Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have a ‘68 Rambler American that my grandmother bought new.  It’s never left our family.  My uncle did an amazing job restoring the car but it has undercoating that wasn’t applied at the factory.  I’m tempted to enter the car at Hershey this fall, but will the undercoating have an outsized impact on the car’s score?  The rest of the car is beautiful (not as nice as my Grand National winning Marquis that was my dad’s, but beautiful), but I’m unsure about the undercoating.  My uncle never intended his efforts to be judged but I think the judges will be pleased (aside from the undercoating).
 

Any opinions? Thank you!

 

 

4A1C60BA-0A5C-4479-B968-309B90C2F3C9.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a very nice car from the one picture.  You could go either HPOF or DPC.  I have a beautiful '65 Thunderbird that was Ziebarted as new as well.  I will enter it as a DPC car.  The deductions for the undercoat on all the underhood areas as well as all the yellow plugs they used in the door areas to hide the holes drilled to coat the inter finder areas would exceed the maximum deductions for this year of a car in HPOF.  That's just my opinion of my car.  Go for the HPOF award and see what happens.  If it doesn't move it to DPC for the next show.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gpfarrell said:

 My uncle did an amazing job restoring the car but it has undercoating that wasn’t applied at the factory.  

 

 

I don't typically disagree with Dave on judging issues but I think he missed the "restoring" part of your post. If it has been restored, I would suggest DPC instead of HPOF, unless you want to try Class Judging and then move it to DPC at a subsequent meet if it does not do well in Class Judging.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew, 

 

Thank you. I’d agree HPOF isn’t a choice as the car is totally restored, not highly preserved.  I guess I should scour the sample judging sheets and try to ascertain what sort of point deduction would result from the undercoating.  Growing up in western Pennsylvania, it seemed to me every car had that stuff applied and it’s basically there forever.  Combined with a “one knee” view, maybe it wouldn’t be a major setback?  I was hoping for a clearer answer but I appreciate it’s no simple question.  I realize a fresh coat can cover a multitude of sins and, if acceptable, would lower the quality of cars in Class Judging.  
 

Thanks again!

E92174E4-47FB-4BA2-B3C4-B90728765FC3.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am certainly not an expert on Ramblers of that era but from the photos so far, I see no reason not to enter it in class judging. I don't think the undercoating will be that big of a problem assuming the rest of the car shows well. Was undercoating an authorized dealer installed option? I don't know much about that era, but it might be worth the research to see if it was.  If so, it will certainly be helpful to you to have done that research.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

X2 to Matt's suggestion you try class judging first.

Without some idea of how extensive the undercoating is, it is hard to say the amount of deductions. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt is correct.  I missed your comment that the car had been restored.  I agree with his comments to go for class judging.  If you don't receive your First Place Junior award, you can request your judging sheet to see where you lost points.  Then you have the option to correct those areas or move the car to DPC.  Nice car.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Zeibart is a very through process.  The underbody and engine compartment panels are sprayed with a tar like substance.  Holes are drilled in the door and door jam areas as well as many other areas.  These holes are plugged with yellow plastic plugs.  Did your grandfather remove and fill these plug holes?  If not, each of these areas could receive a deduction as well as a deduction for each of the areas covered in the tar substance.

ziebart.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Zebart should not be a deduction as it was available as a dealer installed option.  There should be no points deducted for this if it is done correctly in a professional manor.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Avanti Bill said:

The Zebart should not be a deduction as it was available as a dealer installed option.  There should be no points deducted for this if it is done correctly in a professional manor.  

Phillip is correct.  This is from the Official Judges Guidelines:

"The objective of AACA judging is to evaluate an antique vehicle, which has been restored to the same state as the dealer could have prepared the vehicle for delivery to the customer. This includes any feature, option or accessory shown in the original factory catalog, parts book, sales literature, or company directives for the model year of the vehicle."

 

Although many dealers offered Ziebart to their customers, I'm not aware of any factory authorization of this as an authorized option.  If anyone has factory documentation of this, please post it.

Thanks

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would start with class judging.    Yes you may get deductions, but it would be nice to show it in class with similar cars first to see how it does.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like 61polara, although many car dealers offered rustproofing (versus undercoating, which only does the undercarriage & wheel wells--there's no drilling and coating inside doors and rocker panels), I'm unaware of Ziebart, Tuff-Kote, or any other commercial aftermarket rustproofing being factory authorized.

 

I've been asked about rustproofing and undercoating in my Chassis CJE, and my answer has always been it depends on documentation.  Many vehicles had undercoating/soundproofing applied at the factory, others had it available as an authorized dealer-applied option, and the amount of undercoating depended on who applied it--some assembly line workers made sure you got your "money's worth" and others were very light on the application of the material.  As long as the owner can apply factory documentation, the amount of coating doesn't really matter.

 

However, to my knowledge Ziebart, Tuff-Kote, etc., were not factory authorized and therefore, for Class Judging it would be appropriate to assess a deduction to those vehicles with the telltale drilled holes and plugs.  I've haven't encountered this on the show field yet, so I haven't had to make a decision as to how many points I'd take, but my guess is I'd assess 3-5 points (in Chassis under "Other") depending on how many plugs are visible and how extensive the visible rustproofing coverage.  I would not take a point for every plug--I think 3-5 points is sufficient--but, because the deduction isn't specified on the Judging Form, the deduction would be at the discretion of the individual Judging Team Captain.

 

This is a good question for the VP of Judging (currently Chuck Crane), Chairman Judge's Training (currently Stan Kulikowski), and/or the Class Judging Committee.  They can consider it and provide a recommendation to help ensure consistency across our judging corps of how to address this.  (Please keep in mind that if the Class Judging Committee addresses the subject, it will be while before it can do so--at the earliest, they're not meeting until at least Hershey).  I'll flag this discussion to Chuck and Stan.  Whatever the answer, I'll include it in my future Chassis CJE presentations.

 

This is just one guy's opinion.  I'm interested hearing (reading?) other judges' opinions and how they'd handle the issue.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank you for the many perspectives, I truly appreciate them!  
 

For being the guy that owns the car, and having memories of washing it at age 10 when Grandma would visit, I’m remarkably unfamiliar with this little American!  Uncle Car-Guy spent years redoing the car in his retirement as other projects kept cutting in line.  I regularly asked about “Princess” (no one knows how she got that name) and would gently mention that I loved how the car had never left our family and I’d be honored to be her next caretaker.  My uncle called late last summer.  His memory was failing and he was unable to finish the car.

 

I pulled a trailer 4 hours to his house. The lack of a battery made it apparent the little Rambler wouldn’t be driving onto the trailer, but a cursory inspection revealed an amazingly complete car... probably 95% done.  Nobody knew what 5% he hadn’t finished.  He firmly refused the envelope of cash I offered... which as many of you can appreciate was more than the car is likely worth to anyone else but just a fraction of the value of his work.

 

An old Rambler friend fostered it for me for a few months, carefully identifying what was missing and locating appropriate bits and pieces.  It needed upholstery and when we realized the Automatic transmission had internal issues I think we slipped from 95% done to 90% done!  By mid October it was roadworthy and I put some shakedown miles on it.  Sent it back to my friend for “a few weeks” over the winter and the virus and parts delays turned that into fetching the car in June.  
 

So far I’ve seen and driven the car very little... but I’d like to get the car from 97% to nearly 100%.  Class Judging would inspire me to source the battery hold down, proper hose clamps & radiator cap, tend to some other under hood and trunk details... and really finish my uncle’s efforts with dignity.  
 

It’s just a little Rambler, but it means so much more.  I’ll appreciate any other insights to the impact of undercoating on judging.  I would not be inclined to tow the car from Pittsburgh to Hershey if the consensus is there is little hope for a decent assessment.  I certainly wouldn’t be bitter... I’d never think of adding undercoating to a show car... but it’s what I have to work with.

 

My wife and I and our 3 kids will be there either way... we haven’t missed Hershey in 20 years!

 

 

67EB368E-0CF4-4CAE-918F-92758AD7902A.jpeg

Edited by gpfarrell (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting the engine compartment picture.  Either your grandfather removed all the undercoat on the inter finders or it was never applied.  I agree with others, go for class judging.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see but if you don't mention it to the judges I'll bet they won't take a deduction.  I believe any dealer installed option is allowed factory authorized or not  Realistically why should there be a deduction it doesn't change anything about the shape form or function of the car. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gpfarrell said:

 

So far I’ve seen and driven the car very little... but I’d like to get the car from 97% to nearly 100%.  Class Judging would inspire me to source the battery hold down, proper hose clamps & radiator cap, tend to some other under hood and trunk details... and really finish my uncle’s efforts with dignity.  
 

67EB368E-0CF4-4CAE-918F-92758AD7902A.jpeg

 

From the photo, I would also suggest replacing the positive battery cable with a correct factory appearing cable. I would also bet that the fuel filter is aftermarket. I would replace the metal fuel line with a new line without the fuel filter. Additionally, I would suggest you confirm that the negative battery cable is attached to the correct bolt on the engine. That looks odd to me. I have never seen one attached on the top of an engine like that. Also, I would question the yellow connector on the small ground cable visible near the negative battery post in the photo.  I am not familar with what battery the car would have come with when new but I suspect that battery looks a bit different from the original. At a minimum, I would remove the modern looking sticker on the top of the battery. That modern appearing sticker would draw unneeded attention to the battery. 

 

Other than that, and those things that you already listed, the engine compartment looks pretty good from the photo.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It does have plugs, but the black ones aren’t as harsh to my eye as the yellow ones.  Underneath is so-so.  I can pressure wash it and get the grime off but I don’t think there will be a need for any quick-detailer on the floorboards.  I’ll see what I can learn about the availability of factory undercoating but the plugs plainly say Ziebart.

 

 

C5256667-73D6-44C0-9A8A-C2A71B54B958.jpeg

A930ADD0-D292-476B-A5F3-E6F4869F0D91.jpeg

B170AC7D-7B0C-437B-A9BD-F4E07FAB007D.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Hinson, I appreciate your critique! I agree wholeheartedly with each point.  I’m also optimistic that these are all easily addressed with a bit of time, attention, and a few bucks.  
 

I’m inclined to pursue entering, but would welcome any concerns/opinions contrary to that idea.  Please keep them coming! 
 

Greg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably shouldn't suggest ways to hide things from the judges but... They make plain black smooth plastic plugs which would look a lot more like what a factory would use. I have bought them at flea markets and I seen them on the misc racks at auto supply stores.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Jim Bollman said:

Probably shouldn't suggest ways to hide things from the judges but... They make plain black smooth plastic plugs which would look a lot more like what a factory would use. I have bought them at flea markets and I seen them on the misc racks at auto supply stores.


I was thinking of sanding the logos off and dusting them with white paint!  Labeling steel belted radials as bias plies, or placing a brochure in the trunk to cover an unsightly wear mark is hiding and I agree it’s no good for the hobby.  What your suggesting isn’t entirely different than repairing rust... it’s an effort to minimize a flaw so the car better represents its factory appearance.  Thanks for the idea! (If I really wanted to hide something, I wouldn’t have posted it on the Judging page!)

Edited by gpfarrell (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Laying something over flaws rarely works, judges are usually suspicious of things laying around in the car. 

 

Factory plastic plugs that I have seen are usually black or some other color since they are put in after the car is painted.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2020 at 9:09 PM, MCHinson said:

I would encourage you to do the research, correct those items discussed and any others discovered, as needed and enter it in class judging. 

The primus of AACA Judging is that the owner has restored the car to the as delivered factory condition and represents it as such.  The Judges' role is to verify to their best knowledge that the car is representative of the car produced by the factory.  The goal is the correct representation as built by the factory, no how good of a job you have done trying to fool the judges.  Take your knocks where they fall.

 

Here's how to approach readying this car for it's first AACA National show.  Download the Judges Guidelines from the AACA home page under Publications.  Read it and print out the Judging form.  Point judge the car yourself or print out multiple copies and have friends join you in judging your car.  By point judging, you will have an idea of the value of the deduction.  List out all the deductions from the highest to lowest point deductions.  Now assign a dollar value or time and dollar value of the cost to correct each deduction.  Start correcting the deduction areas with the highest point/lowest cost deductions first.  Correct it the right way.  

Edited by 61polara
spelling, what else! (see edit history)
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, gpfarrell said:

1968 Rambler brochure lists “Undercoating” as an available factory option. 😁

Factory undercoating was not Ziebart.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2020 at 7:58 PM, Avanti Bill said:

It will be interesting to see but if you don't mention it to the judges I'll bet they won't take a deduction.  I believe any dealer installed option is allowed factory authorized or not  Realistically why should there be a deduction it doesn't change anything about the shape form or function of the car. 

Actually you are mistaken. Dealer installed options are allowed ONLY if factory authorized.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 61polara said:

The primus of AACA Judging is that the owner has restored the car to the as delivered factory condition and represents it as such.  The Judges' role is to verify to their best knowledge that the car is reprehensive of the car produced by the factory.  The goal is the correct representation as built by the factory, no how good of a job you have done trying to fool the judges.  Take your knocks where they fall.

 

Here's how to approach readying this car for it's first AACA National show.  Download the Judges Guidelines from the AACA home page under Publications.  Read it and print out the Judging form.  Point judge the car yourself or print out multiple copies and have friends join you in judging your car.  By point judging, you will have an idea of the value of the deduction.  List out all the deductions from the highest to lowest point deductions.  Now assign a dollar value or time and dollar value of the cost to correct each deduction.  Start correcting the deduction areas with the highest point/lowest cost deductions first.  Correct it the right way.  


Again, if I were trying to “fool” anybody I don’t think I’d be using the AACA’s forum, my own name, and including photos of my car!

 

I am attempting to ascertain if the car’s undercoating would have an outsized impact on Class Judging results.  While “Ziebart isn’t factory undercoating”, the availability of factory undercoating should reduce any chassis deductions the car might face.  My car doesn’t have original paint either.  If my car were repainted Plum Crazy purple I’d expect a large deduction for non-factory color.  However, had Rambler offered that hue (can you imagine!) then the car could very well be represented as it left the factory.  Since undercoating was a factory option (and not a dealer afterthought) some of the tar could be typical of a car rolling off the assembly line.  Now, that doesn’t account for the door plugs, but it should give the car a fighting chance to overcome the rust proofing.  
 

Thank you for the idea to print the Judging Sheets and and dollar values to the potential deductions.  I had already printed the sheets but the cost impact is a great strategy to target my efforts.  
 

I’m most appreciative of the “do your research” recommendations.  Thanks to all for the guidance!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Restorer32 said:

Actually you are mistaken. Dealer installed options are allowed ONLY if factory authorized.

 

 

We don't take deductions for non factory paint as in "Base Clear" vs single stage or lacquer.  We don't take deductions for having non original brand tires as long as they are bias if that is what was on it originally and the correct size.  How do we know it wasn't factory authorized if the factory is silent to this brand of undercoating.  This sounds like something from the IRS unless it is specifically authorized is is prohibited.  I do not believe a deduction for this would be in the spirit of the judging guidelines, if it is I hope a senior judge will weigh in and declare that to be the case. 

 

Edited by Avanti Bill (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, 

 

While I don't know that much about this era of vehicles, and my experience with undercoating is very minor as a lifelong resident of North Carolina, I think that the issue is that the original factory undercoating would not have the holes drilled into the doors with the plastic plugs installed to seal the holes. If the rest of the undercoating is similar to what could have been applied at the factory or as an authorized dealer installed option, it is likely that the plastic plugs would be what would result in a deduction, not the undercoating on the chassis. I don't think that deductions for the undercoating would be a significant number of points.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I am a Senior Master Judge so I will weigh in again. The deduction would likely be minor but the rules are clear. Any dealer installed but not factory authorized option calls for a deduction. Paint. tires and a few other items are exempted from this rule as long as they "appear as original". Exact reproduction tires are often not available and lacquer paint is pretty much gone. If I were judging the car and there was no evidence of plugs and the undercoating was applied in a professional manor I likely would not deduct but bear in mind that documentation of options is the responsibility of the owner if questioned.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2020 at 2:10 PM, Mark McAlpine said:

However, to my knowledge Ziebart, Tuff-Kote, etc., were not factory authorized and therefore, for Class Judging it would be appropriate to assess a deduction to those vehicles with the telltale drilled holes and plugs.  I've haven't encountered this on the show field yet, so I haven't had to make a decision as to how many points I'd take, but my guess is I'd assess 3-5 points (in Chassis under "Other") depending on how many plugs are visible and how extensive the visible rustproofing coverage.  I would not take a point for every plug--I think 3-5 points is sufficient--but, because the deduction isn't specified on the Judging Form, the deduction would be at the discretion of the individual Judging Team Captain.

 

This is a good question for the VP of Judging (currently Chuck Crane), Chairman Judge's Training (currently Stan Kulikowski), and/or the Class Judging Committee.  They can consider it and provide a recommendation to help ensure consistency across our judging corps of how to address this.  (Please keep in mind that if the Class Judging Committee addresses the subject, it will be while before it can do so--at the earliest, they're not meeting until at least Hershey).  I'll flag this discussion to Chuck and Stan.  Whatever the answer, I'll include it in my future Chassis CJE presentations.

 

Before the VP of Judging, Chairman of Training and the Class Judging Committee  make a decision regarding this type of undercoating situation they need to keep something in mind. With Ziebart and Rusty Jones rustproofing, the material was applied in different areas of a vehicle covered by the Chassis, Interior and Engine Judges. Great care should be taken to insure that an appropriate level of deductions are applied especially when it appears in the jurisdiction of multiple judges. This would appear to be a VERY unique situation where the SAME deduction crosses over the jurisdiction of potentially 3 of the 4 judges.  This may or may not be a situation where a hard and fast Maximum deduction should  be specified (especially for each judging category Chassis, Engine and Interior). Given it's potentially unique nature I would suggest that the decision makers develop specific provisions for this deduction. Simply saying that undercoating should be a write in deduction with an arbitrary point value determined by the Team Captain would not be a good solution in my opinion. In this case there would be no standard applied and the deduction could be all over the place (through no fault of the team captains).

 

Just some food for thought from someone with experience with vehicle rustproofing who happens to be a Chassis Judge as well.

 

Lastly, as a Chassis judge for over 11 years now I can say that I have yet to see this undercoating on any vehicles I have judged. As far I can tell Rusty Jones went out of business around 1988. Therefore the chances of seeing this rustproofing on a AACA show field would be limited to an all original, unrestored vehicle. Ziebart on the other hand started in 1959 and continues in business today. Therefore it is at least theoretically possible we might see some vehicles on the show field with this product on them.

 

Charlie

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2020 at 4:54 PM, Avanti Bill said:

I do not believe a deduction for this would be in the spirit of the judging guidelines, if it is I hope a senior judge will weigh in and declare that to be the case. 

Bill, most of those replying ARE Senior Master Judges.  The consensus is that it should be a deduction, that it should be a small deduction in the range of 1-3 points and that deductions are possible in the Exterior, Engine and Chassis sections.  If I were the team captain with a team judging a car with Ziebart undercoating in the engine compartment, doors, fenders and chassis, I would pull all three judges aside to discuss the proper deduction in each area to avoid duplicate, excessive deductions. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, charlier said:

 

Before the VP of Judging, Chairman of Training and the Class Judging Committee  make a decision regarding this type of undercoating situation they need to keep something in mind. With Ziebart and Rusty Jones rustproofing, the material was applied in different areas of a vehicle covered by the Chassis, Interior and Engine Judges. Great care should be taken to insure that an appropriate level of deductions are applied especially when it appears in the jurisdiction of multiple judges. This would appear to be a VERY unique situation where the SAME deduction crosses over the jurisdiction of potentially 3 of the 4 judges.  This may or may not be a situation where a hard and fast Maximum deduction should  be specified (especially for each judging category Chassis, Engine and Interior). Given it's potentially unique nature I would suggest that the decision makers develop specific provisions for this deduction. Simply saying that undercoating should be a write in deduction with an arbitrary point value determined by the Team Captain would not be a good solution in my opinion. In this case there would be no standard applied and the deduction could be all over the place (through no fault of the team captains).

 

Just some food for thought from someone with experience with vehicle rustproofing who happens to be a Chassis Judge as well.

 

Lastly, as a Chassis judge for over 11 years now I can say that I have yet to see this undercoating on any vehicles I have judged. As far I can tell Rusty Jones went out of business around 1988. Therefore the chances of seeing this rustproofing on a AACA show field would be limited to an all original, unrestored vehicle. Ziebart on the other hand started in 1959 and continues in business today. Therefore it is at least theoretically possible we might see some vehicles on the show field with this product on them.

 

Charlie

 

Hello Charlie,

 

I usually judge chassis, too, when I'm not serving as a Team Captain.  (I've also been presenting the Chassis CJE for about the last seven years.)  I agree that Judging Teams need to be careful not to double-penalize a vehicle for the same issue that might cross judging categories.  This potential exists in other areas, too (e.g., exhaust systems, brake lines, fuels lines, etc.).  We need to ensure judges on the same team don't each take a deduction for the same issue.  I'm confident our Team Captains are on top of things like this and prevent duplicate deductions.  However, it's something we need to be careful about, and you’ve provided all of us a good reminder about it.

 

I agree with you and others that this issue so much about the undercoating you can see (assuming the undercoating is factory authorized and applied professionally & in the appropriate areas)--it's about the drilled holes and plastic plugs that catch the eye and would likely result in a deduction.  I grew up in Michigan, so I'm well familiar with the benefits of Ziebart and Tuff-Kote rustproofing (and the results if you didn't have your car or truck treated).  Obviously, this isn’t as much of an issue with modern vehicles--they use much better steel (and a lot more plastic) and receive considerably better anti-corrosion treatment from the factory--but it definitely was a problem with vehicles of the 1960s-1980s and earlier.

 

Thanks for your suggestion about specifying a set maximum deduction for incorrect undercoating/rustproofing.  I'll make sure Chuck Crane (VP Judging) sees it.  Limiting the max deduction would help us be consistent in our judging, which is always a good thing.

 

Even with a specified max deduction, there still will be some potential for variation in the deduction taken for undercoating/rustproofing by individual judges just as there is in other areas.  (Exactly how dirty is that engine or chassis--1, 2, or 3 points?  How rusty is that exhaust system--1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 points?)  It depends on what the individual category judge decides and what the Team Captain accepts.  I've found this is usually more of an issue with new, inexperienced judges and the variations in deductions assigned smooth out with experience.  Our current Judging School Instructors--Stan Kulikowski and Dain King (and their predecessors before them)--are very good at giving examples of the appropriate deductions for subjective areas like scratches, rust, dirt, etc., and our Team Captains are very good at ensuring that we don't assess too severe a deduction for any given issue.  As our current President--Jim Elliott--said when he was VP of Judging:  "We're not here to take awards.  We here to give awards to owners whose vehicles deserve it and encouragement to those whose vehicles have some issues."

 

I need to point out to to gpfarrell that none of this discussion is a criticism of his car.  His Rambler is in great, pretty much unmolested, shape, and he should be justifiably proud it.  This discussion about Ziebart rustproofing is just an opportunity for a bunch of experienced judges to share some opinions--something we haven't been able to do much this year because of the cancellation of most of our shows due to the coronavirus.  Thanks to everyone for sharing their opinions!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello gpfarrell,

 

    Beautiful car!  I look forward to seeing it at Hershey.

 

    As you prepare your car for the show, remember the AACA class judging General Policy:  “The objective of AACA judging is to evaluate an antique vehicle, which has been restored to the same state as the dealer could have prepared the vehicle for delivery to the customer.  This includes any feature, option or accessory shown in the original factory catalog, parts book, sales literature, or company directives for the model year of the vehicle.”  In plain English, this means it needs to look like it would’ve the day you picked it up new from the dealer. 

 

    A lot of elbow grease goes a long way.  (Just as with people, first impressions matter.)  As other have suggested, compare your car objectively to the Judging Form.  Consider having a friend who is a judge or someone from your region/chapter who is a judge to check out your car and give you an honest assessment of how it would fair in class judging.  Sometimes other people see things we overlook.  Then, as others have suggested, make a list of what you need to correct and knock out the easy and/or inexpensive things first.  1-2-point deductions add up fast, yet they’re usually the easiest & quickest to correct.

 

    I haven’t seen your car (other than the photos you posted), so I don’t know if these comments apply to it, but here are some common issues (all easy & inexpensive to fix) that we see occasionally in Class Judging.  (None of these are an issue in the Driver Participation Class.)

    - Incorrect fan belts.  (Never say never, but most 1960’s & 1970’s vehicles did not have cogged fan belts & definitely didn’t have “NAPA” or “Gates” markings on them.  Removing the marks is easy if the belt is otherwise correct.)

    - Incorrect or non-matching headlights.

    - Incorrect hoses and hose clamps.

    - Incorrect spark plug wires.  (1960’s American cars did not come with spark plug wires measured & marked in millimeters.)

 

    More expensive, but still easily fixed issues:

    - Incorrect battery.  (As others have pointed out, specific brand doesn’t matter, as long as it looks period correct.

    - Incorrect exhaust.

    - Incorrect tires.  (Same with tires—brand doesn’t matter, but the type, size, and sidewalls do:  they need to be correct for your model car.)

    - Incorrect sound system (aftermarket radio and/or speakers).

 

    AACA judging doesn’t compare the vehicle to its production/broadcast sheet—you can add any available option/accessory you want to your car, but it had to be available as a factory option for your make, model, and year.  Have factory documentation available for anything unusual on your car that the judges might question. 

 

    For example, radial tires were an option on some late 1960’s vehicles, but not many.  If you have radial tires on your car and they were an available option for it, make sure you have documentation to show they were an option and show it to the Team Captain when he/she does their walk-around before judging begins.  (If you forget or the Team Captain doesn’t ask about it during their walkaround, have the documentation for when the Team Captain inevitably asks about the tires during judging.)  Also, make sure your tires are the correct size and have the correct sidewall stripes or white letters—even if the tires are the correct type, they will still incur a deduction if they aren’t a size offered or stripe/lettering offered on your model car.)

 

    Good luck!  Read the Official Judging Guidelines and if you have other questions, ask an AACA judge that you know, post the question on the AACA Forum, or contact the VP of Judging—Chuck Crane.

 

    Again, beautiful car!  You should be justifiably proud of it.

Edited by Mark McAlpine
Corrected "spark plugs" to "spark plug wires" (see edit history)
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, 

 

That’s a fantastically helpful response.  If it weren’t for the undercoating I don’t think there would be a car for us to discuss!  I sincerely appreciate the care and consistency of AACA judging and I think the many responses above embody the numerous perspectives necessary to develop and maintain a fair system.

 

Your checklist is spot on for me.  The car makes an amazing first impression (if I do say so myself!) and I’d like it to appear just as nice under closer scrutiny... mostly to honor my uncle’s work.  I’ll get it registered and open a can of elbow grease.
 

I hope to see you in Hershey!

 

Greg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

If you could replace the Ziebart plug with plain black rubber plugs judges may not notice as much, since many cars had plain black rubber plugs to seal holes right from the factory.

  • Like 1
Link to post
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...