box contents must include:'"Owner Protection Plan Warranty Booklet including Protect-O-Plate with correct VIN matching the car"...are thus null and void. You do NOT have to have a POP that contains the correct VIN for the car, but you do need a warranty book from 1967, correct? I know the inner circle judges may have known this for months, but us non-inner circle judges who just have cars judged do not, at least speaking for myself.
                          Big Tanks In the High Mountains of New Mexico

                          Comment

                          • Jerome P.
                            Expired
                            • October 22, 2006
                            • 607

                            #28
                            Re: Owner's packet question

                            Thanks Terry for your answer to my second question. Can you help me out with my first question in the same post?


                            Also, I am still not clear as to why the PoP was dropped as a judged component of the judging process. It certainly wasn't dropped because individuals were being duped and spending to much money for counterfeits. There has to be more to it than money. Like I said earlier; "If a restorer wishes to spend a lot of money for counterfeit parts that should be between him, his wallet and his conscience." and let the judges handle validating the originality and condition of the car as they have done in the past.

                            Comment

                            • Jim T.
                              Expired
                              • March 1, 1993
                              • 5351

                              #29
                              Re: Owner's packet question

                              Originally posted by Terry McManmon (3966)
                              Marc, for your 1971, and other 1968-1972 Corvettes, the PoP is supposed to be attached to the Warranty booklet. I suppose if they are not attached a condition deduction would be in order. I don't know what information you want on the front, but my original has no information (accept printing) on the front. The dealer name is ink stamped on the back and some line has handwriting on it, but I can't remember what that is. Might be my name or salesman's name. I don't remember. It has been too long since I have seen it.

                              To answer the kinds of questions you ask one first has to decide what the standard 'dealer new-car preparation' was. The answer to that question is at least a four or five beer discussion and at the end of that no one participating in the discussion will care about the answer, nor will they remember the question.
                              On the back besides the dealers ink stamping Terry is a line for owners name, street address, city&state, vehicle identification number, and date of delivery to retail purchaser. Below that is information for the second purchaser to obtain a protect-0-plate.

                              Comment

                              • Marc S.
                                Expired
                                • February 17, 2013
                                • 224

                                #30
                                Re: Owner's packet question

                                Originally posted by Peter Stout (54749)
                                Marc,

                                This is the bullet Reba is referring to in the Judging Chairman's Message:
                                Ahhhh this is very clear. The key point is that he POP will NOT be required in the owners packet, and they will NOT be judged.

                                Therefore is you have a warranty booklet with a missing POP you will not lose any points.

                                The part about there is nothing good to be gained by the practice must be a reference to counterfeits being made of this GM document.

                                Thanks Peter for posting this.

                                Comment

                                Working...

                                Debug Information

                                Searching...Please wait.
                                An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                                Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                                An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                                Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                                An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                                There are no results that meet this criteria.
                                Search Result for "|||"