Jump to content

Documentation of Factory Options?


Guest 70 Electra

Recommended Posts

Guest 70 Electra

Deep inside the posting titled "Radial Tires", the topic came up about dual master cylinder availability on a 1966.

I pointed out that on 1966 full-size Chevrolets, it is a little known fact (but a fact nonetheless) that the dual master cyl was a factory SEO (Special Equipment Option). I was asked to post a copy of this and am doing so now. Attached is a photocopy of the appropriate page from the SEO brochure, dated 10/7/65. The dual master cylinder is the third item from the top, SEO option #9681. (Note that it was NOT available with power brakes)

As I copied this, I realized MY personal document is a photocopy (obtained from a collector that has an original copy). It has caused me to ask the question:

<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #CC0000">Is PHOTOCOPIED documentation acceptable for AACA judging?</span></span>

In this case, the SEO literature is extremely rare. Often rare documentation can only be obtained as photocopies (from libraries, factory archives, and collections of the lucky few that have an original). I mean, think about it, if it was a common document, the judges would probably already know about it!

So, in addition to the "burden of proof", does the car owner have the burden of providing an ORIGINAL (non photocopied) document?

post-30901-14313799673_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 70 Electra

Even though these SEO options are generally HD/Commercial items (cop, taxi, fleet), there are a few exceptions. A really interesting one is CLOTH bucket seats on the 1966 Caprice coupe.

ALL "normal" factory literature (showroom album, dealer brochures, price lists) indicate that Caprice BUCKET SEATS were available in VINYL only. If you wanted cloth Caprice seats, you had to pick from the standard bench, or the optional Strato bench.

HOWEVER, a little-known SEO option (#9833) offers the cloth covering for Caprice bucket seats. See attached document, third item from bottom.

BTW, a close friend has one of these cars that was originally built this way. It even has the window sticker, showing "9833" as the option code. He has only seen one other car built this way. It looks beautiful, and we'll never know why it was not offered more broadly to the general public).

[Note some of the other wild SEO options: calibrated "cop" speedometer, overdrive for 327 engine (normally only a 283 option, NOT for 327), hand throttle, and foot-operated washer pump!]

post-30901-143137996734_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't commented in awhile so I guess I should shake some of the dust off with this one. First off the copy shown above would be fine for AACA judging. However not all copies are. Here is what you need and why: 1) The copy needs to clearly show that it is a factory publication or factory authorized one AND that it is for that particular vehicle. This one that is shown above does that. However, we did have a fellow once photocopy the covers of his early 40's documentation and the pages of late 40's documentation relative to smaller lenses and bind them together. If my memory is correct it was a sealed beam question on other than the headlights. The exact issue doesn't matter here as much as the result. At any rate the judge accepted the documentation as genuine and allowed the lenses without deduction. The vehicle won an award. It should not have. Further the judge, now educated by the documentation took deductions on the vehicles in the class with the proper lenses because according to what he had just learned they were not the same as the ones he just learned to be correct!! Needless to say the outcome of this class was upside down. Most would think this a bizarre incident but it is not the only time things like this have happened. Certainly we could ask a lot of questions like where was the Team Captain, the Deputy etc and so on. I do not know the answers. I was a very young judge back then and knew very little which was just a pinch less than now! The motto is though if you are going to bring photocopies of your documentation be sure they do state clearly that they are factory issued or authorized and for that particular year vehicle. That way you are covered and the judge with the question may genuinely learn the correct answer. Truthfully to me the biggest benefit in judging at National Meets is that every time out there you do learn something new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave - I have never been an AACA judge, an just thinking out loud.

If one were going to show a car which had an unusual option that required documentation; would it not benefit BOTH the individual and AACA to submit a copy of that documentation PRIOR to the meet?

This would allow the judging team to verify the documentation (if desired), and be schooled on whether the documentation is an option or standard.

Jon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

carbking, Thats probably not a bad idea. The only flaws that I see in it are that we dont know who the particular judging team will be until we arrive at that particular meet. Also at some of the larger National Meets where well over a thousand show cars compete it could get overwhelming. Still the idea does have merit to it and perhaps its something the judging committee could look into. Along the same lines when items that are quite unusual are submitted to the VP Class Judging they often get studied by many of the judging committee as well as technical committee. Many times these items end up as topics in the national judging schools held during the year.

So anyway you look at it your idea as well as some variations of it can do us a great deal of good in several ways. Thanks very much for mentioning it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest my3buicks

I have always enjoyed having enough documentation to provide to the judges to prove an item is correct and legit. Even love it more when the judge comes up to you with attitude and immediately knows for sure that this or that item isn't correct, only to prove them wrong with PROPER documentation. : )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...