| kenburke | -- 10-11-2009 @ 10:51 AM |
|
You have a car, it has a VIN, someone added an accessory. This item would have gone on the car at the dealership or after. So what time frame after purchase/delivery is OK/wrong for any accessory? If you have an earlier production car, everything is good? This is knowing there is no available purchase contract in hand. On page 1-5 of the 40 Resto Book, it is short a sweet. Oh on Page 1-1, "Condition" states some good standards to follow. On the third to last para, on avoid..., I guess indicates somewhere between excessive to acceptable. So there are several crystal clear answers on this. The list of items and when they became available might help on this for future use, and that pictured sales brochure is of help. The new Forum is good. Did not have a problem with the old. Spell chaeck would be great! I have a 40.
|
|
| ford38v8 | -- 10-11-2009 @ 3:47 PM |
|
Ken, None of the Club's published books can ever be considered "The Last Word" on the correctness of items in question on the Concourse. The books are as correct as is possible at publication, but as has been demonstrated many times, evidence to the contrary has surfaced post publication. As to an exact date of availability of any accessory, it would of course depend on the stock on hand at the dealership at which the car was first sold. This would imply in a broad sense that a car might possibly have been fitted with an obsolete accessory, but not one from a later model year. In practice, a questionable item on the Concourse is always the responsibility of the owner to present documentation as to the authenticity of that item. An accessory brochure, therefore, may be sufficient documentation to allow an item, but not to be used to discredit the authenticity of an item that did not appear in that brochure. This may all sound like doubletalk, I know, and we all wish our cars to be as correct as possible, but the fact remains that there are more questions on correctness than there are definitive answers, which in any case, would apply only to the assembly plant and dealership of origin. Our Concourse, as well as every other Concourse, has always been the best source of information regarding what is correct or not. Every Judge and Deputy Judge has learned from what he/she has observed on the Concourse. The Chief Judge is the final arbiter of questions on the Concourse, and our Judging Standards Committee rules on recurring questions. It is the ongoing policy of the Club to rule in favor of an owner in the absence of positive knowledge to the contrary. A Judge who "doesn't think" something is correct then, is overruled. My answer may appear permissive of anything you want to install on your car, but only in the sense that there is limited time available for judging each car, and serial numbers are not usually checked in my experience. If you don't have the documentation to show a sharp Judge, however, a questionable item can cost you points. Alan
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 10-11-2009 @ 4:23 PM |
|
Ken, As always you offer thoughtful and thought provoking insights. I will chance my opinion (reply) here for what it is worth. As you know, I am a '40 guy first and foremost so my opinions / thoughts are swayed in that direction. In a 'nutshell': As far as accessories go in regard to authenticity: The car is supposed to be judged (according to the Club rules) as to how it left the factory. That being the case, if an accessory was not available at the time the car was built, that particular car should not 'wear' that accessory. That goes for any other 'standard' part as well. Case in point: The 'swan neck' mirrors... the RIGHT side was not offered until approximately March of 1940. If your vehicle was built we'll say in November, 1939, there no chance the right side mirror was available at time of manufacture. My opinion? Point deduction. If it were okay (concourse acceptable) to utilize accessories and / or parts from a later date (think manufacturing changes) then in theory any part purchased at a later date would be acceptable. Example? How about a glass filter fuel pump? Hey, a fellow could go to the dealer and get one ... must be okay right? Maybe a better example... two diameters of generator pulleys were utilized in 1940. PROBLEM is the small diameter pulley was not put in to production until very late in the production year. Most likely a fellow would have purchased a replacement generator at the dealership having the 'new' small diameter pulley. Concourse correct on earlier cars? Not in my opinion. To address your question as to the determination of dates (VIN #) and what is correct for that particular vehicle: This is a very difficult thing to do precisely as there is very rarely any documentation available as to when a particular vehicle was in fact built. That being the case, I think (my opinion) we as judges must allow a 'window of time' when determining whether or not a certain item should be allowed as correct. Here too is a standard that (again, my opinion) the judging standards committee must determine. Personally? I think it prudent to say that (example) a 1940 Ford with early ash trays, glass dates of December, 1939 would NOT be allowed as correct a right hand outer mirror. Now, to confuse matters: One must (should?) factor in the possibility that the car stood on the dealers lot for a certain length of time. How long is the question without a definitive answer. If a car was built in January and sat on the lot until March, perhaps the dealer did in fact receive the right hand mirrors and put one on the car. If the car was built in October, 1939, unlikely it (the car) sat on a dealer lot for 5 - 6 months. See how this is a difficult 'call'? As far as over (and under) restorations... again, only my opinion... It is from personal experience difficult (impossible) to restore a car to exactly how it left the factory assembly line. Once a car is restored it is by definition less than a 1000 points. It will NEVER be the same as the day it left the factory. This is the main reason I do not argue when my restorations reach only 998 / 999. I know I have not duplicated the assembly line. In fact, my restorations are far above and beyond (over restored) the 'factory' car. Should deductions be made for over restorations? Here too is an area most likely better left for the judging standards committee. I believe all 1940 Fords should be judged to a 'standard'. That being how they would have left the factory. More precisely, how they were INTENDED to leave the factory. We all know that (as an example) if the production line ran short of cadmium bolts for a certain place, they would have certainly have substituted raven finish bolts until the next batch of cadmium were delivered. Yes, how true... HOWEVER, the raven bolts were not INTENDED to be placed there. If the Club allows exceptions as I made note of above then in theory nearly anything goes. I feel strongly there MUST be a STANDARD to judge against.
|
|
| Roy Nacewicz | -- 10-11-2009 @ 8:01 PM |
|
Mike, I believe you want to include, or at a minimum, consider, the other proviso that is implied in the current standards which speaks to the way a vehicle was delivered to the first retail customer. If the standard is limited to "how it left the factory", one might encounter a vehicle with the hub caps, floor mat, and certain accessories, etc laying in the trunk uninstalled. I fully understand that this could lead to a very slippery slope but I doubt many would want to restore their vehicle "as it left the factory". In addition, although there may not have been significant "shortages" during the 1940 model run, there were some in the earlier V-8 years and certainly many in the immediate post war era which resulted in vehicles "leaving the factory" with cardboard windshields and without spare tires, as an example. The above is the reason for the alternative provision so stated in the judging standards. Respectively, Roy Nacewicz
|
|
| kenburke | -- 10-11-2009 @ 10:15 PM |
|
Thanks Alan & Mike. I have a hot water heater that I am pretty sure is up to snuff. I also took off my hinge pin mirrors and put the swan neck ones on (Drake repros). In reality the passenger side mirror is not functional at all from the driver side. So who needs it? (That was not a for sale comment.)So, Mike I am squared away on that one. Especially since my car's VIN is in the first third of the production run. I also have some old license frames as seen in the brochure, locking gas cap and a visor mirror. The Ford accessories to me are not flashy nor over done, but nice items for the car. So I am trying to place some logic in making the car correct and adding the few accessory items that were available back when. But here is my thought, the premiss is that the car was not ordered from the factory by its future owner but off the show room floor. So there is this brochure or display at the dealership. If one bought the car, came back months later to get an extra item, your SOL, by today's standards? I guess you need to put your foot down somewhere. Alan (I hate to ask this) is there a judge's consensus rule book to capture all of this knowledge? Anyway, I can see being a judge can have its exciting moments. Thanks again. I was not joking about spell check.
|
|
| TomO | -- 10-12-2009 @ 6:52 AM |
|
Ken, There are a couple of options for spell check if you are using a Windows operating system. One is to use Mozilla Firefox instead of Internet Explorer, another is to download the Google Tool bar. Mozilla Firefox has spell check active at all times, Google Tool bar requires that you click on the spell check icon to check your spelling. I would rather see the Administrator spend time adding the navigation tools for the Forum at the bottom of the last post to reduce wear on the scroll wheel on my mouse. Tom
|
|
| supereal | -- 10-12-2009 @ 3:29 PM |
|
I converted to Firefox, too, Tom, and you are right about the advantages. The new format seems a bit cumbersome until you use it a bit. Confining the posts to only ten per page does require more manipulation, but if it prevents the spam problems, it will be worth it.
|
|
| ford38v8 | -- 10-12-2009 @ 6:33 PM |
|
Ken, In answer to your question regarding a "Judges consensus Rule book", I'll have to say no, there isn't. The Deputy Judges take direction from the Chief Judge, who in turn is obliged to enforce the rulings of the Judges Standard Committee. This Committee is independent of the officers of the Club, to avoid a possible conflict of interest or of authority. The Chief Judge has discretion to make rulings on the Concourse in the absence of a ruling laid down by the Committee, although in some cases there may be a discussion and opinions offered by Committee Representatives on the Field. The tried and true Judging forms available to anyone are to be found on this website under "Forms", and are admittedly very sketchy. This has been found to be an advantage rather than a disadvantage, in that the known facts about any one single model would be overwhelming to pore through on the Field, let alone the many different models and model years. Then, of course, as stated previously, the state of what is known about how our cars were built is dynamic, meaning that we learn more obscure details on a continuing basis. On the question of purchasing an accessory at a later date, that accessory would of course be acceptable on the Concourse, providing that it were of the correct vintage and installed properly. Again, though, as Kubes40 has pointed out, a car with known "Early" (I hate that word) characteristics, particularly window bugs, would and should be penalized for an accessory or feature known to become available only late in the production year. I do certainly agree with Roy also, for the reasons he stated, as well as the known fact that some accessories were only to be installed at the Dealerships. On shortages and what left the Showroom Floor, I have yet to see a 1946 or 1947 on the Concourse with a 2x4 bumper, yet there seems to be no end to Whitewalls on '46 models. Alan
|
|
| Roy Nacewicz | -- 10-12-2009 @ 9:16 PM |
|
I suspect the white wall issue will be addressed shortly and the rules regarding tires amended accordingly. There was more than ample arm waving and discussion both in Windsor and Auburn on the subject and as a result, the JSC cannot simply ignore this issue. The documentation was discovered years ago. The late Mr. Brown thought this to be so important that he specifically mentioned this in the forward of the Club's '41 to '48 book. Like most of us, Mr Brown realized that there are many things we wish did not exist, and this may be one of them, but the evidence is overwhelming. Although some folks may decide to over look the facts in favor of what they believe to be better, (and that is certainly their right) the National, none the less, owes its membership the courtesy of disseminating the truth, especially when it is as basic and straight forward as this. If the "book" was not strong enough to convince the restorers of these vehicles of the truth, then the JSC must stop the bleeding suffered by the Deputy Judges who are merely calling the obvious. (JMHO) Respectfully, Roy Nacewicz
|
|
| 39 Ken | -- 10-13-2009 @ 5:30 AM |
|
Roy, Could you elaborate on the "White Wall" discussion and Mr. Browns discovery. It seems that many of us are in the dark about this 'new' issue. Thanks, Ken
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 10-13-2009 @ 7:57 AM |
|
Roy, I am in agreement with you in regard to how the car was delivered to the first buyer vs. (as I stated) how it left the factory. My statement was meant to convey what you had posted. Unfortunately I did not do a very good job of it. To reiterate (and make clear) my opinion: The car should be judged as to how it was delivered to the first purchaser.
|
|
| Roy Nacewicz | -- 10-13-2009 @ 10:53 PM |
|
Ken, this is not a new issue, it is simply one that flares up from time to time. Simply put, there is overwhelming evidence (documentation) that white wall tires became unavailable in or before August of 1941 and remained so until April of 1947 when war time demands on certain materials started to ease. As a result, vehicles built during this time frame would not have been equipped with white wall tires. The documentation of this condition was discovered many years ago in what is now called the Benson Ford Research Center in Dearborn, (the “Archives”) and still exists there to this day. Copies of these documents have been made by researchers and have been circulated to many V-8 Club members. Further, this information was made available to the folks compiling the ’41 thru ’48 book and is referenced in the introduction and documented in appendix D, pages 2 and 4. Despite this overwhelming evidence of the non existence of white side wall tires in the above referenced time frame, many restorers choose to install white wall tires on vehicles that could not have come so equipped. This, of course, is their right to do, as is anything else they may choose to do with their vehicles. However, these folks proceed at their own peril. On the concourse, a Deputy Judge is obligated to make a call when such a condition exists, as he is with any other feature that is incorrect on any vehicle being point judged. From time to time, when the call is made, there is a great deal of resistance from the proud owners of these affected vehicles. Rulings from higher authority are often called for and in many instances the deputies and their teams are subjected to less than friendly reception. Ken, it is felt by many, myself included, that such calls could be made on a much more “friendly” basis if the JSC would simply incorporate a ruling on this issue as they have done with single and double side white walls as well as Ford script tires for earlier vehicles. Once incorporated in the Judges Instruction Presentation which is shown during the “mandatory” participants meeting prior to the concourse, the “surprise” factor, real or imagined, would then be removed from the Deputy’s consultation with the vehicle owner/representative upon completion of the judging of the vehicle. As mentioned in my previous post, there are a number of things about our beloved Fords that some may wish were not true, but on the concourse, right is right and wrong is wrong….at least to the best of our knowledge base at the time. From my perspective, I have always been thankful that our cars cannot talk….for if they could, I believe we would all be embarrassed by what we do not know and/or the things we believe we do know. Respectfully, Roy Nacewicz
|
|
| 39 Ken | -- 10-14-2009 @ 4:19 AM |
|
Roy, Thank you for the very concise and informative reply about the 'white wall tire' issue. I think that many of our members are unaware of these kinds of issues and in the absense of written, in hand documentation, the place to discuss them is right here on the Forum. Perhaps the Chief Judge could, from time to time, come on board here on the Forum and introduce a 'vague' issue to inform the membership of the issue and enlighten us all. Thanks again. Ken
|
|
| 39 Ken | -- 10-14-2009 @ 4:20 AM |
|
Roy, Thank you for the very concise and informative reply about the 'white wall tire' issue. I think that many of our members are unaware of these kinds of issues and in the absense of written, in hand documentation, the place to discuss them is right here on the Forum. Perhaps the Chief Judge could, from time to time, come on board here on the Forum and introduce a 'vague' issue to inform the membership of the issue and enlighten us all. Thanks again. Ken
|
|
| 37 Guy | -- 10-14-2009 @ 4:43 AM |
|
Alan: The Early vs Late discussion has been kicked around for many years. One of the basic rules of judging is,"If you are not sure, do not deduct". In an previous post Kube mentioned the , how long the dealer had the car issue. There is no way of knowing. However is it not reasonable to assume, that most dealers put a dealer plate on the first new model they received, and used it as a Demonstrator? These early cars COULD have stayed with the dealer for an entire year before being sold. What better way to sell a "Left over" model than to load it up with accessories. We will never know what accessories were on a car when it left the dealer, and if we don't know, we con't deduct.
|
|
| Roy Nacewicz | -- 10-14-2009 @ 6:39 AM |
|
Sorry 37 Guy, with all due respect I cannot buy your assumption. The "spirit" of the Club is to judge the "rule", not the "exception". Welcome to the "slippery slope" referenced in an earlier post above. Under your supposed premise, we could go a bit further and exempt wear and tear on a vehicle used for such purpose as well as the less than factory finish on the right front fender resulting from a Body Shop repair after the vehicle was involved in a fender bender, as well as the slight burn on the rear seat from an errant cigarette, a non matching tire replacement, etc, etc. I totally agree with the concept of "If you do not know you let it go", but this applies to variance from the "norm" or "expected" quality and feature level of mass produced vehicles, not a particular vehicle's history of use or abuse prior to retail sale. (JMHO) Respectfully, Roy Nacewicz
|
|
| Roy Nacewicz | -- 10-14-2009 @ 7:35 AM |
|
Thanks, Ken. I think it appropriate to point out that it is not the "job" of the Chief Judge to bring forth questionable items. His role is to "judge" and render a decision on issues not known or documented. In the case of the tire usage under discussion, such is not necessary. The information relative to their unavailable status was discovered 15 plus years ago. Although not necessarily commonly known back in the day, the publication of the '41-'48 book certainly places it in the "available to all column". Although our book authors are quick to admit they do not walk on water, the Club's books are really quite accurate with some exception. The Club is actively working on these exceptions and good progress is being made. If affected folks do not read this information and/or choose to ignore it, they should be armed with documented proof of to the contrary or travel the road at their own peril. The JSC can help mitigate such issues by publishing judging rule changes, modifications and clarifications which makes such information even more visable. The suggestion to have the JSC address this situation is made more to protect and reinforce the Judges who have to make these unpopular calls, OR create an "exception" similar to that which allows the installation of Columbia components on vehicles produced prior to 1941. Correct information relative to our vehicles is welcome no matter what the source, but at the end of the day, the burden of proof lies with the owner/rep. Once again, the owner/rep may purposely disregard such information and choose to "take the hit". That is certainly his/her right to exercise and something I believe we all do to some extent for many and varied reasons. Respectfully, Roy Nacewicz
|
|
| ford38v8 | -- 10-14-2009 @ 8:59 AM |
|
With regard to the disseminating of information on items that will cost a deduction on the Concourse, I believe that our club does an excellent job of this in a number of ways, contrary to the practice of some other clubs, and of most major Concourse practice: Our V8 Times; Our published Restoration Books; Our Advisory Panel and it's dedicated experts; This very Forum and it's discussions; And don't forget the way we handle our Concourse itself: Our Deputies discuss and explain deductions with the Owners, and the Judging sheets are made available to Owners after the Awards Banquet. Even the way many Deputies make notes on the Judging Sheets of incorrect items that may in the future be a deductible item, even though no deduction was made at present. At other venues, an owner is left in the dark with regard to why his car lost points on the Concourse. I don't think we could have arrived at the system we have now if anyone thought that there was no room for improvement. Our Club is approaching it's 50th Birthday, has had many improvements over the years, and no doubt will have many more. There are excellent ways to effect changes if one is passionate about the need: Throw your hat in the ring and run for the office of National Director; Become a Judge on the Concourse; And if your skill and knowledge is sufficient, perhaps one day you'll be tagged to join the ranks of the Judging Standards Committee. In the meantime, though, please continue to make your opinions and ideas known, as it's always the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. Alan
|
|
| 37 Guy | -- 10-14-2009 @ 3:43 PM |
|
Roy; Help me to understand your position. A person shows up at a meet with a totally original Rouge, early 53 that he bought new in July 53. When he bought the car it was loaded with early and late accessories. Are you going to tell him his car doesn't meet the "As it left the dealer" rule, which you say we judge by?
|
|
| 42wagon | -- 10-14-2009 @ 5:09 PM |
|
Roy I think you read the 41-48 book too quickly. What it says is that after August of 41 whitewall tires would only be available from dealer inventory. The book goes on to say "Whitewall tires were, thus almost non-existent on new 1942 cars and were totally non-existent on 1946 and early 1947 cars." I read this to mean that it was still remotely possible to have a new 1942 delivered from the dealer with whitewall tires. Ted
|
|
| Rusty | -- 10-14-2009 @ 6:30 PM |
|
42wagon, Here is the exact quote from the inside cover of the 1942 Mercury catalog. “This catalog, on the press prior to August 23, 1941, shows cars illustrated with white sidewall tires for which there is an extra charge. The manufacture of these tires being discontinued after that date to conserve materials for National Defense, makes them unavailable after stocks are depleted. “ I interpret this to mean that if there was a car in dealer stock with white sidewall tires, there was an extra charge for those tires.I also interpret this to mean they were not going to be making any more white sidewall tires for the forseeable future. Addressing if a dealer had sets of white sidewall tires in stock, or any tires for that matter, probably not a common practice at the time and if they did, they weren't replacable once they were sold. If you look at period photos, you can find your answer. Few Ford or Mercury cars at the time, even Lincolns, sported white sidewall tires. Rusty Davis
|
|
| Roy Nacewicz | -- 10-14-2009 @ 8:39 PM |
|
Ted, I learned a long time ago to never say "never" and never say "always", especially when it comes to Ford V-8's. I also learned not to try to interpret some one else's conclusions that are drawn from a given set of facts. I may agree or disagree but will not attempt to explain some one else's thinking. I assure you that I am not a speed reader. I purposely ignored the statements cited since they are merely conclusions reached by the author(s) of the book without any thing to substantiate them in the absolute. That said, given the facts which for me speak for themselves, I believe it to be a "stretch" at best to subscribe to your theory. Your logic pattern suggests that one could explain away other inconsistencies that are highly improbable. I submit that such activity is beyond the object of the exercise but that is just my opinion. I also believe there is something to be said for the "norm" with out much comment on the "exception", especially when the exception is far fetched at best. Again, this is just my opinion. To be sure, Ted, there are strong feelings by many on this subject. Personally, I do not have a dog any where near the fight, but I do believe as others do that the JSC should/could bring this to a logical conclusion and allow all of us to go back to work on our cars. Respectfully, Roy Nacewicz
|
|
| Roy Nacewicz | -- 10-14-2009 @ 9:13 PM |
|
I will be the first to admit that I know little or nothing about the referenced "early" and "late" 1953 accessories, much less the availability of same. That said, I would be hard pressed to accept any so called "late" accessories on a vehicle purchased in the middle of the model year. If you wish to revise your exemplar to a sale later in the model year, I would react to this situation as follows: I would attempt to shake the owner's hand, thank him for sharing his vehicle with those of us attending the meet and then gently request the documentation he may have to explain away the anomaly he has presented. The burden of proof is on the owner. "I remember when" and "if my uncle was still alive he would tell you" responses are good, but do not necessarily validate reality. Without sufficient proof, I'm afraid our senior Club member would be subject to the same deductions that any other club member would/should receive under these circumstances. Respectfully, Roy Nacewicz
|
|
| EFV-8 Club Forum : | https://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum |
| Topic: | https://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=18&Topic=121 |