Protect-O-Plates - should be no deduction for absence

[Dave B.]

So I got a 3 point deduction in Texas for leaving my Protect-o-plate at home. I did that because the books said I didn't need to bring it.

The first pic is the score sheet. It says "Missing warranty".
The second pic is the 1966 TIMJG, page 34.
The third pic is the Judging Reference Manual, page 27.

It seems clear to me this was a judging error. Agree or disagree?

[Keith B.]

Re: Protect-O-Plates - should be no deduction for absence

the plate information is not judged but the booklet needs to be there

[Dave B.]

Re: Protect-O-Plates - should be no deduction for absence

Keith, that's what the judge told me when I objected. But how do you account for the following quote from the book - "nor will there be a deduction made for a missing booklet or plate" ?? It literally means the booklet does not need to be there.

[Leif A.]

Re: Protect-O-Plates - should be no deduction for absence

Keith, that's what the judge told me when I objected. But how do you account for the following quote from the book - "nor will there be a deduction made for a missing booklet or plate" ?? It literally means the booklet does not need to be there.

I concur.....

[David H.]

Re: Protect-O-Plates - should be no deduction for absence

David

What did 1966 National Team Leader, Bill Calorico, say when you asked him?

What did Texas Chapter Judging Chairman, Tim Gilmore, say when you asked him?

What did NCRS National Judging Chairman, David Brigham, say when you asked him?

David

[Dave B.]

Re: Protect-O-Plates - should be no deduction for absence

David

What did 1966 National Team Leader, Bill Calorico, say when you asked him?

What did Texas Chapter Judging Chairman, Tim Gilmore, say when you asked him?

What did NCRS National Judging Chairman, David Brigham, say when you asked him?

David

I understand your point. I didn't escalate the issue at all, for a few reasons. First, I didn't have the manuals with me to show them. It was my first judging event and I'm a new member, and my priority was simply to learn what things need attention on my car, and to get a handle on the judging process. I was also keenly aware that the judges were rushed, and escalating to Bill just didn't seem important enough to interrupt the pace. I knew I was headed for a Top Flight anyway.

I posted this just because I'm surprised that the judges at this level would be unaware of the change in POP treatment which is at least 5 years old (the most current TIMJG revision is 2019), and the JRM does have a paragraph or two indicating that the TIMJG guidelines are not the last word in how things are to be judged, and may include mistakes/omissions. I just wanted to get others' opinion on something that seems cut and dried to me. It's not a large deduction so I'm not upset about it.

Next time around I'll have my books with me in case something else comes up. And what the heck, I'll bring the POP to avoid the conflict altogether.

[Michael J.]

Re: Protect-O-Plates - should be no deduction for absence

It is amazing to remember that at one time the POP was judged, and the cottage industry of faking them flourished.

[Mark F.]

Re: Protect-O-Plates - should be no deduction for absence

When were POPs judged ?
1st time my car was judged was 2000 and Bill Clupper was lead Interior judge
I have my original POP but don't remember it being judged

[Keith B.]

Re: Protect-O-Plates - should be no deduction for absence

When I first help prep one of dads cars for judging in 05 they where judging them. His car did not come with one but I found him one from a 67 Impala He got credit for the booklet but not for the plate itself. The next time we went though judging in 06 or 07 we only needed the booklet

[Michael J.]

Re: Protect-O-Plates - should be no deduction for absence

I entered my '67 and '66 in the Western Regional in 2010, and remember having to get Mr. Clemens in Florida to supply me with a POP for judging.

[Mark F.]

Re: Protect-O-Plates - should be no deduction for absence

When I first help prep one of dads cars for judging in 05 they where judging them. His car did not come with one but I found him one from a 67 Impala He got credit for the booklet but not for the plate itself. The next time we went though judging in 06 or 07 we only needed the booklet

I entered my '67 and '66 in the Western Regional in 2010, and remember having to get Mr. Clemons in Florida to supply me with a POP for judging.

Thanks, guys...
along with the 2000 Regional judging, I had it judged again at the PTSC 2003 Regional
and then at the 2003 National in Hershey (both before the dates you guys have)

i guess I'm not remembering it being judged because there was never an issue or deduction associated with it...

[Michael J.]

Re: Protect-O-Plates - should be no deduction for absence

Did you have it available and was it original? Seems you say it was both, in which case there would be no deductions associated with it. I have the TIM&JG for 1966 from 2010, and there is no mention of not judging the POP. NCRS used to sell a thick book (maybe they still do), on determining a real one from the well done fakes of the day.

[Mark F.]

Re: Protect-O-Plates - should be no deduction for absence

Did you have it available and was it original? Seems you say it was both, in which case there would be no deductions associated with it. I have the TIM&JG for 1966 from 2010, and there is no mention of not judging the POP. NCRS used to sell a thick book (maybe they still do), on determining a real one from the well done fakes of the day.

Yes. It was in the glove box for all three events.

Bill Calorico validated it as "real" when he came to one of our PTSC Chapter meets and my car was one of two or three used for judging training.

This was right around the time Bill and Nick Culkowski were supporting the work that went into the Authentication Library Volume One (2004).

[Michael J.]

Re: Protect-O-Plates - should be no deduction for absence

Sure glad they changed it to not-being-judged before I took any other Corvettes through that had one. The NOS book and well done fake plate cost me $1000.

[Dave S.]

Re: Protect-O-Plates - should be no deduction for absence

The misleading part of this is the Protecto-plate is part in a second piece which is the warranty book. Seems to me the warranty book is judged and the plate is not. It is just one item within the glovebox contents. Like a lot of things this sort of thing should be clarified by the powers to be to eliminate these controversies. Not that difficult to do.