Dues, and Nats cost, chime in please

[Reatta Man]

One other thing to keep in mind when judging older cars to their assembly quality of THEIR day and not current standards.

Often, brochures and other marketing materials are highly sought after as a frame of reference for restoration. However, those photos are often airbrushed to remove misaligned body panels and other flaws.

One source of documentation that sometimes shows cars, flaws and all, is Collectible Automobile. One example is the piece they did a few years ago on the early '70s Olds Toronados. One of the cars featured had mismatched body panels, and the caption mentioned that they came that way from the factory. While none of us would intentionally paint a car that way just to be authentic, if something can be documented or proven to be a factory flaw, I hope we can all be accepting of the car when it is shown.

Great comments about accepting cars in all stages of restoration at the shows.

[Thriller]

To me, the issue is NOT to "dumb down" the judging processes or standards, but NOT judge more vintage vehicles by the alleged "perfectness" of modern vehicle assembly but to judge them by industry standards (expressed or implied) for the eras the vehicles were built in.

Amen brother Willis!

To take this point further, I'm going to reiterate an opinion that may get me crucified. I would suggest that we need to have all judges attend the entire judges training session. Many points are made in the training for the more junior judges that may not be reiterated after the senior judges join in. Then, down the road when one sees their judging sheet, there are items deducted exactly how it was specified not to during the training.

To take one of Pete's examples - a battery is worth 3 points. If the car has a battery, you can't deduct 3 points. If it is corroded and dirty, you can deduct for condition. If it isn't a Delco or is the wrong size, there can be an authenticity deduction, but you can't deduct all three points.

Similarly with paint and body, which is where many restorations strive toward reflection. I am told that going back to the 60s and earlier, the cars didn't have perfect paint, and there were frequently runs. I presume there would have been some quality control that would have required it not be out of hand, but the paint (and gaps) weren't perfect (at least by today's systems with downdraft paint booths and whatnot). So, there should probably be an allowance - a couple of runs perhaps shouldn't get any deductions.

I think not doing so shows the risk. Because over-restoration has come into play, two cars may look quite different, but could get the same point level, which could PO the owner of the over-restored car. In Seattle, my '41 surprised me with a bronze award - it has a lot of flaws in condition, but overall the car is quite good from an authenticity perspective. Some people could walk around the car and, from a purely aesthetic perspective, wonder how on earth it could win any kind of award.

I really like the mentor idea. It would allow folks new to the National (or Regional) meet to be guaranteed a friendly face that would spend some time with them and help orient them to the event. I know I could have used someone like that in 2003 at our first National.

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

Robert LeBlanch for President and Derek Thille for Vice President !!!!!!!

Ben

[jscheib]

Pardon me for chiming in here, but we have seemed to stray from the original concern about cost/benefit or whatever, to the subject of judging. Not that there is anothing wrong with that discussion also.

So regarding judging, I think one of the function of the local chapters should be to discuss the judging procedure so that all interested members are aware of just what occurs during the process. We just did a brief seminar at our NE Regional in MA this past weekend and it looks like it will be enhanced during the fall, winter and spring at various chapter functions.

I would say that each chapter has a number of people will familiar with the process and have either been judges or have had cars judged, so sharing the information is vital.

John

[Guest BJM]

Similarly with paint and body, which is where many restorations strive toward reflection. I am told that going back to the 60s and earlier, the cars didn't have perfect paint, and there were frequently runs. I presume there would have been some quality control that would have required it not be out of hand, but the paint (and gaps) weren't perfect (at least by today's systems with downdraft paint booths and whatnot). So, there should probably be an allowance - a couple of runs perhaps shouldn't get any deductions.

Derek,

Interesting point on over-restoration. I intend to buy one of those TP Tools & Equipment HVLP spray machines which require no compressor and come with a gun. The way they make it sound you can do show quality painting and we all know that good paint is mostly in the preparation.

But I doubt I will "wet sand" for fear of not getting it rubbed out fine but they didn't wet sand Buicks off the assembly line and I never sawone wet sanded at the dealership I worked at. The sales manager would have killed thedetail guy!

I've always gotten stuck with chassis when BCA judging because I'm so short I guess they think I can crawl under there but IF I ever get to do body, "extra shine" or glossiness or whatever it's called won't help. In fact we should consider a deduction if the guy has any information to indicate the level of work that went into the body paint that deviates from original.

[jscheib]

Jake,

I think it is more a question of age then height. You know, us old guys can get down, but maybe not up in time to get to the next car for judging.

Seriously, my opinion, and I think the manual or judging chairs have stated, I modern paint job will look better then original, but just as it gets nothing added for that, there should be no deduction for "over restored". I think a higher quality of paint then from the factory, is essential to holding the quality for a longer period of time. After all, the manufacturers don't want you holding a new car for 20-30 years, so why would they put a $10,000 and up prep and paint job on a $30,000 car. That's my opinion.

John

[NTX5467]

I concur that more modern paint systems SHOULD be more durable than the earlier lacquer-system paints used on GM vehicles. Especially as most of the modern systems are multi-stage enamel systems! Even back then, the acrylic enamel paints on other brands had a harder shine than the best-buffed acrylic lacquer on most GM cars. The quality and shine of the GM paint could also vary from brand to brand and plant to plant--many Cadillacs which had been Blue Coral-ized at the dealership looked stellar, although it was the same color that a Chevy Impala could have, with all due respect. Some colors seemed to fade within a year, as others seemed to last several decades before observed fading or deterioration.

Many who restore vehicles will strive to find the original paint systems to use, whereas others will get a match or "remake" of the original color in modern chemistry. At the present time, I'm not sure what the comparative materials costs might be! SO we have an instant "over-restoration" issue based on cost and availability AND expertise of the person running the spray gun.

HVLP guns are more related to air quality concerns rather than anything else. With highly-decreased over-spray tendencies, it should be possible to get a smoooother finish with less material being used. If you're not used to using one, I understand that runs will happen!

On the assembly line, the only place runs should even be considered would be in the areas where "cut-in" work was needed, which the robots weren't programmed to spray in. But in the pre-bot times, "things" might happen. If these "things" were in a somewhat obvious place, then they'd get an offline "factory fix" that has to be signed-off on by a supervisor. In more modern times, these "fixes" resulted in the more recent "finesse polishing" techniques (which 3M sells items for).

For the record, when judging 2000+ era vehicles (when they become eligible) for paint, do NOT deduct for "rough paint" on non-outer surface areas of the vehicle. What you're seeing is where the clear-coat obviously didn't completely get sprayed (or was just "cut-in") before the vehicle went into the bake oven. Just past the inner lip of the deck lid, hood, door shell, or even the door frame, for example. Seeing completely shiney paint there would be a sure indication of over-restoration! This is something NOT unique to General Motors' vehicles, either!

Perhaps these later discussions on judging should be snipped from the original thread and transplanted with a more appropriate title?

Just some thoughts . . .

NTX5467

[stealthbob]

Yea and while we are on the topic of paint...lets talk Engine Colour

Why does one supplier hold the honour of THE only correct engine shade?

We all know there were differences from different factories and from year to year...so why only one correct shade now?

...enter Thriller's rant

/end hijack

[Guest BJM]

Jake,

Seriously, my opinion, and I think the manual or judging chairs have stated, I modern paint job will look better then original, but just as it gets nothing added for that, there should be no deduction for "over restored". I think a higher quality of paint then from the factory, is essential to holding the quality for a longer period of time. After all, the manufacturers don't want you holding a new car for 20-30 years, so why would they put a $10,000 and up prep and paint job on a $30,000 car. That's my opinion.

John

John

Yes I suppose you can't have do over on standards and we can't fault paint and prep for being so much better today. Frankly I don't know how they (manufacturers) did it, several hundred thousand cars in 365 days.

[Bhigdog]

Speaking of paint and not to digress too much further. I was talking to my local NAPA rep about paint. He is starting to sign up people for "paint certification class". He says in due time a person will have to be "certified" to buy solvent based automotive paint much like you must be certified to buy refrigerant..............Bob

[buick5563]

Yea and while we are on the topic of paint...lets talk Engine Colour

Why does one supplier hold the honour of THE only correct engine shade?

We all know there were differences from different factories and from year to year...so why only one correct shade now?

...enter Thriller's rant

/end hijack

For the same reason we all have to use tower top hose clamps. I have yet to see an original 55 with them. The aftermarket suppliers have changed history.

/re-end hijack...

[old-tank]

For the same reason we all have to use tower top hose clamps. I have yet to see an original 55 with them. The aftermarket suppliers have changed history.

/re-end hijack...

Not so fast there beer-breath...my original 55 has TT clamps on all radiator hoses and some of the heater hoses (band clamps instead of). Even the TT clamps from suppliers are not correct---they should have a slotted filister head screw instead of the slotted+ hex.

Willie/

[buick5563]

Doh,

I stand corrected. I should have stated that I had never seen TT clamps on heater hoses. I SHHH now.

For the record, check Willie's engine signature pic. That paint is not from Hirsch and it matches my original paint on the 55 I'm doing now...

Now seriously, back to the show!!!

Edited September 21, 2010 by buick5563
Couldn't leave it alone (see edit history)

[NTX5467]

FYI . . . in some cases over the years, "worm clamps" were a factory fleet option on normal vehicles. Probably not on ALL vehicles, but most probably those which had "police car" vehicles rather than a normal vehicle "used" as a police car--verifying the COPO option would be necessary for complete documentation.

In some cases, if you have some residual engine paint on a part of the engine from which the sample can be matched at a local automotive paint store (hopefully, NOT too faded from age and heat) would be much more preferable than buying some redi-mixed paint from a vintage car parts supplier . . . with all due respect. That VERY issue came up at a nationals some years ago . . . one owner had purchased paint from the "reliable" supplier that was NOT the same shade as paint on an original engine.

In that case, the deduction for "incorrect engine paint color" was minimized, BUT the supplier ALSO had to make sure that their paint did match the original vehicle's engine color--as advertised. As you might suspect, this got to be a very "heated" discussion! BUT another situation where the owner/restorer did not have knowledge of the particular vehicle that was quite as intimate as it probably should have been.

And then there was the discussion of the size of metallic flake in some paints, too . . . which I suspect was a case where the paint mixer-supplier made some boo-boos in their special mix and didn't really desire to admit it (as admitting liability would have meant paying for a new paint job, I suspect). Another case where you have to know what you're looking at AND be sure of your knowledge in the particular area!

"Beer-breath"??? Scope???

Bye,

NTX5467