"You Guys . . . NCRS"

[John M.]

Re: Lack of evidence

Todd,
You seem to delight in the game of "what if", "and suppose this". I am more of a linear thinker and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck. Now granted, it might actually be chicken dressed up in a duck suit and playing a duck recording, but the overwelming odds ar that it is a duck.
Even if the engine was the restamped original engine what difference would that make in thew value of the car compared to a correct block from another car that was restamped? I would submit that there is no difference in the value! The true indication of the originality is in the stamp. There is absolutely no difference in a "correct block" and an "original block" other than the stamp pad. There is no added value to stamping a block after decking except for two reasons, either for judging purposes, or to decieve someone at the time of sale into believing the block was original. Since he did an imediate about face on the stamp when he saw the NCRS logo, one would believe that the stamp was not good enough to pass judging scrutiny, so that leaves the other alternative.
We will never know for sure, as we don't even know the parties involved, but based on the facts as presented, I stick by my opinion. I did not accuse any person of fraud, since the person is unknown to any of us. Rather, I gave my opinion of the situation based on the facts presented. There are absolutely no set of facts that either on of us couldn't add suppositions to to support any particular position, and you enjoy doing so but I do not.
You are right that I don't know all the facts and neither do you, and neither of us ever will since we don't know who this person is. You accuse me of making several leaps to arrive at my opinion, and that is not true. I formulated my opinion based only on the facts presented not a bunch of wild assumptions as you did. Furthemore, I have absolutely no intrest in the car or the person involved and have no intrest in investigating any further.
I most ceartinaly do not need to be lectured to by you and have you attempt to change my way of thinking to yours, as it will not happen. We are all entitled to our own opinion and this happens to be mine wether you like it or not.

Regards, John McGraw

[Chas Kingston]

Re: Lack of evidence

Sure sounds like a lawyer talking here.

A lawyer defending a used car salesman.

Wow, what a combination!!

Can we find a couple of Chicago-type politicians, just to make this thread whole?

Ol' Geezer

[Warren F.]

Re: Lack of evidence

That pad is part of the hunk of metal, known as the cylinder case, those not in the know (ie: general car people) often refer to it as the engine, and not as just one part of the entire assembly, we refer to as the engine or motor. He said the engine, that includes the pad!

[Richard G.]

Re: "You Guys . . . NCRS"

Todd

With all due respect you weren't clear on your reponse, two questions, in fifteen words or less, are you an attorney and what is an AG?

I believe the restamping of engine pads are an issue because it misrepresents the car. There are way to many individuals out there trying to "make" high dollar cars out of low option ones, but "Buyer Beware". I haven't bought a high dollar car unless it had paper work to prove it.

Rich

[Warren F.]

Re: "You Guys . . . NCRS"

Rich:

I believe AG means Attorney General in this context. I agree with you also. I only purchase high dollar cars with original paperwork to authenticate its pedigree.

[Todd H 26112]

Re: "You Guys . . . NCRS"

What possible business is it of yours what I am and how is it relevant to ths discussions of this forum?

You have your answer to AG.

What you 'should' be paying for in such high dollar cars is the paperwork. If you are not getting satisfactory paperwork - why pay the big bucks?

Well if there is something specifically not clear you can always ask.

[Todd H 26112]

Re: Lack of evidence

Actually I just call 'em as I see 'em. I guess some folks just don't like the shoes even when they do fit.

"There is no added value to stamping a block after decking except for two reasons, either for judging purposes, or to decieve someone at the time of sale..."

My what a BLACK and WHITE world you live in. Gee I guess if someone un-interested in NCRS 'judging' were to strip a frame they shouldn't stencil those numbers back on unless intent upon "deceiving" the next buyer. Heaven forbid someone might retrofit a repro distributor band to a rebuilt distributor out of a junker so they could "deceive" the next buyer. Either it's for judging or deceiving? No in between with you eh?

First you proclaim in no uncertain terms:
"As for the seller, he was without a doubt, attempting to defraud a buyer"

then you back off this this flip flopping double speaking back tracking watered down...
"I stick by my opinion. I did not accuse any person of fraud..."

So which will it be today John? "without a doubt" or in your "opinion"? Did you accuse this stranger of fraud or didn't you?

Yep, everybody has an opinion and are entitled - some people just like to disguise them as absolute unequivocal fact with great bluster until called on it. It's even easier to hand out these 'doubtless' accusations of Corvette fakery and fraud to a complete stranger based on hearsay posted on an internet website. And the man will never even hear of your accusations or opinions or whatever you characterize them as. Now THAT must take some real guts.

[John M.]

Re: Lack of evidence

Hi Todd,
Yes it is a black and white world for me, and I make no apologies for it. For you however, it would appear to be a constant shade of gray with nothing ever being resolved as you continue to add new variables to the equation.

In regards to decieving, yes putting a repro band on a distributor or stenciling the frame is intended to decieve someone. I have participated in this deception as all have who participate in flight judging. This is the nature of the game in Flight judging, to convince the judge that a part is consistent with the way a part look when the car was produced. I have never had to restamp a block for judging since I have be fortunate to have had what appeared to be the original engine in my cars, but I would probably consider it if I thought that the stamp could be done good enough to pass scrutiny. I would however, NEVER represent such an engine as original to a buyer! This is where you cross the line from decieving someone to defrauding someone. I am not even comfortable representing one of my cars as having an original engine in it when I am quite confident it does. I just share my judging sheets with the buyer and let him decide for himself.

As for opinion versus certianty, everything any of us post here is nothing more than opinion. The verdict in a trial is nothing but the opinion of the jury! As a man who loves to twist words to meet his needs, you should understand that!
Would I have accused a known person of fraud if the name had been known? Absolutely not! I strive to avoid personal attacks on other people, especially when I am not the affected party. This however was a different situation, this was a set of conditions where the party was not named and the facts, while slim, were clearly defined. My opinion is unchanged that this seller was attempting to defraud the buyer and I have not wavered from this conviction, nor am I likely to unless some other FACTS come to light, and I do mean facts not some wild assuptions on your part.

As for the shoes, I am very comfortable in my shoes thank you and do not need to change them.

Regards, John McGraw