Originality

[Michael W.]

Re: Originality

"Does the item, part, fabric, plating or coating appear to actually be that which was specifically installed or applied ON THIS CAR at the time of manufacture?"

Appear is the key word.

[Terry M.]

Re: Originality

Although I realize NCRS is still not "verifying" anything, isn't Bowtie/Crossed Flags judging evaluating a car's authenticity/originality? Both ask:

"Does the item, part, fabric, plating or coating appear to actually be that which was specifically installed or applied ON THIS CAR at the time of manufacture?"

To pass an area it must be determined to be 80 or 85% original. So which 15 or 20% is NOT original? No one has a clue because no one gets their Bowtie score sheets back. And that assumes the owner makes no changes after judging. So just what are you counting on for "verification?"

You guys still don't get the point. Learn yourself and count on yourself. You can reliably count on no one else. Read and understand the disclaimer on the back of ALL the recent award certificates.

[Pat M.]

Re: Originality

Appear is the key word.

So the judging teams only have to conclude ( I know, NOT VERIFY) parts look original as opposed to are original? This strikes me as a distinction without much of a difference. Bill Clinton would be proud.

To pass an area it must be determined to be 80 or 85% original. So which 15 or 20% is NOT original? No one has a clue because no one gets their Bowtie score sheets back. And that assumes the owner makes no changes after judging. So just what are you counting on for "verification?"

You guys still don't get the point. Learn yourself and count on yourself. You can reliably count on no one else. Read and understand the disclaimer on the back of ALL the recent award certificates.

Terry, I'm not counting on NCRS for ANY verification. I said as much in my post.
This thread in part revolved around whether NCRS judges anything on a car to be original or not. I sure thought Bowtie/Crossed Flags did, but apparently those "coveted" awards are for mere appearance only. Learn something new, and disappointing, every day I guess.

[Terry M.]

Re: Originality

Terry, I'm not counting on NCRS for ANY verification. I said as much in my post.
This thread in part revolved around whether NCRS judges anything on a car to be original or not. I sure thought Bowtie/Crossed Flags did, but apparently those "coveted" awards are for mere appearance only. Learn something new, and disappointing, every day I guess.[/QUOTE]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Pat, but it is what it is -- and THAT is all for fun. Oh cheer up. It is not all doom and gloom. You still can use the Bowtie / Crossed Flags cars as examples of "how the factory did it," for the most part. Just remember my line: "There are no Corvette virgins."

[Pat M.]

Re: Originality

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Pat, but it is what it is -- and THAT is all for fun. Oh cheer up. It is not all doom and gloom. You still can use the Bowtie / Crossed Flags cars as examples of "how the factory did it," for the most part. Just remember my line: "There are no Corvette virgins."

Oh, I'll bear up. And I am having fun, with or without virgins.

But if Michael is correct, then it sounds like I can only use Bowtie/Crossed Flag cars as examples that appear to be "how the factory did it."

[Terry M.]

Re: Originality

Michale is a very smart fellow, and he is right.

Edit add: So long as we are having fun -- that is all that counts. Let the devil sort them out later.

[Bryan M.]

Re: Originality

In about 20 years the block decking checker will have been invented, and the judges will be able to touch the meter to the stamp pad on the judging field and tell within a few seconds if it is an unmolested or a restoration block.

Loren,
Let us not forget about the new and amazing Vulcan Mind Meld Imaging Machine that is guaranteed to flash images of the history from smelting to traffic tickets.

[Jim C.]

Re: Originality

You guys still don't get the point. Learn yourself and count on yourself. You can reliably count on no one else. Read and understand the disclaimer on the back of ALL the recent award certificates.

I think I do get the point. From my learned perspective, and by counting on my own educated opinion, and no one else's, I've come to the conclusion that my Corvette's slightly uncommon cylinder case is correct and original because it appears to be so. I guess that alone warrants a change in the next 1966 manual revision. So the language will read something like:

"The casting number for most 327 engines is 3858174. Also, based on Jim C.'s opinion of what appears to be correct and original, casting number 3892657, has been observed and verified on a least one very late production 1966 Corvette cylinder case."

That was easy. I guess I didn't have to send all those pictures to those who have the authority to make that call. The real point is that there IS a verification process that occurs when it comes to originality, authenticity, and correctness, and it goes beyond mere appearance and self education. I could know more about 1966 327/300 Corvettes than anyone (which I do not I'm sure), but if my opinions are not validated, verified, affirmed and confirmed by those who have the ability and authority to make those decisions, then my sole opinions on what something appears to be, are nothing more than my opinions. I cannot change any language in the manual without the concurrence of those NCRS officials who hold positions of authority. They, and they alone, must verify my claim. If they do, then the official language in the manual might change. If they don't for some reason, then I doubt that my educated opinion is going to count for much. Consequently, I have no choice BUT to rely on some one else.

Jim C.

[Michael W.]

Re: Originality

This thread in part revolved around whether NCRS judges anything on a car to be original or not. I sure thought Bowtie/Crossed Flags did, but apparently those "coveted" awards are for mere appearance only. Learn something new, and disappointing, every day I guess.

Pat,
I don't believe it's realistic to expect judges, experienced or not, to look at a given car and within a short period of time using only the naked eye determine with hand on heart and/or bible and willing to sign a certificate of authenticity that a given component is the very one installed back at the factory 50 years ago and not an identical one swapped in 49.5 years ago.

It's unfortunate that so many have incorrect expectations of NCRS judging activities and even more unfortunate that some exploit this for commercial gain.

[Michael W.]

Re: Originality

I think I do get the point. From my learned perspective, and by counting on my own educated opinion, and no one else's, I've come to the conclusion that my Corvette's slightly uncommon cylinder case is correct and original because it appears to be so. I guess that alone warrants a change in the next 1966 manual revision. So the language will read something like:

"The casting number for most 327 engines is 3858174. Also, based on Jim C.'s opinion of what appears to be correct and original, casting number 3892657, has been observed and verified on a least one very late production 1966 Corvette cylinder case."

That was easy. I guess I didn't have to send all those pictures to those who have the authority to make that call. The real point is that there IS a verification process that occurs when it comes to originality, authenticity, and correctness, and it goes beyond mere appearance and self education. I could know more about 1966 327/300 Corvettes than anyone (which I do not I'm sure), but if my opinions are not validated, verified, affirmed and confirmed by those who have the ability and authority to make those decisions, then my sole opinions on what something appears to be, are nothing more than my opinions. I cannot change any language in the manual without the concurrence of those NCRS officials who hold positions of authority. They, and they alone, must verify my claim. If they do, then the official language in the manual might change. If they don't for some reason, then I doubt that my educated opinion is going to count for much. Consequently, I have no choice BUT to rely on some one else.

Jim C.

Even if you get this pushed through and into the manuals, you'll still end up with judging results that simply say that your case is typical of factory production and NOTHING that indicates that this is the very case that GM installed at St. Louis.

Is that what you are trying to achieve?

[Pat M.]

Re: Originality

Pat,
I don't believe it's realistic to expect judges, experienced or not, to look at a given car and within a short period of time using only the naked eye determine with hand on heart and/or bible and willing to sign a certificate of authenticity that a given component is the very one installed back at the factory 50 years ago and not an identical one swapped in 49.5 years ago.

It's unfortunate that so many have incorrect expectations of NCRS judging activities and even more unfortunate that some exploit this for commercial gain.

Michael, as I said before I understand that NCRS is not legally verifying anything to anyone about any car with any award.

That being said, I did think (apparent incorrectly) that the heightened scrutiny in Bowtie/Crossed Flag judging was different.

As I understand it, an item is judged to appear original in part by even looking at whether the part has been removed and/or tampered with, e.g., looking for wrench marks, etc. Well, then it sure seems to me that if a judge personally concludes that the part a) appears original and b) does not appear to have been removed/tampered with, then how can one conclude anything other than the item IS original?

That wouldn't mean the judge would certify anything to anyone. It doesn't even mean the part really is original. It simply means that in the nonbinding, personal opinion of the judge, the item, as best can be determined in that short time, is original.

Refusing to do so for this tiny class of special cars, even given all of the protective caveats above, is what I find unfortunate.

[Michael W.]

Re: Originality

Well, then it sure seems to me that if a judge personally concludes that the part a) appears original and b) does not appear to have been removed/tampered with, then how can one conclude anything other than the item IS original?

I think differently. Someone much wiser than me once said 'Yesterday's restorations are tomorrow's Bowties'.

I'm truly sorry that you're disappointed or disillusioned with the standards of NCRS judging. It seems you are looking for third party authentication of your car, for whatever reason. Perhaps someone like Al Grenning could help you out.

I'd personally be happy- no thrilled- with any NCRS judging award as it indicates the high level of accuracy of restoration or preservation along the lines of factory production as judged by my peers.

[Pat M.]

Re: Originality

I think differently. Someone much wiser than me once said 'Yesterday's restorations are tomorrow's Bowties'.

I'm truly sorry that you're disappointed or disillusioned with the standards of NCRS judging. It seems you are looking for third party authentication of your car, for whatever reason. Perhaps someone like Al Grenning could help you out.

I'd personally be happy- no thrilled- with any NCRS judging award as it indicates the high level of accuracy of restoration or preservation along the lines of factory production as judged by my peers.

For the last time - with feeling - I'm NOT looking for anyone to authenticate anything for me. My 70 is not a Bowtie, but it is a Duntov winner, and my one-owner 96 will rise or fall on it's own merits. I'm simply debating judging policy.

But yes, I am disappointed that you and others don't seem to care that the cars NCRS holds out as exhibits of originality may be nothing more than "yesterday's restorations."

[Jim C.]

Re: Originality

Well, I'm not overly concerned about having my car judged. I certainly don't want to minimize that process because I've participated in it, and I'm proud of the Top Flight award my car received. I also think the people who take on the role of judges give it an honest effort and do a pretty good job.

I'm more interested in recording history as it happened. The most current version of the 1966 manual does not specifically recognize the 3892657 block as having been factory installed in 1966. The manual leaves room to argue that it might have happened, but I think I can prove that it did happen. I'm also pretty confident that I won't be "pushing" anything through the NCRS if the appropriate people aren't on board and in concurrence. Yes, you may be right that the cylinder case currently in my Corvette is not the same one that was installed at the factory. If so, someone went to great extremes to make a low option, base model car "appear" to be original. Even if someone did do that, wouldn't they have gone with the much more common 3858174 block?

Subscribing to the belief that these old Corvettes can only be made to "appear" as original should be re-evaluated. That essentially says that EVERY Corvette out there, at best, can only be an approximation of what it was when it left the factory. Partially true. It's only new for a moment. Once it's driven off the assembly line, it starts to age and lose its factory "appearance." But I still believe that there are MANY MANY old Corvettes out there with original, factory installed components, including blocks, transmissions, etc., etc., etc.

[Michael W.]

Re: Originality

But yes, I am disappointed that you and others don't seem to care that the cars NCRS holds out as exhibits of originality may be nothing more than "yesterday's restorations."

'Care' is certainly not an appropriate word in this context. If I didn't GAS I wouldn't have bothered contributing to this thread. Given the constraints under which Bowtie judging is conducted, possibly I'm simply being more realistic or pragmatic.