Steve
The point is that Ford, just like cheb-o-lay, plow-mouth, etc. didn't waste a lot of time or money making the stuff under the hood pretty, only brand specific. The theory was that only the mechanic's or "retentive" owners (like my Dad) ever ventured in this vast, but necessary wasteland of vital complexity.
Now we are venerating subtle differences in reflectivity. I'm obviously not a big fan of over-restoration. As a fan of early Fords, I tend to favor stuff that has the degree of "shoddiness" that was extant when the product rolled off the line out into the "real-world".
Tom
Steve
This message was edited by len47merc on 5-12-15 @ 11:51 AM
Ford did NOT name their chassis colors. Instead they applied code numbers that corresponded with a formula made to Fords specifications. As NONE of these formulas can be translated to modern paint technologies, it remains impossible to duplicate any of them with 100% proven accuracy.
As many of you know, I have done a LOT of research in regard to 1940 Ford construction.
Frames (example) were actually quite "glossy" - far more so than what Eastwood sells as "chassis black". As glossy as the frames I restore? Of course not. Ford would not afford the monies it would require to do so.
Air filters? Gloss black. Period. How "glossy"? Not having a spectrometer in my eye, I could not offer an opinion with 100% authority.
I think one must remember that things appear more "glossy" when the surface the paint is applied to is extremely straight / smooth.
Yes, my air filters (1939 - 1940) are blocked out prior to painting. From the factory? Hardly.
Please, understand I only speak to 1939 - 1940. I have not done much research of other years so can't say what may have changed or perhaps remained the same.
Respectfully,
Mike "Kube" Kubarth
This said, all of us new or relatively new to the process have to take input from EFV8 technical advisers as well as the most experienced and knowledgeable resources on this forum and, drawing from all this input, make the best decisions we can and hope we are as close as possible to what is likely to be most acceptable from a judging perspective.
This is the one area that gave me fits trying to find a 'shininess' standard and it started with something as simple as the oil pan which was removed for cleaning and gasket replacement prior to starting the car after being idled for almost 4 decades. Couldn't find a standard in my then quite limited but developing EFV8 resource & documentation library so I posted the question on this forum. Among the multitude of answers and opinions came direction to contact technical adviser Rusty Davis (I think TomO advised this) and his input became the ultimate driver of the glossiness decisions made for at least black components going forward.
From that point on if no clear direction or recipe exists for any topic I have tried to advise forum members to the applicable technical adviser and former judge resources to obtain the 'final' answer.
Steve
I'd like to offer a bit of personal background and build a bit upon your thoughts.
I have been a member of this club since 1973, a full 42 years. During that time I have owned too many 1940 Fords to most likely recall. I have twelve Dearborn awards behind me, the worst, a 997. I am in the midst of four additional '40 Ford "high point" projects.
I only state some of my history to hopefully add a bit of credibility to my opinions. Regardless, they are of course only my opinions. At the very least, I hope, someone will seriously consider them and possibly we can change the current method of operation in regard to judging standards.
Like you Steve, early on I had experienced the same frustrations. Those frustration remain to this day. Attempting to find a definitive answer on numerous things in regard to my restoration efforts. Proper finishes had always proven to be the most elusive.
In my opinion, this could be addressed "head on" in a fairly easy and decisive manner. I know that this subject has been presented to various boards throughout the past decades. And, sadly but apparently, each time this very subject has been dismissed leaving serious restorers like yourself (and me) "hanging" in the proverbial wind.
I have yet to come to an understanding why this club with its massive funds has never offered any judge training much less required such.
Other clubs do so.
Our club sends out anyone that volunteers to the concourse. While I feel it is wonderful that folks volunteer, I also think this sets up all too often a frustrating situation for the owner / restorer.
Why? All too often, a "hands on" restorer will know much more than most judges on a particular team. That is, again in my opinion, highly unfair to the restorer.
Anyone that is as serious as you (and me) deserves to be judged by his peers.
I have little doubt that the volunteer judges have a desire to learn. They are most likely not looking to simply find "busy work". I have heard from volunteer judges many times how much they enjoy learning.
Do we as a club not owe our members better educated judges?
One (simplified) approach would be to offer "standards" from which to judge from. We all realize Ford made swift and running changes each and every day. Hey, if those cadmium bolts ran short, I have no doubt some raven finish bolts were installed instead. Still, the INTENTION was to utilize cadmium bolts in that (example) place. So, instead of the all to oft used phrase "Don't kill the car", how about standards being published and "judge the car according to the standards". As new (differing) information / documentation may be uncovered, change the standards.
In this computer age, that process is not only easy, it is swift.
Steve, I hope you and other serious restorers continue "pushing ahead"
I do believe we are members of a great club. Room for improvement? Without a doubt.
So, what do you guys think? Isn't it past time we as a club offer / demand some sort of schooling for our judges?
Respectfully,
Mike "Kube" Kubarth
No matter what Club you belong to, there are always objections to the way the cars are judged. This is true whether the judges are trained or just volunteers. The process of judging is using your knowledge and experience to make a determination of what is correct. Trained judges may or may not do a good job, depending upon their knowledge, experience and abilities.
I am against having a training school for judges, because this is supposed to be an enjoyable hobby, not something that puts a stress on the car owner when he attends a meet. Hobby's have amateurs running the functions and amateurs attending the functions, so nothing is going to be perfect and we should not expect perfection.
Tom
I agree it's a hobby, let it be a hobby.
This conversation takes Me back to the days of Benny Bootle, who at that time was god of every thing '40.
We have seen how that turned out.
One person won't know, can't know all there is to know about our hobby. Plus a rule book written by one person, come on.
Let the masses enjoy their hobby.
I have been a member of this club since 1970.
I'm not a toolmaker, but I can read a yardstick.
Those with cars on the concourse that are not serious about point judging should by that same token, have no objections if they score poorly.
One of numerous underlying issues are the folks that want to "win" but don't want to spend the money, time, efforts, etc. in order to "win" fairly.
There was time when a Dearborn award actually meant something. A time when you were thinking of purchasing a Dearborn awarded car, you could do so on the merits of the judging sheets.
Hey, we are (supposed to be) grown men - not kids on a T-ball field where (these days) no scores are kept so no one gets their feelings hurt.
Maybe it's just me but I was raised to earn what I got. And, I have always had a difficult time accepting instruction by someone less informed.
Bottom line for me? Train judges. Set standards. Don't want to compete? That's your choice. There are plenty of other classes if "fun" is all you are after.
If one chooses the concourse, he should expect to be judged by persons with at minimum a good grasp of what's correct and what is not. Setting "standards" makes it easier for everyone involved.
The Club publishes books to help owners restore their car back to original.
These cars were built to be driven and the Club encourages that they be driven, so there should be no perfect cars on the Concourse, because Henry did not make any perfect cars.
If the Club were to decide to train the judges, just how would you do the job and fund it?
Tom
Hmmm... makes a fellow wonder.
How might I propose to train, etc?
Well, standards would have to be established from which to judge against. If that be the manuals the club sells or something else would need to be determined.
Where's the money come from to do this you ask? As a non-profit entity the club is required by law to spend a percentage of their funds on education. To my knowledge this has yet to occur. Just why is the club holding on to the large assets we enjoy with such a tight grasp?
And Alan, this is as you state a hobby and is fun. I am just not quite ready to concede the direction this club has so obviously been leaning in to for too long. That is, one where everyone goes home with a trophy so everyone "feels good".
I don't know, I just can't quite let go of my upbringing and one of many lessons taught... "earn it".
Perhaps one of you can answer a question I have?
Is it unfair for a restorer / owner who has researched and worked hard at his project to expect a qualified team of judges to scrutinize his vehicle?
The Clubs or yours ?
I'm talking about "as it left the factory" versus "over restored", such as "block sanded air cleaners" & "four coats of base and six coats of clear" as a finish on the body.
Keep us informed.
Steve
This message was edited by len47merc on 5-14-15 @ 3:25 PM
If you have ever spent perhaps years and countless dollars building what you thought was a correct restoration and then shown it upon a concourse only to be judged one way at one show and a different way at yet another show... well, wouldn't you be a bit frustarted?
Me? I have become frustrated albeit very infrequently. I have experienced (one example) a two point deduction for a tire that during the show had been soiled by a passer-by. No, I did not contest this. However, never mind that an INCORRECT tire is a maximum two point deduction and minor / normal "dirt" for lack of a better term is allowed... how did that particular car get two points for a dirty yet correct tire?
This is but one example where a little training or even suggesting a judge might actually read the rules would have come in very handy.
I know my cars are over restored and would not even think to suggest Ford ever built a production vehicle that mimicked mine. And please, don't read more in to my comments any more than my actual words suggest.
I build my cars to see what I am capable of. That's the bottom line for me.
Now, do I suggest I'd write the standards for 1940 Fords? Nope, I would not want to. Why? Because too many guys don't want to hear the
truth (read : documentation) as it too often does not coincide with their "efforts".
Rest assured, I am well past feeling any frustration. However, I do feel for those that are new to this hobby on the level I (and they) enjoy it.
By the way, four coats of base and six coats of clear is ridiculous. Two coats of base and two to three of clear (high solids) is just about right
Guys, I appreciate the thoughtful comments / responses. And Steve, you are an example of the kind of person I'd like to see standards set for. It's quite apparent you are doing your best to recreate an authentic vehicle. Would you not enjoy some "final word" as to what is correct and what is not?
I do think our judging is pretty good compared to some clubs. I believe the AACA and the Model A Club have an advantage over the V-8 Club. The AACA accepts late model vehicles which are less expensive to own for the entry level enthusiast and the late cars appeal to the younger crowd. The Model A guys for years had a modified class so there is a place for non-stock cars. Model A's are also cheaper to own than an early V-8.
Let's face it our cars are expensive to build and buy. There is interest out there, but a young guy paying rent, working a full time job, and supporting a kid or two just can't afford our cars. It's up to us to help these young people.
Recently I came in contact with a young guy gathering parts for a '40 pickup. I had some spare pieces laying around and rather than take them to a swap meet I gave him the parts. He was one happy kid. He thought he won the lotto. If we want younger people it's up to us to help them with their projects. It's also good for us old guys to be around these young guys. They are full of enthusiasm and it's infectious.
I tend to agree with your latest response. However, I am unable to find a correlation between associated costs and judging standards.
Are you suggesting judging standards be relaxed so that folks don;t get discouraged?
AACA has had trained judges for years and they still have the same controversy about judging as you are bringing up. "The judges do not judge MY car correctly."
The judging rules cover the dirty tire on your car and you could have protested the deduction. The Interior judge at Dearborn, did not even give the judging sheet to the Deputy Judge, so I could protest his incorrect deductions. These things will continue to occur as long as we have people judging.
Tom