Roy: A Reply "YES" Response Below

[Mark Milner]

Rhetorical question, Chuck

The question on the 250 hp restamp was rhetorical. I don't have a restamped block.

Go to that Awards page. Counterfeiting is very definitely used.

I pointed out the section since J. Ray was so adamant about NCRS and not having fakes, I wondered why he wasn't involved five years ago. However, it was five years ago that NCRS elected to look upon restamping as restoration and it is too late to debate that now.

For your information, I was strongly against it. I viewed it then as counterfeiting - creating an engine that wasn't. I saw problems arising.

Now, we have people using extreme magnification to detect something that was permitted 5 years ago. I guess it is the way some do penance.

I would simply do away with points for the pad. No points, nothing to gain by stamping. I would look to see if it is original, and if it is a fake, I'd keep a database so that buyers could find out who is phony and who is nice. But I wouldn't award points. The value is gone, except to the student of how Corvettes were built. Ever see anyone restamp a rear end? They might, but who cares?

But I don't determine NCRS policy.

[Terry M.]

A little history

I was going to stay out of this, but I dislike seeing mis-information being perpetuated.

"Now, we have people using extreme magnification ......"

Magnification has been in use for more than five years. My guess would be more than fifteen years, but time flies...... I believe John Woods introduced the monocular that is in common use on the order of five years ago, and it may have been a little longer than that. Before that the battery powered tool that the doctor uses to look in your ear (and other places..he...he ) was the visual aid of choice. My best estimate is that the use of that goes back about ten years, or a little more. When Dr. Mike was president of NCRS each of the team leaders was given one. We all felt very official. Before that a hand-held-lighted 10x magnifying glass from Radio Shack was in fairly common use. I was introduced to that tool in the early '80s, and also at that time "lifting" a tracing of the pad was a common practice in some circles, as it is today. The tape is then placed on a paper and examined using that 10x RS magnifier.
Beyond that, one individual has been photographing pads with some very rare and high-powered macro optics for more than ten years, probably more like fifteen. When he was using a film camera, the lens he had was over a foot long and about four inches around. He once told me he was using film that was normally used for celestial photography through telescopes. I am not the only one who used his optics to enhance the viewing of a pad a time or two.
The changes that have come about in visual aids have been incremental. No great leaps have been made. I know there has been serious discussion of the use of a bore scope to see some pads that are obscured by other components (later C3s and C4), and I once saw one in use at a non-NCRS event. The cost of those tools has so far been a limiting factor, but their prices are steadily declining.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no line to cross with regard to the tools one can use to judge the car, short of harming people or the car.
My experience is that the owners are very accommodating and understanding of our desire to closely examine any part of the car, so long as we talk to them and explain our interest. Some anxiety is normal, but a great portion of judging skills are people skills. A smile and a warm and friendly demeanor will go a long way toward easing anxieties. Most long-term judges have also shown their cars in the same arena in which they judge. Empathy communicated to the car owner is a great leveling force.

[Todd H 26112]

Re: A little history

Interesting insight.

My own guestimate was about 10 years ago when 'some' devices started arriving on the scene or roughly the time there was a spike in speculative collecting of vintage cars and especially those w/ rare options, apparent originality and so forth.

My prediction is that digital devices like cameras may be yet another step - something w/ a decent macro capability and a sophisticated LCD (or connection to some sort of display device like a larger LCD) - the image can be captured and frozen for scrutiny for everyone to see together and point out... It's not so much a device that can see more - but one that allows all to gather around and see a specific captured image.

Not that I've ever used it for this purpose of pad inspection but my own relatively standard basic digital camera can take average macro shots which in high res can be viewed on a monitor to reveal amazing detail.

Do you have any concerns about cost and a level playing field? E.g. if an owner sees such devices employed - does the owner then feel compelled to obtain same/similar devices as well? Presumably we all have Mark II eyeballs but do we all have the other gizmos so we all continue to speak the same 'visual' language as it were...?

[Chuck S.]

You Are Better Informed Than I, Mark...

There is a lot of good information there. I had never even been on that page before; I can't say why except that it never occurred to me that I might not understand what NCRS was about, and consequently, needed further information.

You are correct: the word "counterfeit" IS used there...many times. If you understand the words written there, however, it seems that it would be hard to misunderstand the two terms in the context of NCRS judging.

To put something back like it was originally, even if it means stamping a replacement block (same displacement, same HP) with the appropriate machine and VIN stamps, is "restoration". To attempt to make a car something it NEVER WAS by stamping a replacement engine (different displacement, different HP) with the car's VIN is counterfeiting. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

I can't answer as to why the example of stamping of a correct 435 HP replacement engine for an original 435 HP car was eliminated as an example unless it was to eliminate any idea that NCRS promoted restamping. My personal opinion is that NCRS should not promote restamping. Eliminating that example, however, does not affect NCRS policy or how the pads are judged.

Unfortunately, the use of magnification or other technology is probably a response to the improvement in the counterfeiter's skill. As long as restamps were crudely done by uninformed idiots, it was easy to separate the goats from the sheep. Now, I hear its getting harder, even for experienced judges, to find the imposters. Since my car has the original engine, I feel no threat from magnification; only the counterfeiter has to worry about magnification in my opinion.

[Terry M.]

[Joseph S.]

Re: A little history

I would like to jump in here in voice some opinion but because I am jumping in here it is not necessarily aimed towards Terry or his remarks. I state this because I rarely jump in because my responses are some times misinterpreted as attacks towards people and that is not my intention. I have also been around a long time #8321 and have seen many things change. I feel mostly for the better. BUT, aren't we really talking about a subject that is really critical to the value and resale of a Corvette rather than the historical significance (did I spell that right) or correctness of the restoration. How do we as a hobby return all the cars with missing engines back to their original state? The answer is by aquiring a block and restoring it to match the car. I think most people confusing the auction block and the judging field. If we use NCRS as the hobby that it is then a restored engine block should be just as welcome as a replaced nose and repainted body, or recovered seats, or OEM glass windshield. I could go on but I think I have made my point. Again this is just my opinion and by no means an attack at any one or group of people. Happy hollidays everyone.

[Roy S.]

[Mark Milner]

I thanked you one, I thought we were done. *NM*