date coded glass

[Bhigdog]

Do AACA judges check for date codes/logos on car window glass? Not so much that they are the correct date but that they are just there........Bob

[Restorer32]

Not in my experience.

[Bhigdog]

Not in my experience.

So all my many hours of making masks and etching windows was just an exercise?. It would seem to me if the judges are asked to fret over things like metal vs plastic valve caps then date codes/logos on the glass would be on thier check list. After a certain date weren't the etched codes a Federal requirement? If so, then EVERY car that left the factory would carry the coded glass. Yes? No?................Bob

[Restorer32]

Personally I would like to see stricter judging but do understand the time constraints. I want an AACA award to continue to mean something. I suspect if a judge happened to notice a date coded piece of glass with an obviously impossible date for the period a deduction might be taken but it isn't something we normally check. It would depend on the luck of the draw whether a judge was knowledgable enough about your car to recognize an incorrect date code/logo. Again, in my experience. Metal versus plastic valve caps are an easy thing to check since there is a date certain when each type was available generally regardless of the make of car. Same with cad plated spark plugs. Window date codes/logos vary by manufacturer and would take considerable time and specialized knowledge to verify.

[Bhigdog]

I understand the time constraint angle. I was wondering if after a certain date wasn't every glass required to be coded? If so that would be a judging "filter". Didn't each marque use a certain specific logo? If so that's another "filter".

I'm thinking that if all GM cars used LOF Safety Plate logos, that's all that would need to checked for. Same with other marques. Just check for an appropriate type etching.

It's possible that the various makers logos and possible permutations would be way too cumbersome and time consuming, but maybe not.

Has anyone done a little research into the subject?................Bob

[MCHinson]

I would offer the opinon that this issue is a can of worms that would only lead to more nitpicky mistakes.

In Model A Fords alone, in essentially only 4 years of production, there were 9 distinct different glass trademarks (plus a lot of plate glass with no trademarks). In addition, there were also month and year date stamps along with the trademarks.

In The Model A Ford Club Judging Standards I like the following quote: "The windshield trademark was originally to be located only in the lower corner, on the passenger's side and readable from the outside. However, original unrestored cars have been found facing inward on both the driver's and passenger's side."

I think that if I were restoring a car, within reason, I would attempt to do my very best to replicate how it was supposed to be from the factory. I would do this for my own pleasure. I would discourage anybody trying to move AACA judging to the extreme level of getting nitpicky on this issue.

We have enough trouble getting judges to ask for documentation on things that they "think" are wrong before taking deductions. I really don't want to have the judges having to ask for documentation about every glass manufacturer's mark on a car.

[Ron Green]

When restoring my 55 I asked this very same question and was told that the judges do check for the logo but not the date, so I had them etched in the new flat glass. OEM took my original factory window dates and replicated that exact dates to the new glass. I also spoke to a well known judge (who shall remain nameless) who stated that they are checked. He showed me a vehicle at a GN that didn't have them and one that did in the 57 chevy class.

What I found strange was that the etched logos were readable on one side and backwards on the other. That is how they did it at the factory they installed them all on the same side.

[Bhigdog]

Matt, I didn't realize there were that many variations in such a short span. If it's true of Ford it's probably also true of other marks. Ron, You are correct about the innie/ outie logos. I checked several junk yard cars before I etched mine and they all were like that. I took care to make mine the same.

Does anyone know if there is an "official" AACA position on judging for date codes?

I'm not lobbying one way or the other, and I would have been retentive enough to do the etching even if they are not required, but it would be nice to know the rules or even if there are any..................Bob

[Guest billybird]

All the glass in my car is logo/date code correct. I did the etching not for AACA competition, but for the Marque club I planned to show in as well. I think a vehicle with date coded glass makes a statement about the extent of the restoration but I would'nt want a judge to see date coded glass and assume that every thing else would be correct to the painstaking detail. I am not aware of any rule in AACA that has to do with checking numbers such as glass, data plates, etc. I'm sure there are cars on the field that the color or trim or an accessory would not match the data plate. So technically that car would not be as left the factory.I still say the AACA has the best system for what they do. I think date codes, data plates, and factory marking should be left to the marque clubs.

[poci1957]

Just sticking my nose in here, as I am not a judge. I am sure it is unrealistic to think a judge could decode the date markings on various makes of cars on the show field. BUT if I were judging I would be able to notice the logos marked in the glass and note if they looked period correct and were in a location that appeared correct. I would notice if a font looked too modern, for example, or if maybe one was an obvious replacement and did not match the others. How much to deduct would be subject to how obviously inauthentic the item looked. Just my opinion, Todd

[Bhigdog]

Maybe I am missing something here.

If the Date Code on the glass is other than the date of the glass, and it is a federal requirement to date the glass, then it is a falsification to put an old date code on new glass. If the federal regulations per se are not being broken, the intent of the reg is.

I am a scientist (at least that is what it says on my pay stub) and the very thought of putting an old date on new glass would get me in trouble. So I will not think about it anymore.

Think about it. the whole concept of "restoration" is based on falsification aimed at fooling the judges. The cars are presented as "as they were when they left the factory". That's patently false.

Reproduced items are routinely presented as "original". Modern paints are used to mimic nitrocellulose lacquer, new glass is branded as old, etc, etc.

You really need to put the whole thing in context vis-a-vis scientistic integrety vs restorative adaptation.

Conflating one with the other will only lead to lost sleep and heavy drinking.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.....................Bob

Edited June 23, 2010 by Bhigdog (see edit history)

[Guest billybird]

Maybe I am missing something here.

If the Date Code on the glass is other than the date of the glass, and it is a federal requirement to date the glass, then it is a falsification to put an old date code on new glass. If the federal regulations per se are not being broken, the intent of the reg is.

I am a scientist (at least that is what it says on my pay stub) and the very thought of putting an old date on new glass would get me in trouble. So I will not think about it anymore.

Theoreticaly this is corrct. Realisticaly, I can't remember anyone who has ever been arrested or convicted or even accused of "glass falsifying".

[Shop Rat]

Think about it. the whole concept of "restoration" is based on falsification aimed at fooling the judges. .....Bob

I always believed that the whole point of restoration was to preserve, to the best of someone's ability and money available for the project, automotive history for future generations.

[MCHinson]

From the judging guidelines:

"The objective of AACA judging is to evaluate

an antique vehicle which has been restored to

the same state as when the dealer received the

vehicle from the factory. Any feature, option, or

accessory shown in the original factory catalog,

sales literature or company directives for

the model year of the vehicle, will be accepted

for judging. The end result of the accurate and

honest evaluation of a vehicle by a judging

team will be the proper determination

of the

deserved award for the owner’s efforts.

The following specific statements of policy shall

govern AACA judging.

1. All vehicles legitimately registered in a

competition class and displayed

on the

show field will be “point” judged unless

the owner requests

that the vehicle not be

judged.

2. There shall be no penalty or premium

for

over-restoration. Over-restoration and nonauthentic

restoration are not the same.

Paint with a finer finish and higher gloss

than original paint would be considered

over-restoration.

Chrome plating or varnishing

a part which was originally painted

would be considered

non-authentic restoration,

and the vehicle would receive the

appropriate point deduction

on the judging

form."

My personal 2 cents worth:

The best explanation that I can give is that an original perfect condition part, or an accurate reproduction part that looks exactly like the original part, or a restored part that looks exactly like the original part all get the same points in AACA Judging.

Some clubs deduct for reproduction parts, AACA does not. AACA juding is designed to acknowledge a totally correct appearing car, it does not distinguish from "original", "New Old Stock", "restored", or "reproduction" anything. That is what AACA is about. If you want to obsess and nitpick over the most obscure minor issue that requires a magnifying glass to see, or if you want to spend hours judging every square inch of a car, there are other clubs for that. I am happy with AACA.

[Bhigdog]

My comment "fooling the judges", like many of my comments was said with tongue in cheek, and to provoke thought and comments. Personally, I think both are healthy.

Of course the Judges are not really fooled in the sense they are being made fools of because they don't know the difference between new and old.

I don't think restoring anything to as close as it was when new by improvising, substituting, recreating, etc etc is cheating at all. Many parts and materials are simply unavailable and in some cases even illegal.

As to scoring the guy that worked his butt off polishing an old piece of glass higher than a repro. That begs the question "should the shlep that does all of his own work score higher than Mr. Gotrocks who just writes checks".

Fretting about that also leads to sleepless nights and heavy drinking.

Not that there's anything wrong with that......................Bob

Edited June 23, 2010 by Bhigdog (see edit history)

[Ron Green]

BUT if I were judging I would be able to notice the logos marked in the glass and note if they looked period correct and were in a location that appeared correct. I would notice if a font looked too modern, for example, or if maybe one was an obvious replacement and did not match the others.

Now this makes sense.

As I stated previously, right or wrong I have spoken to a judge who is extremely knowledgeable and he in fact does look for the marks, not the exact date codes which are hard to decipher.

The logos were there from the factory so if your replacing the entire glass why not have it etched in? Technically both the glass and logo are reproductions including the rubber glass seal more than likely.

[MCHinson]

If I had to guess, the Tri 5 Chevys and Mustangs and perhaps a few other similar highly reproduced cars tend to attract judges who, due to their judging in other clubs, look for these types of things. In many AACA Classes, the judges are less likely to be looking at such details.

[Guest billybird]

I don't think the hobby is cultivating deceit, or at least not for me. I make no bones about somethings on my cars being reproduction items and readily admit such. Deceit to me would be if I took a repro part and swore I found it in a barn where it had been for the last 60 years. I'm sure this occurs sometimes. I am always sceptical of a "barn find" , I mean sooner or later somebody's got to find them all. Yet, I know such things exist. I'm rambling- The End.

[Bhigdog]

In many AACA Classes, the judges are less likely to be looking at such details.

And therein lies the rub. Are they looking or are they not. What is the "official" position on this? If the judging guidelines are followed glass certification etches should be looked for. After all, every car that left the factory had them and they were promenantly displayed in the same place on every car. In some cases 10 or more times per car.

I agree that it would be cumbersome to verify absolute correctness as to logo type and code. But shouldn't something approximate be etched there to satisfy the "completeness" of the car.

As an example, up to a certain date car they must have metal tire valve caps because every car left the factory with them. No one knows whether they would have been nickle, brass, knurled, smooth, domed, flat or whatever, but they must be there. If you are missing a cap you are dinged a point.

Why would not cert logos be the same. Don't nit pick as to absolute correctness but SOMETHING should be there. Should'nt it?

It sure would be nice if someone would voice the official position on this. If they are not checked for, fine. If they are, that's OK too. But club members shouldn't have some cars dinged while others skate on the whim of individual judging teams..............Bob

[MCHinson]

I would disagree with you about the valve stems. On Model A Fords, most if not all of the judges probably know those parts well enough to count off for incorrect valve stems too. Different Classes probably each have their own small well known items that judges tend to focus on. I think it all balances out for the most part.

[Bhigdog]

I'm sure you're correct in case of model A's and probably a couple of other very popular marques, but that exception doesn't disprove my point. I installed 5 new metal caps on my 39 Chevy PU for Canandaigua. They are nickle plated, domed, and knurled. Can you tell me if that's what was on the truck when it left the factory?

The fact that some kind of metal caps were there was good enough. If I had no caps whatsoever I would have been rightfully dinged. Why not for for cert. etchs, which, after all, are actually required by law?

If the club has a position it would be nice to know it. If they do not then judging in certain areas may be arbitrary and capricious. That's OK too as long as everyone knows how the field is tilted. So far we don't................Bob

Edited June 23, 2010 by Bhigdog (see edit history)

[Shop Rat]

Bob,

Have you tried contacting either Herb Oakes - V.P. Class Judging or Don Bohne -

Chairman - Continuing Judges Education about this? You might want to ask them.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Shop Rat
Correct a spelling error. (see edit history)

[Ron Green]

Here is a link to OEM glass and the date coding process along some etching examples for those not familiar with these logos. Excellent company to deal with from my experience.

http://www.oemglass.net/date_coding.html

[poci1957]

The logos were there from the factory so if your replacing the entire glass why not have it etched in? Technically both the glass and logo are reproductions including the rubber glass seal more than likely.

Yup, all exactly right.

Going back into dusty history I should also note that from the beginning the AACA has given a little leeway on glass. Remember that from the 1920s back cars originally had PLATE glass and the club encouraged it's replacement since it was so dangerous in an accident. Just a little trivia, Todd

[Bhigdog]

Carried to it's logical end insisting that every componant be original or NOS would soon mean that the show field would consist of driver and HPOF classes. Plus, following your reccommendation would increase not decrease the instances of deceipt. Always got to be carefull of the law of unintended consequenses.........................Bob

[Ron Green]

Quote: "indicating that there is a whole industry out there trying "to fool the judge". A Sure sign of a deceitful culture."

So if you want to restore a vehicle to factory conditions, and need to replace the glass, and you go to the time and expense to have the logos exactly duplicated from a professional who offers a tip on how to make the glass edges somewhat clearer, this would be classified as a "deceitful culture"?

If there is this much debate about a flat glass window date logo, imagine the conversation on today's upholstery and wood graining methods.

[Bhigdog]

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Please read my post before dismissing it so lightly.

Taking advantage of the structure of the car that hides the battery is gaming the system at best, deceitful at worst.

Since it's clearly understood by all parties that unseen items are not judged, then by implication non authentic items hidden are "allowed". Therefore there is no deceipt. Requiring everything, including unseen items, be "authentic" (whatever that means) will just encourage more fudging (unintended consequence).

Assuming the rules required everything to be "authentic" just how would you inforce the rules?

Would every car be strip searched?

Before judging would the team captain approach the owner and ask if he was hiding anything?

Perhaps a confessional could be set up on the show field.

The tar in tar top batteries is not really tar anymore it's plastic. Would that require a confession?

How about that carpet that's not really wool but a synthetic?

Shall the owner sheepishly admit the the date codes were etched by acid rather than abrasive?

Will the judge pull the dip stick to confirm the engine oil really is straight 20W non detergent, as specified?

Etc Etc Etc.

You sound like you are a "purest", not that there's anything wrong with that, but in the world of AACA judging it would be both impractical and unworkable.

At some point concessions have to be made to what's most workable rather than the theoretical ideal......................Bob

[Shop Rat]

Quote from O.E.M Glass Incorporated "Finally, each edge of glass piece is rubbed with oil to make it clear and shiny. To fool the judges rub some oil on the edges."

I am puzzled about this. So please help me to understand. What does putting oil on the edges do to fool the judges?

For years when I get new glasses they "roll and polish the edges" so that they are less noticable. It makes them very shiny rather than dull. But that is because they slightly stick out beyond the frames. Many times vehicle glass is in a rubber grommet of sorts so that it forms a seal against the metal. Or does the oil on the edges apply to glass that is not in a rubber grommet so that the edges do show?

[poci1957]

I might be more interested in 1910 Anon's opinion about deceit and misrepresentation if he/she/they would reveal something of their identity and not delete all their posts after fueling little arguments like this.

[Bhigdog]

I think a better term than "fool the judges" might be "satisfy the judging requiremants"...........Bob

[Bhigdog]

Authenticity is the basis of the whole AACA judging system. Why do you put it in quotes on a post to the AACA Judging Forum?

Batteries are specifically listed on the AACA Judging Form and thus should be authentic. Pistons are not listed, so I would assume that their authenticity is not a concern to the AACA Judges.

At some point in the future, the battery issue will have to be reviewed in the same light as finishes and tires have been. I hope that the Judging committee will clearly define where the line of acceptability and availability intersect.

Integrity is far more important than authenticity, points and awards. In that regard, I am an absolute purist.

If the rules clearly state that non seen items are not judged, then clearly and by definition they do not have to conform to the standards of judging "authenticity". The playing field in that regard at least is perfectly level. If your battery shows it must look "authentic". If it doesn't show it does not. The rules are clear and there is no loss of integrety by following them. If you have your own set of rules defining what is authentic and what causes loss of personal integrity that is fine. Not that there's anything wrong with that.............Bob Beck

Edited June 24, 2010 by Bhigdog (see edit history)

[Shop Rat]

Oiling Ground glass makes it look as if it is Polished glass (temporarily). Glass can be polished with local melting (flame polish) or ever finer grit.

I apologize for the focus but the effect can be seen even out of focus.

(Left Ground Glass, Right same glass with oil.)

Good illustration. So the point of oiling the edges is to avoid the extra cost of polishing? Same effect but temporary, right?

[Bhigdog]

Your tag, 1910-anon, suggests you own a 1910 something. I'm wondering if you actually show or have shown a car in AACA judged events. If so, tell us a little of your experiances, or is your argument for "authenticy" simply a verbal excercise. Not that there's anything wrong with that.........Bob Beck

[MCHinson]

1910 Anon,

Thanks for the lesson on oiling glass. I have never heard of that before. In AACA Judging, I can't imagine a use for oiling any glass. In AACA judging, the windows are to be rolled up. The edge of the glass is not visible while rolled up on any car that I am aware of. Perhaps in a club that rolls the windows down to check the edge that would be used to hide the fact that plate glass has been replaced with safety glass? If there would be any other use, I can't think of it. So, for AACA judging, it would not be of any benefit.

I would suggest that one of the great things about this forum is that people can search and read old discussions and learn from them. I would encourage you to leave all of your posts so that they might be informative to those who would prefer to read an existing discussion than ask the same question again.

[Shop Rat]

.....Now you are getting subjective and talking about motives. .....

Not motives in the context of wrongdoing. Just trying to understand what the purpose is of oiling the edges is. It looks like some might do it to have the same effect, shiny edges, that having them polished would do. Just a lot cheaper.

..... The O.E.M. Glass Incorporated web site says that the purpose of oiling is to "fool the judges". As a judge yourself, how do you like being fooled? .....

First it makes me wonder why they put that on their website, and what variety of judges they are helping customers fool.

Second, as a judge I am not supportive of folks trying to trick us. We spend a lot of time and money to volunteer to be judges. I personally admire folks that own up :eek: to things they know are wrong. And I have had several over the years do just that. Some even offer the information without being asked.

[Ron Green]

I called OEM to inquire about the oiling the edges and evidently that is an old article on their website. They do polish the edges 100% and have been for years as I bought my glass from them in 1996 and the edges were polished. Looking down at a polished edge makes the edge darker.

Speaking of fooling the judges, and with the polishing the edge issue apparently solved, what do we do about the shiny tire dressing that many use once on the show field?

[Bhigdog]

Bob,

I sent you a PM to address your query. There were over 1100 people on the forums at one time yesterday. To most of those, I wish to remain Anonymous.

The PM did not show up in my Sent box so if you did not get it, please let me know and I can try another routing.

Received and answered.......................Bob

[ex98thdrill]

I would offer the opinon that this issue is a can of worms that would only lead to more nitpicky mistakes.

In Model A Fords alone, in essentially only 4 years of production, there were 9 distinct different glass trademarks (plus a lot of plate glass with no trademarks). In addition, there were also month and year date stamps along with the trademarks.

In The Model A Ford Club Judging Standards I like the following quote: "The windshield trademark was originally to be located only in the lower corner, on the passenger's side and readable from the outside. However, original unrestored cars have been found facing inward on both the driver's and passenger's side."

I think that if I were restoring a car, within reason, I would attempt to do my very best to replicate how it was supposed to be from the factory. I would do this for my own pleasure. I would discourage anybody trying to move AACA judging to the extreme level of getting nitpicky on this issue.

We have enough trouble getting judges to ask for documentation on things that they "think" are wrong before taking deductions. I really don't want to have the judges having to ask for documentation about every glass manufacturer's mark on a car.

I agree Matt. To add to the education, on the Ford trucks, with exception of the back window, all of the glass on one side of the vehicle is exactly the same on the other side. In simpler terms, if you look at my fire truck the "window bugs" (that's what early Ford V-8 Club calls them) is outside on one side, and inside on the other side. I can't remember off of the top of my head the correct way, but my father and I spent a fair share of time to ensure that we had the glass correctly etched on our fire truck.

Remember in the case of Henry Ford, Henry didn't waste anything, so to the untrained eye,a judge could likely deduct for a window bug that is backwards when it is correct.

To everyone else:

Save yourselves and everyone else the headache. Leave the labelled glass issue alone. You would hate to have someone misjudge your car because you were right and they were wrong. By leaving that alone that prevents that from happening.

Is AACA judging 100% perfect?? NO!! But if you had a Ford and there was more information available for a Ford, a Ford owner could be held at a disadvantage when having your vehicle judged. If a judge automatically assumed that all of the cars were set up the same as Ford glass, and your vehicle was not a Ford, you still could be held behind the 8-ball.

Leave the knitpicking to the marquee clubs. They specialize in it, they know it, and when they do it, it's fair across the board.

[DizzyDale]

Hey Pat:),FYI,Regarding the Ford glass......BUGS on the left side can be read from the inside on the right side from the outside .As you said ALL this info should be left to be judged at the individual marque club events.Take Care.Dale

[Bhigdog]

The question still remains unanswered. If the rules state "as it left the factory", and the cars are REQUIRED to have them to exit the factory, are or are not the certification etchs checked as to at least being there, by the judges?

I don't have strong feelings either way but it's a question that should have a known answer by anyone contemplating showing a car at an AACA show. Doesn't sound like rocket science to me. Just an official "nope we don't check that" or "yup we do" would suffice. I'm afraid some teams might check and deduct while others might not, and that would be plainly unacceptable.....................Bob