CDCIF sanity check

[Tracy C.]

As part of another thread on judging shocks, there was discussion on the 5 axis criteria for assessing a parts originality. Terry M shared how a judge could access the "date" axis for a service part even when the part was not offically date coded. While I think I understand the concept, I thought I would throw out an example just to see if I have it straight.

In the case of judging the wheel covers on a early 63, the JG states that 63s with a VIN under approximately 2500 should be equipped with frosted covers and also states that these covers will have a thicker perimeter rim.

OK, I have the picture below that depicts the thicker earlier style wheel cover on the left. I also know that there were service replacement wheels covers availlible from GM that were frosted however these covers had the later configuration with the thinner perimeter rim like the cap on the right in the picture below. (scoll down for more)




Ok now for the acid test.

Lets say a 63 with a VIN around 1000 shows up on the judging field with the thin rim service "frosted" wheelcovers. Based on what I've gleaned, I would proceed like this.

Total originality points for wheels cover is 10 points. That is 2 points each for the following

Configuration - The configuration is correct except for the thin rim. Take 1 point

Date - From the configuration I can tell they are the late style service wheel covers. Take 2 points.

Completeness - OK, no deduction

Installation - OK, no deduction

Finish - OK, they are frosted and finished correctly. no deduction.

Proceed to "condition" point accessment.

My real question/point here is that a partial credit can be given to configuration even when it is too late for the application. Is this correct?

thanks,
tc

[Edward J.]

Re: CDCIF sanity check

Tracy, I would bet that there would be a little talk over the configuration, but since its only minor the 1 point surely sounds fair.My question would be can you really tell the difference on the judging field? If theres only one 63 on the field theres really nothing to compare.

[Terry M.]

Re: CDCIF sanity check

TC,

I would opine you have it right in the example you used.

I think the thin/thick can be discerned on the field and one need not have another 1963 to compare to. In fact one should not be comparing cars on the field -- each car stands on its own. Granted it is handy to say to the owner: "Look over at Joe's car -- he has the wheel covers you should have." But that is not the same as comparing Corvettes while judging.

An example I was thinking of is the lower control arms. I don't know all the technical details, but I understand that sometime in the later mid-years there were reinforcing gussets added to the lower control arms. If these reinforced arms showed up on a Corvette that was too early to have them there is both a minor configuration deduction -- for the added gussets, and an inferred date deduction for parts too new for the build of the car. In the case of the control arms there may not be enough points available to do much, but the principle still stands.

Thanks for starting a new thread. Our discussion on the shock thread got off the topic of that thread and was buried well down where few would see it.

[Edward J.]

Re: CDCIF sanity check

Terry, I think in certain situations on the field there may be something , once I was a OJ and the engine pad stamp was questioned and they happened to have a bowtie car handy, so along with the team leader they did a comparison.maybe that one of a few? P.S. I am still grasping the judging process Terry.

[Rick A.]

Re: CDCIF sanity check

as Terry mentioned, NO COMPARISON between cars should be made on the judging field - each car is to be judged individually

BTW - Tracy like the way you laid the scenario out

[Terry M.]

Re: CDCIF sanity check

Terry, I think in certain situations on the field there may be something , once I was a OJ and the engine pad stamp was questioned and they happened to have a bowtie car handy, so along with the team leader they did a comparison.maybe that one of a few? P.S. I am still grasping the judging process Terry.

On occasion I have seen people do this kind of comparison. Strictly speaking it is not judging one car against another, but I think it is a risk not worth taking. The opportunity for a misunderstanding as explanations are offered is just too great in my opinion. There is also he chance that bystanders will think we are judging one car against another. That said, far be it from me to tell a NTL what to do.

[Edward J.]

Re: CDCIF sanity check

Terry, from what I have seen on the TDB there always seems to be a question on engine pad stamps and even the pro,s are always questioning there originality. everyone has a opinion. seems there always seem to be something new that hasn't been seen.

[Terry M.]

[Bob D.]

Re: CDCIF sanity check

Tracy

I may be off base here--I have been known to be that way several times, but I don't know how you would be able to tell the difference between the early and later wheel covers, IF they are mounted on the car. If both have the frosted finish and they are displayed mounted on the wheels, then how do you tell which has the thicker rim?

[Tracy C.]

Re: CDCIF sanity check

Tracy

I may be off base here--I have been known to be that way several times, but I don't know how you would be able to tell the difference between the early and later wheel covers, If they are mounted on the car. If both have the frosted finish and they are displayed mounted on the wheels, then how do you tell which has the thicker rim?

Bob, Once you've seen a set of the fat boys, it becomes pretty obvious. (Maybe it takes one to know one, you are just a skinny guy.. ) The later style will appear nearly flush with the edge of the wheel lip and the thicker ones protrude well beyond the edge of the wheel lip. I can try to get some comparitive pics as I have sets of both.

I'd venture to say most 63 owners have never seen a "real" early style wheelcover. They only made about 2500 sets and most of those have had the snot beat out of them by bubba and consquently replaced. I imagine the reason the change was made was the thin (flat) configuration of the perimeter rim improved the resistance to hammer dents at installation.

tc

[Bob D.]

Re: CDCIF sanity check

Tracy

Thanks for the education. I did not know that about '63 wheel covers. Now I kow what to look for. Like I said--I was off base--just a little.

[Edward J.]

Re: CDCIF sanity check

Bob, Once you've seen a set of the fat boys, it becomes pretty obvious. (Maybe it takes one to know one, you are just a skinny guy.. ) The later style will appear nearly flush with the edge of the wheel lip and the thicker ones protrude well beyond the edge of the wheel lip. I can try to get some comparitive pics as I have sets of both.

I'd venture to say most 63 owners have never seen a "real" early style wheelcover. They only made about 2500 sets and most of those have had the snot beat out of them by bubba and consquently replaced. I imagine the reason the change was made was the thin (flat) configuration of the perimeter rim improved the resistance to hammer dents at installation.

tc

Tracy, I am one step closer on learning on the one of many changes that occured during the 63 model year.