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

[David H.]

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.

Dave

Quote below is from OP's original post. No controversy TIMJG statement is clear. No deductions for booklet or plate.

"Judging Guidance: NCRS does not judge this item; its presence for judging is not required; nor will there be a
deduction made for a missing booklet or plate."

Dave

[Dave S.]

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

Dave

Quote below is from OP's original post. No controversy TIMJG statement is clear. No deductions for booklet or plate.

"Judging Guidance: NCRS does not judge this item; its presence for judging is not required; nor will there be a
deduction made for a missing booklet or plate."

Dave

[Dave B.]

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

Interesting that the 65 TIMJG has different verbiage than the 66. And adding to that confusion, the Judging Reference Manual says the POP is not required or judged, but says nothing about the warranty booklet the POP is attached to.

[Steven B.]

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

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.

Welcome to NCRS and the Regional. For next time note the judges have the books available.

[Mike M.]

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

David - it was great meeting you in Frisco. Congratulations on your Top Flight - you have a beautiful car! I hope you enjoyed the process of having your car judged.

[Dave B.]

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

Thanks Mike, a pleasure meeting you as well. Appreciate your help and advice. The whole thing was fun, including the judging! But the best part was meeting so many great people.

[Floyd B.]

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

I apologize for the poor condition of the scanned page, but it has been stuck between the pages of an old version of a 68/69 TIM&JG for 10 years. I believe this appeared in the Fall 2012 issues of the Restorer.

JudgingChairMsg2012.jpg

[Mark F.]

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

Hi Dave,

Probably in response to Roy's 2012 Restorer discussion, here's what the latest edition of the '67 TIMJG says under glove compartment contents:

• Owner Protection Plan Warranty Booklet including Protect-o-Plate with identical VIN matching the car. NCRS does not judge this item; its presence for judging is not required; no deduction will be made for a missing booklet or plate.

Although the wording has changed, the "Do not Judge" texts for these two items go all the way back to the '67 5th edition (Summer 2013).

[Dave S.]

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

Hi Dave,

Probably in response to Roy's 2012 Restorer discussion, here's what the latest edition of the '67 TIMJG says under glove compartment contents:

• Owner Protection Plan Warranty Booklet including Protect-o-Plate with identical VIN matching the car. NCRS does not judge this item; its presence for judging is not required; no deduction will be made for a missing booklet or plate.

Although the wording has changed, the "Do not Judge" texts for these two items go all the way back to the '67 5th edition (Summer 2013).

Mark,

Thanks for sharing. That Wording leaves nothing to the imagination and clarifies things. I hope the other C2 and C3 rewrite teams adopt it.

[Joseph S.]

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

We don't have protecto plates in 63-64 land. That's another thing that makes these cars the BEST!!

[Dave S.]

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

We don't have protecto plates in 63-64 land. That's another thing that makes these cars the BEST!!

[Joseph S.]

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

Dave, The 9th Edition Reference Manual only states that the Protecto Plate is not judged. Nowhere in it does it say not to judge the Protection plan/Warranty booklet.

We give a description of the different Warranty books for each year. It must be present in 63 & 64 cars. If it's there, whether it's a Repro or Original, it will get full credit. If it's missing, there will be a 1 point deduction on Originality and 1 point on Condition.

I hope this clears things up from the 63-64 standpoint.

Regards,

[Mark F.]

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

I apologize for the poor condition of the scanned page, but it has been stuck between the pages of an old version of a 68/69 TIM&JG for 10 years. I believe this appeared in the Fall 2012 issues of the Restorer.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]124086[/ATTACH]

Dave, The 9th Edition Reference Manual only states that the Protecto Plate is not judged. Nowhere in it does it say not to judge the Protection plan/Warranty booklet.

We give a description of the different Warranty books for each year. It must be present in 63 & 64 cars. If it's there, whether it's a Repro or Original, it will get full credit. If it's missing, there will be a 1 point deduction on Originality and 1 point on Condition.

I hope this clears things up from the 63-64 standpoint.

Regards,

Hi Joe,

I re-read Roy's message and agree he did not say the booklet would not be judged - just the POP.
I also found what you say in the 9th edition JRM (no warranty booklet "not judged" phasing).

Note: In my opinion, the 1st sentence reference to the presence of the warranty booklet and plate in the glove box is a TIMJG Information "this is what should be there" thingy. The second half is a "Judging Guidance" statement on what is supposed to be done with it if no POP is present.

So, in your opinion, for those years that do have POPs, would the following rewording be a better way to deal with the POP?

• Owner Protection Plan Warranty Booklet including Protect-O-Plate with identical VIN matching the car. Protect-O-Plates are no longer judged, nor required. No deduction will be made for a missing plate.

[Joseph S.]

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

Hi Mark, This is a question for Team Leaders who have to deal with the Protecto Plate. We don't really put our opinions into other team's manuals or judging strategy unless asked by the Team Leader. Then it usually becomes a discussion throughout the group.

Sorry I can't give you a definitive answer, if it was a 63-64 issue you would get that from me.

Regards.

[Mark F.]

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

Yeah Joe,
I get it and thought that same thing about 2 nanoseconds after i hit the submit button on this one...

I'll send to Dan to see what he wants to do...