inconsistant judging

[Domenic T.]

Re: inconsistant judging

Dom -

That has always been an accepted part of restoration, as long as it simply duplicates what was there originally (see "restoration" and "counterfeiting" definitions on pages 4 & 11 of the "Corvette Judging Reference Manual", 8th Edition, and the penalties for "Counterfeiting" on page 22).

Whether it gets judging credit depends on whether or not the restored pad surface and stampings appear to be typical of factory production.

John,
Thanks for clearing that up for me, I was having a hard time wondering if the #s stamped were what the guy wanted them to read.

Now that I know they are a copy of the original I feel better.

DOM

[Domenic T.]

Re: inconsistant judging

Ridge ,
I don't doubt what you say in the least but my guy here must have the later version of the boring machine because he indicates off the crank journals and bores from there.
I personally think you can get away with about .002 on the up & down indication without much damage to the skirts & bore, (not that I would settle for that) but I delt with some 413 dodge engines that had 1 cylinder apx .005 off due to a problem with the bar for that cylinder and I saw what it did after awhile.
we had a recall back in the 70's to correct the problem on the new truck chassis and had to bore the cylinder on the engine with the head & pan off, can you imagine the clean up with the engine still in the truck?

By the way we need to start a new thread on the valve seats you mentioned becuase I did do not use hard seats unless the seats are bad and have not had a problem with unleaded gas.

I do my own heads and have not had a problem with the original cast iron ,but there is an explination as to why, at least that is what the engine shop said made them work so good.

DOM

[Joe R.]

Re: inconsistant judging

You can kick this dog again and again. Things won't change when People are involved in the judging process.

Bottom line is where the Corvette was manufactured. That includes St. Louis, Houston Tx., Kennett Mo. or New York. And many other garages across the country.

JR

[Ronald L.]

Re: inconsistant judging

Joe - oooooh ya you nailed that one.

Ridge - back on the database idea. Yes we will not have everything today, now will it be 100% ever in part due to the reasons you mentioned, but, let's look at the stats...right now perhaps 300 C2's are in a very simple database out of 26000, about 1%.

What happens if there is an independent pooled database where car data is input as people around the country see cars, cars get judged, the sample size in 5 years grows to maybe 50%. Over a period of 10 or 20 years more and more of these hidden away cars surface at estate sales, etc...

There are several key items, cars that were parted out can be flagged as such. Harder now as probably every effort will be made to make it whole again, but in 66 alone I have seen two cars get parted out in the last 2 years. It happens.


I like the idea that it is separate from NCRS, at arms reach, say like Rob's site but now one really uses it. If all the data was pooled into there, it also gives some prospective buyers a chance at avoiding cases just like what we saw posted last night. MECUM car, high price, faked on side pipes and leather seats on a STD trim tag.

Usually people join NCRS after the purchase, but if they are out there using the web as a part of their decision process, that pooled database can be found.

The way is starts is if all judging data went into Rob's site...

[Chuck S.]

Re: inconsistant judging

you are an example of why I will never have my car judged

Michael, I have often had exactly that same thought, but it was usually after a TDB discussion of paint authenticy, the necessity of visible broach marks, or the sometimes handicapped process of generating accurate TIM&JGs.

If we're young and inexperienced, we have to listen to those presiding as "experts" over us and try to emulate their perception of "originality". Sometimes, because of the human element cited, that yields a rugged road of mixed results. I decided early on that I would be as well informed, as observant, and as conscienous as possible in restoring my car. I wanted to know as much about restoration and authenticy as the people judging my car.

I would not compromise on some changes from original configuration that I felt were essential, but I would accept those deducts as necessary. Otherwise, if the judges and I disagree on configuration, and I KNOW that it matches the original appearance, I won't be changing it back and forth...it may only take one judging to find that out, but I believe it to be worthwhile.

As Terry points out, judges come from a pool of volunteers...on any given day, it's the luck of the draw. When we drew teachers in school that gave really tough exams, we were asked after complaining: Do you really want to learn something...or do you just want the grade? I say be informed, and know when it's right.

Kirk's experience WAS remarkably consistent, to be envied even. Considering how much judging is going on, and how few complaints...I'm thinking that Leonards case is likely the exception rather than the rule.

[Kenneth H.]

Re: inconsistant judging

Actually, no.

If it appears to be a restamp, it would get a complete deduct.

There again, if a restamp were good enough to appear to be an original, how would a person know that it's not an original?

Michael,

Actually, yes. I didn't say it appeared to be a restamp, I said it ""appears" as original" and isn't that what judging is all about. Like the "Last Sting Ray" getting a top flight even though it didn't have it's original engine but one that "appeared" as original.

[Ridge K.]

Re: inconsistant judging

Michael, I have often had exactly that same thought, but it was usually after a TDB discussion of paint authenticy, the necessity of visible broach marks, or the sometimes handicapped process of generating accurate TIM&JGs.

If we're young and inexperienced, we have to listen to those presiding as "experts" over us and try to emulate their perception of "originality". Sometimes, because of the human element cited, that yields a rugged road of mixed results. I decided early on that I would be as well informed, as observant, and as conscienous as possible in restoring my car. I wanted to know as much about restoration and authenticy as the people judging my car.

I would not compromise on some changes from original configuration that I felt were essential, but I would accept those deducts as necessary. Otherwise, if the judges and I disagree on configuration, and I KNOW that it matches the original appearance, I won't be changing it back and forth...it may only take one judging to find that out, but I believe it to be worthwhile.

As Terry points out, judges come from a pool of volunteers...on any given day, it's the luck of the draw. When we drew teachers in school that gave really tough exams, we were asked after complaining: Do you really want to learn something...or do you just want the grade? I say be informed, and know when it's right.

Kirk's experience WAS remarkably consistent, to be envied even. Considering how much judging is going on, and how few complaints...I'm thinking that Leonards case is likely the exception rather than the rule.

Well said ....

[Clem Z.]

Re: inconsistant judging

shops that have "deck mounted" boring bars have to deck the block so the boring machine bore perpendicular to the crank center line. factory blocks decks surfaces are not parallel to the crank center line because they are not bored off of the deck surface at the factory. better shops have fixture mounted boring bars that do not require the deck to be parallel to the crank center line to get the correct bore.

to get the correct bore job without decking the block you need a machine like this.http://www.rottlermfg.com/popup_imag...pID=41&image=0

[Michael W.]

Re: inconsistant judging

Michael,

Actually, yes. I didn't say it appeared to be a restamp, I said it ""appears" as original" and isn't that what judging is all about. Like the "Last Sting Ray" getting a top flight even though it didn't have it's original engine but one that "appeared" as original.

I appreciate this, but in the context of the original (albeit off topic) question, your response may be taken out of context to support the platitude that 'NCRS allows restamps', similar to the 'NCRS allows BC/CC' fustercluck.

Again, if a stamping or the paint looks exactly like factory original, how would a judge know whether it's really a restamp or BC/CC and then justify a deduction?

Your statement 'appears as orignal' is spot on and I'm always amazed by the ongoing misconception that Flight Judging leads to authentication and certification of a car or it's components.

[Ridge K.]

Re: inconsistant judging

I appreciate this, but in the context of the original (albeit off topic) question, your response may be taken out of context to support the platitude that 'NCRS allows restamps', similar to the 'NCRS allows BC/CC' fustercluck.

Again, if a stamping or the paint looks exactly like factory original, how would a judge know whether it's really a restamp or BC/CC and then justify a deduction?

Your statement 'appears as orignal' is spot on and I'm always amazed by the ongoing misconception that Flight Judging leads to authentication and certification of a car or it's components.

I had to look up that "fustercluck" term .

Be mindful of the comprehension of the post readers.
You know that most big block guys like myself are rather slow thinking. Some say it's reduced blood flow to the brain, ....due to the torque.

[Kenneth H.]

Re: inconsistant judging

I appreciate this, but in the context of the original (albeit off topic) question, your response may be taken out of context to support the platitude that 'NCRS allows restamps', similar to the 'NCRS allows BC/CC' fustercluck.

Again, if a stamping or the paint looks exactly like factory original, how would a judge know whether it's really a restamp or BC/CC and then justify a deduction?

Your statement 'appears as orignal' is spot on and I'm always amazed by the ongoing misconception that Flight Judging leads to authentication and certification of a car or it's components.

Michael, I understand what you were trying to say, and you are correct. Sorry for the confusion in my original response.

Thanks.

[Paul J.]

Re: inconsistant judging

Quote:
Be also advised restamping VIN numbers is illegal.

Here we go again. We've all heard this before but there's no evidence yet that this is true. John once provided a citation to Iowa law that looked like you were correct, but upon closer review of that law it did not say that it was illegal to restamp a VIN. There was also some past discussion that there were Federal rules preventing restamping, but they were vague. Could you provide some evidence (like a reference to a law) that specifically states that it is illegal to restamp VINs? This would be helpful to anyone who is doing a "restoration".

[Don H.]

Re: inconsistant judging

This probably should be in a new thread, but
From the 2009 CALIF Vehicle Code:

CAL VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 10750-10752

10750. (a) No person shall intentionally deface, destroy, or alterthe motor number, other distinguishing number, or identification markof a vehicle required or employed for registration purposes withoutwritten authorization from the department, nor shall any person placeor stamp any serial, motor, or other number or mark upon a vehicle,except one assigned thereto by the department. (b) This section does not prohibit the restoration by an owner ofthe original vehicle identification number when the restoration isauthorized by the department, nor prevent any manufacturer fromplacing in the ordinary course of business numbers or marks upon newmotor vehicles or new parts thereof.10751. (a) No person shall knowingly buy, sell, offer for sale,receive, or have in his or her possession, any vehicle, or componentpart thereof, from which any serial or identification number,including, but not limited to, any number used for registrationpurposes, that is affixed by the manufacturer to the vehicle orcomponent part, in whatever manner deemed proper by the manufacturer,has been removed, defaced, altered, or destroyed, unless the vehicleor component part has attached thereto an identification numberassigned or approved by the department in lieu of the manufacturer'snumber.
For the whole text:http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ication+number

[Clem Z.]

Re: inconsistant judging

Your statement 'appears as orignal' is spot on and I'm always amazed by the ongoing misconception that Flight Judging leads to authentication and certification of a car or it's components.[/quote]
if that is not the case why is the NCRS at B/J ?? they help run up the bids

[Michael W.]

Re: inconsistant judging

if that is not the case why is the NCRS at B/J ?? they help run up the bids

How exactly did you figure that out?