Deductions - Urethane vs Fiberglass Nose & Tail

[Brian D.]

Trying to determine what point deduction should occur for '73 thru '82
when the urethane nose has been replaced with a fiberglass piece, or '74 thru '82 tail with fiberglass replacement.
Standard Deduction Sheet doesn't mention this occurrence under Section 12 (Body Fiberglass/Component Fit)
or Section 13 (Service Replacement/Repro/Non-OEM).
I'm leaning toward 20% deduction for over restoration, as these parts typically fit better than original.
Has anyone encountered this previously?

[Tom R.]

Re: Deductions - Urethane vs Fiberglass Nose & Tail

Brian
Work with your conditions of originality...date, finish, completeness, configuration and installation with 20% assigned per condition. Fit was never perfect but gross fit may be. Perhaps the best illustration is a 76 where the indentation for the rear emblem is absent!

What would be the deduct?

[David H.]

Re: Deductions - Urethane vs Fiberglass Nose & Tail

Brian

Your SDG #12 20% Over/Under Restoration seems like an appropriate fit. Any possibility a 5% Atypical Color would work (visibility of component)?

SDG #13 Service Replacement provides C.D.C.I.F. guidance when evaluating replacement parts. As SDG #12 is already specific to your situation (body), I would not use #13 as my deduction reference.

Dave

[Brian M.]

Re: Deductions - Urethane vs Fiberglass Nose & Tail

I would think it should be a 50% standard deduct.

[Tom R.]

Re: Deductions - Urethane vs Fiberglass Nose & Tail

After BM's comment, I had to go back to the Judging Reference Guide and followup on your original assessment and have to agree but conditionally.

I'm leaning toward 20% deduction for over restoration, as these parts typically fit better than original.
Has anyone encountered this previously?

I would say that the 50% applies to, primarily one-piece front ends when fenders are molded into the hood surround. I may be wrong but I think that's the intent of the 50% rule.

The 20% would apply if detectible. Otherwise, as I indicated above that without some identifiable embossment, it could pass, depending on an individual judgement's assessment.

[Mark E.]

Re: Deductions - Urethane vs Fiberglass Nose & Tail

Wouldn't this be a configuration deduction since it's fiberglass? And this would be easily detected. So maximum 20% originality deduction?

[Patrick H.]

Re: Deductions - Urethane vs Fiberglass Nose & Tail

Wouldn't this be a configuration deduction since it's fiberglass? And this would be easily detected. So maximum 20% originality deduction?

That's what I was thinking at first, but you could possibly add configuration (material) and date, since you know it's the wrong material and obviously made long after the car was built.

[David H.]

Re: Deductions - Urethane vs Fiberglass Nose & Tail

Wouldn't this be a configuration deduction since it's fiberglass? And this would be easily detected. So maximum 20% originality deduction?

Mark

Body fiberglass is assessed by Standard Deduction Guideline #12. C.D.C.I.F. Matrix judging does not apply.

Dave

[Mark E.]

Re: Deductions - Urethane vs Fiberglass Nose & Tail

Mark

Body fiberglass is assessed by Standard Deduction Guideline #12. C.D.C.I.F. Matrix judging does not apply.

Dave

But aren't we judging the urethane bumper, not the fiberglass?

[David H.]

Re: Deductions - Urethane vs Fiberglass Nose & Tail

But aren't we judging the urethane bumper, not the fiberglass?

Mark

You are correct. Body fiberglass and component fit are in a separate section from bumpers. SDG #12 would not apply.

Thanks

Dave