No deduction for a 1967 restamped motor 427/435 motor at a National Judging Meet

[Michael V.]

There is a 1967 Corvette cvt 427 435 located in Bedford, PA on C2 Bring a Trailer now that shows there was no point deduction for a restamped motor because it was such a good job. Never seen that before. When did this judging change occur? He posted the judging sheets for the Chapter and National events.

[Dave S.]

There is a 1967 Corvette cvt 427 435 located in Bedford, PA on C2 Bring a Trailer now that shows there was no point deduction for a restamped motor because it was such a good job. Never seen that before. When did this judging change occur? He posted the judging sheets for the Chapter and National events.

Mike,
This must be a new philosophy on the judging field. This car had the broach marks called (-38 points) and full credit on the assembly and VIM derivative stamps even though it is noted as nice stamp. If a real pad nothing would be noted. This approach leads the less informed to think this may be an original motor especially when it is in a beautiful well documented 67 car. Something tells me that the judging program is set up to make owners happy. The hobby is fortunate to have third party resources to correct this.

[Harry S.]

I am amazed!

1967_chevrolet_corvette-convertible_IMG_1610-30896-scaled.jpg

[Richard M.]

Link for reference....

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1967-chevrolet-corvette-convertible-255/

Engine Pad...
Screenshot_20250525_095602_Chrome.jpg
2024 National Mechanical Engine notes.
The darker colored handwritten notes are different from the judges notes. I'm trying to understand the meaning. But it does not say "restamp".

Screenshot_20250525_093343_Chrome.jpg

[Michael J.]

Looks like a good judging decision to me. It is all about "appearance", not being an actual original. And the stamp pad does have 3 different and distinct parts which must be judged separately.

[Mike M.]

beware of bedford. mike

[Michael J.]

beware of bedford. mike

Do they have some well known re-stampers there?

[David H.]

There is a 1967 Corvette cvt 427 435 located in Bedford, PA on C2 Bring a Trailer now that shows there was no point deduction for a restamped motor because it was such a good job. Never seen that before. When did this judging change occur? He posted the judging sheets for the Chapter and National events.

Michael

As noted in several post above engine block stamp(s) and block stamp pads are judged individually.

Flight judging is for RESTORED cars. As such, we should expect to see restamped engines. Current guidelines came effective with Judging Reference Manual (JRM) #4 in Winter 1993 - so our current method is nothing new.

Our, within prior six month date, criteria for blocks is so we can have cars to judge.

Engine blocks just didn't sit around for six months waiting to get assembled. Normal production you would expect engines to get cast, assembled, and installed in a vehicle in short order.

That six month criteria was set so as to not penalize a restorer excessively on casting date - imagine trying to find blocks cast within a couple weeks of your car's build date. That six month criteria has been around at least since Spring 1998 with JRM #3. I don't have a copy of JRM #1 or #2 (appreciate a pdf copy of JRM #1 and/or #2 if some one has a copy).

Given NJC was willing to give six months in 1988 (or before) seems like those age blocks are even more difficult to find today. Should that six month criteria get revisited?

Restamping as regards to counterfeit cars was addressed in 2010 with JRM #8.

Dave

[Tom D.]

Engine blocks just didn't sit around for six months waiting to get assembled. Normal production you would expect engines to get cast, assembled, and installed in a vehicle in short order.

David: What is your basis for this? Were waiting blocks "first in first out"?

[David H.]

[QUOTE=Tom Dingman (4889);n1578839]Engine blocks just didn't sit around for six months waiting to get assembled. Normal production you would expect engines to get cast, assembled, and installed in a vehicle in short order.

David: What is your basis for this? Were waiting blocks "first in first out"?]


Tom

Flint and Tonawanda, as production facilities, were building millions of engines per year. Facilities building to demand driven by vehicle assembly plants. They were not storage facilities. They got "paid" on engines shipped. So you would expect casting and assembly dates to be very close.

Hence, a "tell" on an engine is that very difference between casting and assembly dates. We deal with RESTORED Corvettes. Cars were used, engines got blown up, worn out, "upgraded", etc. Restoring is going to involve finding parts that didn't come with that car. Replacement blocks are going to be found and restoration is going to involve re-stamping. We get that six-month NCRS window to make it easier for folks to find a useable block.

Highlights why our Bowtie & Crossed Flags cars are so important - unrestored and reflecting parts that actually came on that car.

Engines, once shipped to an assembly plant, enter a "who knows?" arena. Given production years of interest to us, and pace of assembly at St Louis, don't know what sort of FIFO/LIFO/FIST system they had.

Of course, strikes, slow-downs, AO Smith production, etc are going to affect when an engine got in a car, but I expect casting and assembly to always be close on an original engine.

Below are links to a couple of John Hinckley articles on casting and engine build. May be of interest to folks reading this thread.

Dave

http://www.camaros.org/pdf/cast_codes.pdf

http://www.camaros.org/pdf/flint_engine.pdf

[Dave S.]

Unfortunately this thread has gone sideways as is all to common. The OP questioned the stamp pad on the BAT auction and the fact that the National judge gave a full deduct to the broach marks and full credit to the assembly stamping and VIN derivative stamp even though it was an obvious restamp (but noted as a good one) and was noted as such on the judging sheets.
The casting information was not called into question here.
Given the casting info the block may be the original but the original block may have been decked and restamped. Not the issue here.
The BAT ad seems to be written correctly and the car is a well documented highly optioned 435 car.
The post is about the NCRS judging process and has nothing to do with the car itself as presented.

[Keith B.]

I'm very confused on how if the assembly stamp and vin stamp were called out for being restamped and the pad surface lost all points for being NTP how can the stamps receive full credit. To follow the CDEIF format the date of the time of stamp is wrong To me this is very flawed

[David H.]

I'm very confused on how if the assembly stamp and vin stamp were called out for being restamped and the pad surface lost all points for being NTP how can the stamps receive full credit. To follow the CDEIF format the date of the time of stamp is wrong To me this is very flawed

Keith

Engine block judging criteria is Standard Deduction Guideline #1. Not judged via CDCIF.

CDCIF is reserved for those areas NOT covered by Standard Deduction Guidelines.

Dave

[Joseph S.]

I'm very confused on how if the assembly stamp and vin stamp were called out for being restamped and the pad surface lost all points for being NTP how can the stamps receive full credit. To follow the CDEIF format the date of the time of stamp is wrong To me this is very flawed

Keith, The Engine section of Mechanical MUST be judged in the order it is listed on the sheets. The stamp pad is listed last so that it does not influence the judging of the other areas.

[Dave S.]

Keith

Engine block judging criteria is Standard Deduction Guideline #1. Not judged via CDCIF.

CDCIF is reserved for those areas NOT covered by Standard Deduction Guidelines.

Dave

Dave,
Are you saying that the assembly stamp (25 points) and the VIN derivative stamp (25 points) are all or nothing items.