65 Seat Belt Retractor/Boot Question

[Dave B.]

My 65 convertible was built in mid December 1964 (#4469). According to the Noland Adams Restoration Book, retractors starting showing up around my build date and most cars had them with #5733. The boots or retractor cups started to appear in late December with #5733. Previous NCRS archives also reference these changes during the model year but the NCRS judging manual implies all '65s should have retractors and boots. How would you recommend I setup my belts. I think I should just have the retractors installed with no boots. Will I have a hassle when it comes to judging?

Thanks,

Dave Brown

[Clark K.]

Re: 65 Seat Belt Retractor/Boot Question

Dave, I, too, have a '65 Sting Ray so I looked in the 1965 JG (page 46) in regard to seat belt boots. There is no mention of dates for these boots so I will assume that your car should have them. My car was built Feb.'65, so according to your information, my car should not have the boots, either.

My car was chapter Flight judged last April and took Top Flight. At that time, my car's passenger side boot was deformed and the retractor/belt would not easily go in so there was a one point condition deduction. The boot has since been replaced.

[Dan S.]

Re: 65 Seat Belt Retractor/Boot Question

The retractors and boots were phased in during production and not necessarily together. My FI convertible is #3730 with a body build date of 4 Dec 64. I bought it six months later from a friend who was the original owner on 18 June 65. In that six months, it had had no modifications and was still in warranty. It had only the retractors and no boots.

[Gene M.]

Re: 65 Seat Belt Retractor/Boot Question

Dave,
My Coupe is within 200 cars before yours and never had any retractors nor boots. No marks on the original belts from them are visible. Blue vinyl interior if that means anything. The entire interior was original when I purchased the car almost 26 years ago.

[Jack H.]

Re: 65 Seat Belt Retractor/Boot Question

YES! It's a fuzzy issue of what went out the door with what (retractors and boots seem to have been separate issues) in the Dec-Jan time frame. The issue is compounded by the specifics of interior color. Some particular colors (e.g. maroon) seem to have waited longer for their matching boots to come on-stream/into inventory.

In fact, one low mileage, December built maroon/maroon car in our club sported RED (not maroon) seat backs...an interesting factory deviation!

My take is most judges who are knowledgeable on '65 cars recognize the factory's 'mixed mode' situation on retractors and boots for cars built in the Dec/Jan time frame and cut the owners considerable 'slack' because they know they don't know all the specific details.

[Jaime G.]

Re: 65 Seat Belt Retractor/Boot Question

The retractors and boots were phased in during production and not necessarily together. My FI convertible is #3730 with a body build date of 4 Dec 64. I bought it six months later from a friend who was the original owner on 18 June 65. In that six months, it had had no modifications and was still in warranty. It had only the retractors and no boots.

My FI conv. is Vin # 3388 build date of 30 Nov. 64. Belts, retractors and no boots. So I would recommend retactors and no boots. Knowledgeble
65 judges show have no issue with this combination

[Clark K.]

Re: 65 Seat Belt Retractor/Boot Question

So, this brings up a question....If the 1965 JG states to judge the retractors and boots, what is a NCRS judge to do? In my opinion, if it is in the JG, it should be judged until a corrected JG is printed and made available. I would surmise that most owners do not know anything except what is written in their model's JG. I read the statement that a knowledgeable NCRS judge would "judge" what is correct. If a judge made any originality deductions to my car that was not covered in the JG, I would politely protest it. How can we have two sets of rules, one in the JG and another in some judges' heads? -Clark

[Jaime G.]

Re: 65 Seat Belt Retractor/Boot Question

So, this brings up a question....If the 1965 JG states to judge the retractors and boots, what is a NCRS judge to do? In my opinion, if it is in the JG, it should be judged until a corrected JG is printed and made available. I would surmise that most owners do not know anything except what is written in their model's JG. I read the statement that a knowledgeable NCRS judge would "judge" what is correct. If a judge made any originality deductions to my car that was not covered in the JG, I would politely protest it. How can we have two sets of rules, one in the JG and another in some judges' heads? -Clark

Lets not make mountains out of molehills. Most knowledegeble NCRS judges will make the correct call without having to read the JG. Some will err. OK so it happens. We dont have two sets of rules. We have the guideline of the JG and we have human judgement. They both are in sync most of the time

[Jack H.]

Re: 65 Seat Belt Retractor/Boot Question

The issue of belt retractors & retaining cups IS a fuzzy one... It's compounded because the applicable belt portion of the AIM page (UPC-1, Sheet F17) was REDRAWN after the start of production (10/12/64) and exactly when this/that was added to production is unclear.

Even Noland Adams doesn't cite AIM dates for the effectivity of the two components. He speaks to his survey data saying:

"Random examples with retractor have been reported up to serial number 105510 (5,510). But beginning with 105733 (5,733), most reported retractors on their belts."

The situation is compounded because the belt retractors were VERY popular (reduce floor 'clutter') and many were purchased over-the-counter and added to cars built/shipped without them. A feasibility test for these early cars that have retractors and are in the 'grey' area timewise, is to check the emboss on the retractor to see if it's the early version...

The first retractors bore a script 'Rollabelt" emboss that was short-lived before it was removed. One fella I talked to (may well be an old wive's tale) said there were litigation discussions between GM and Jay-Mar slacks since Jay-Mar was making/marketing men's slacks that were beltless using an elastic waist band that they'd trademarked their design with a similar name...

So, while it's NOT proof positive that early build '65 cars equipped with belt retractors lacking the script 'Rollabelt' emboss were actually shipped without retractors and the retractors present were added later, it DOES make the judges question factory authenticity...

[Jack H.]

Re: 65 Seat Belt Retractor/Boot Question

This kind of talk comes up with reasonable frequency: "If the JG says thus and such, that's the way the car should be scored" and "If the JG doesn't cover thus and such, then no deduction(s) should be taken"...

Well, there's a reason for why NCRS changed the title of these books from Judging Manual to Judging Guide several years back. That was to reinforce their purpose...they're a GUIDE intended to supplement the judge's personal knowledge. This is reinforced by turning your copy of the NCRS Judging Reference Manual (now this book IS a manual), to Section 1, Rule 2 where you'll read:

"...It is not deesigned or intended to list or describe every detail that may be judged on a given item or area, nor does it necessarily contain specific VIN or date information relating to 'running changes', early- or late- production irregularities, or production line anomalies. Incomplete or incorrect information may appear and members are encouraged to submit, in writing (with supporting data), information regarding any correction, addition or clarification which may be considered for future inclusion and use to help improve or manuals or juding process..."

[Ronald C.]

Re: 65 Seat Belt Retractor/Boot Question

This is great detail i had my 64 #2973. while the car did top flight i was convinced i was correct in that early build did not have the boot. i was told wrong and took a heavy point deduct..... not sure how to go with this, find replacemetn junk and add tot eh car or stand my ground.

[Jaime G.]

Re: 65 Seat Belt Retractor/Boot Question

With all due respect Ronald, 1964 Corvettes did not have boots. The boots were introduced in the mid
production run for the 1965 model Corvette. If you lost points for not having a seat belt boot in your 1964
the Judge was totally incorrect. Did you speak to the Team leader?

[Gene M.]

Re: 65 Seat Belt Retractor/Boot Question

Early 65 blue vinyl #4403 no boots and no retractors. No marks on original belts of ever having retractors.

[Jim D.]

Re: 65 Seat Belt Retractor/Boot Question

This is great detail i had my 64 #2973. while the car did top flight i was convinced i was correct in that early build did not have the boot. i was told wrong and took a heavy point deduct..... not sure how to go with this, find replacemetn junk and add tot eh car or stand my ground.

Obviously the judge had no idea what he was doing. Unfortunately, that's quite common and some people are changing their original cars to be in line with erroneous ideas.

[Ronald C.]

Re: 65 Seat Belt Retractor/Boot Question

My apologies poor posting. i have a 1965 coupe built Nov 64 #2973. this early build date places it in the"grey" area as to weather or not the boots should be there. The car has been judged twice; and where one judge deducted heavily for no boots; the other judge compliments me on not instralling what should not be there.

Any advice on how to prevent a judge from deducting... or any suggestions on where to locate a pair of SILVER boots would be great.