Restoration

[Joe C.]

Re: Restoration

NCRS is still a hobbyist organization. Yes there are many who make it all about money and profits but without the hobbyist we likely wouldn't have an organization. There are tons of people who continually give freely of their time because they love it and believe in what we do here. One of the great things about NCRS is that we judge against a standard not against other cars. Without a standard what would our basis for judging be? A person can present their car however the like, there is nothing wrong with building the car you want just be prepared to accept the way it's judged against the standard. Many people would like to change the standards to suit what they want. If NCRS were to do this the standard would change weekly and still no one would be happy because we can't all have it our way. When a person joins NCRS we are not shy about declaring our purpose and standards, you still have a choice, if what we have isn't what you want there are many other Corvette organizations out there who may be a better match for you. Take it or leave it but don't complain when it doesn't do it the way you want. Why don't we instead of complaining take a minute to thank all the people who volunteer the time for the great organization we have and the tremendous volume of materials and information gathered over many years. Thank you NCRS officers, representatives, organizers, manual writers, team leaders and judges and many many more who volunteer regularly.

In an ideal world, your statement would be 100% accurate. Not to take anything away from the fine volunteer work done by most of the people in the Organization, it would be naive of anybody to believe that what is done here is not ancillary to a business enterprise. The fact that the attachment of any NCRS "approval" (ie: award) to a piece of merchandise in its advertising equates to an increase in it's "value" then proves my point. There will always be a small core of purists and true enthusiasts/hobbyists who repeatedly run their Corvettes through the "system" strictly for the enjoyment of the game. Unfortunately, a large percentage of the merchandise run through "the system" and scrutinized by volunteers drawn from a pool of unpaid laborers, is immediately offered for sale by greedy used car salesmen at bloated prices.

The laws of human nature, abetted by the free market, dictate that an organization such as the NCRS, however well intentioned, and whose subject matter is a commodity, will eventually become bastardized because of the almighty dollar. Compare the NCRS of 1974 to what it is today as proof. The presence of NCRS members, in an official capacity at vintage car auctions, selling documentation supporting/refuting NCRS "pedigree" is an unholy collaboration between a supposed "hobbyist" group and a free market enterprise, for-profit business.

[Dick W.]

Re: Restoration

My first new Corvette was a Glenn Green 65 Convertible. To get to the point let me tell you the paint job was not bad. No it wasn't. It was down right horrible beyond description. The rear quarters showed primer above the wheel wells. The front fender louvers were very rough which just a hint of paint. Raw fibeglass at the bottom of the doors as I recall. My Dad bought me my first Corvette God bless him. He bought it from his buddy who owned the Chevy dealership. Anyhow Chevrolet repainted the car. I had my share of new midyears(not like Clem though) and let me say only one out of 4 had a decent paint job.
Todays' restorations and even yesterdays weren't and aren't even close to original. Jorjorian mentioned body seams. Whew!!! You could see just about every seam in them after a couple of months.
Grabiak Chevrolet repainted or drastically touched up every new Corvette they sold.
Michael Hanson etal and others here old enough to remember those cars knew how rough they were but it didn't matter to us as we loved them anyhow.
If you think the mid years were bad you should have seen the paint job on my 68 BB when new. All the rivets showed in the front end. Paint job was down right disgusting.
One more. I bought a new '80 Corvette in Dec 79. The right front fender stuck up in the air a good 3/8" above the hood line. The paint job looked like Earl did it.
The doors didn't align for crap.

Corvette did not have the market cornered on poor fit/paint. I owned quite a few new cars in the '60's and '70's. I never had one that did not require a trip back to the dealer to get doors to fit, touch up paint, etc. I bought one new car in late '69 that looked like someone used a four pound hammer to do the sheet metal work on the front panels.

It was attitudes of the manufacturers, plant workers, and the public that allowed this to happen. The manufacturers wanted them out the door, a lot of plant workers took no pride in their workmanship, and the public, as a whole, did not give a hoot as long as they had a new car. I was in Ford, GM, and Chrysler plants in the '60's and witnessed what went on in the plants, we had a dealership in the early '60's so I know how crappy they were new.

Some posters here seem to have a case of optical rectitus when they talk about NCRS. NCRS is a hobbyist organization does not drive the hobby, the collectors drive the hobby. NCRS provides guidance for judging. Other marque's have adopted the concept that is used. Tom Ames nailed it, if you don't like the outcome, maybe there is another organization that would serve their needs better.

[William F.]

Re: Restoration

We've gotten off the subject somewht. Started out about paint and now about rest of "Appears as Produced",hobby vs, business. I'm for 99.9% of the car appearing as produced and delivered per NCRS judging standards but it's obvious that maybe the paint issue should at least be given some thought. To be the devil's advocate, what do we use as "THE standard" for paint? Think about this, even if we have original C1's, C2's, etc. with original paint, unless they've "been hermetically sealed in a mayonnaise jar and stored on Funk and Wagnell's porch' as Johnny Carson used to say in his Carnak skit, the paint on even these cars has changed somewhat over the years. I'm sure they've all been buffed, polished, waxex, and with some change in color , texture due to aging, etc. Yes, we can spot the shiny vs dull areas, but how can we say rest of paint appearance is "as delivered" or not-maybe just best vs worst day for worker doing the painting could have made the difference?If correct color matched to car and correct metallic component when applicable, give the paint a break.

[Bill W.]

Re: Restoration

Mike I agree the cars are so much better now than when new . I started working at GM dealer body shops in the 60s and we had to fix what ever the factory didnt . The Corvettes were the wost . They (the factory higher ups) seemed to have the idea if if you dont want it there are others that will . In my opinion the judging problem is #1 unexperienced judges who never seen an original silver, blue,yellow, or gold color car . and how much better a black or red car could be . They have never seen a door jamb finished with a grinder . or a valve cover with little or no paint ,a run and scratches from engine instaling . #2 the good ol boy system . Many very good judges wont deduct for over restoration ,base coat clear coat ,wrong metallic etc.because there own car has the same thing . In my case I stopped judging when I was told by a team leader not to deduct for a repaint "with clear" on a Duntov /Bowtie car because the owner was a good guy that brought new cars in every year. NCRS still has the best judging system And all judges and owners should be required to look at and study Bowtie cars. They are what we should be all about .

[Joel F.]

Re: Restoration

To quote from an article by a Road & Track staffer in Feb '67 on the 36K of his '64 convertible and how it was DELIVERED:
"Problems: a broken spark plug; the side windows wouldn't roll up with the doors shut; splotchy paint on top cover panel; the top didn't fit properly; the passenger's seat rattled furiously; leaks around the windshield; and the steering had a massive squeak in it.".
Other items, from personal observation: a lack of the required paint between the turn signals; leaks in the wiper area that required POUNDS of caulking to seal, etc.
But the R&T author was Happy with the car.....probably because he bought the car for $4100, with sales tax and 1/2 year licensing included. He also kidded himself that it was still worth 3K in '67. (I bought my 1st '63 coupe in '64 for $2700......and sold it in '67 with the clutch on the way out for $2200).
But they were then .....and now.....some of the best looking "I Want One" cars ever built......

I agree they were not originally built all that well. Not to change the subject, but what is the purpose of the PV if the original quality was such that things probably did not work that well in the first place? To me this seems a contradiction.

[Tom A.]

Re: Restoration

We have been teaching for years what indicators should be present for an original appearance, it's even in the present paint standard deduct description. There is a lot of lee-way given to allow for variations in factory production. The problem is everyone has their own idea of what they want to see. Only a continuing educational effort will eventually bring some consistency to paint judging but few show up for seminars(few as compared to the number of judges out there) because most already know all about it. Judges tend to look at cars they judge then assume they represent, on an average, original production. Next time you see a Bowtie car on display or go to Nationals where they are judged take some serious time to study them and you will gain a whole new understanding of what original is. It's not a great mystery but becomes complicated as owners try to find short cuts to get by judging. No, hair spray in your door jambs does not look like an original finish but that doesn't stop owners from trying it. Among all of the tricks and short cuts it becomes difficult to separate a sincere effort from a half way rig for many judges who lack experience. It is entirely possible to have a nice looking finish and still have the hallmarks of an original finish. Most either want the show car finish or don't want to expend the effort to educate their painter on exactly what they want to see when finished. Any painter with a little creativity can take today's materials and make a correct appearing finish. All it takes to understand original is a little time and research.

[Joe R.]

Re: Restoration

Tony,

I certainly was not pointing a finger at you or any other member that either restores or has one restored. It's just the name of the game that cars are over restored and that is the way we want it.

JR

[Michael H.]

Re: Restoration

We have been teaching for years what indicators should be present for an original appearance, it's even in the present paint standard deduct description. There is a lot of lee-way given to allow for variations in factory production. The problem is everyone has their own idea of what they want to see. Only a continuing educational effort will eventually bring some consistency to paint judging .

Tom,

I agree, and this is exactly why we need to study the few remaining original paint cars that are left. Soon, the cars, and the old guys that remember what they actually looked like when new, will be gone.

[Mark D.]

Re: Restoration

Soon, the cars, and the old guys that remember what they actually looked like when new, will be gone.

Really, Cranky??? Soon??? I'm gonna miss you guys:-)

[Michael H.]

Re: Restoration

Really, Cranky??? Soon??? I'm gonna miss you guys:-)

Some days it feels like it.

[Wayne G.]

Re: Restoration

If you're going to the trouble to restore your car to NCRS standards, which is the way GM built it, stay the course and try to recreate that look. You don't have to do a lousy job of painting the car, but you have to use lacquer and not BC/CC. Buff it out like a GM show car if you want, leave the waves in the glass and it will have that new circa 50's/60's Corvette look. You'll get the maximum points and it will look right. The mission of NCRS is to restore the Corvette to original as built conditon. As Michael, said look at a Corvette with original paint to get the idea.

[Chris E.]

Re: Restoration

If you're going to the trouble to restore your car to NCRS standards, which is the way GM built it, stay the course and try to recreate that look. You don't have to do a lousy job of painting the car, but you have to use lacquer and not BC/CC. Buff it out like a GM show car if you want, leave the waves in the glass and it will have that new circa 50's/60's Corvette look. You'll get the maximum points and it will look right. The mission of NCRS is to restore the Corvette to original as built conditon. As Michael, said look at a Corvette with original paint to get the idea.

Wayne, I respectfully disagree with the part of your statement that says you have to use lacquer. My car doesn't have that, and I've dulled down areas on the body. I have been getting a 50% deduct at the Regional level, and I think I have a good shot now at getting only a 20% deduct. (that's only a loss of 9 points) Also, I have heard of other BC/CC cars that (done right) have not received any deduct at the Regional or National level.

Orange peel, paint coverage, and keeping the dull areas dull is what it is all about. The material you choose to use (BC/CC vs. lacquer vs. others) has less of an impact.

[Wayne G.]

Re: Restoration

Chris,
I know that BC/CC is a much better paint and will last years longer than lacquer. But the truth is everyone can tell the difference in the two. Lacquer lays on the car and BC/CC has a look of coating the car. You even mentioned that you can make your BC/CC look close to lacquer so that you don't get the full point deduct. I imagine its an opaque color and not high mettallic. When I did a body off restoration in 2000 I listened to my painter and decided to go with BC/CC for all of its reasons. Big mistake as the rest of the car was 100% original with docs etc. I've owned it 37 years. Other than the paint I restored the car to the exact GM standards and finishes, dipped paint parts and all. The car top flights because of the rest of the restoration. The paint is Milano Marron and even though I had the photo paint match and all of those cautions it's to shiny and to heavy looking on the car. I get the total paint deduct. It's beautful to look at, but to do it over I would use lacquer to make it look right. In fact when I finish my'57 I'm going to paint my '66 in lacquer.

[Pat M.]

Re: Restoration

Chris,
I know that BC/CC is a much better paint and will last years longer than lacquer. But the truth is everyone can tell the difference in the two. Lacquer lays on the car and BC/CC has a look of coating the car.

I agree. In my opinion even modern lacquer, for all of its supposed drawbacks, looks closer to the real deal. JMHO, and to each his own.

[Tom A.]

Re: Restoration

You might be surprised at the number of cars at any given meet that pass paint judging 100% with finishes other than lacquer. It is very much possible to reproduce an original appearance with toda'ys materials. We do it on a regular basis with no deducts on our jobs to date. Just because one painter doesn't get it right doesn't mean others can't. A lot of it is about how heavy the material is laid down. There are methods to do it right. Modern lacquers remain soft forever, they take years for all of the solvents to come out and are extremely chemical sensitive (everything leaves a mark). NCRS standard do not differentiate between materials they only require correct appearance. Some like lacquer some don't that's the beauty of NCRS "have it your way".