Early Ford V-8 Club Forum

EFV-8 Club Forum / General Ford Discussion / Accessories on the Concourse

Reply to Discussion | New Discussion << previous || next >>

Posted By Discussion Topic: Accessories on the Concourse -- page: 1 2 3     kubes40 10-13-2009 @ 7:57 AM reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 3394 Joined: Oct 2009 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 reply profile send p.m. Member Posts: 16 Joined: Oct 2009 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 reply profile send p.m. Member Posts: 380 Joined: Oct 2009 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 reply profile send p.m. Member Posts: 380 Joined: Oct 2009 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 reply profile send p.m. Member Posts: 2 Joined: Oct 2009 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 reply profile send p.m. Member Posts: 16 Joined: Oct 2009 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 reply profile send p.m. Member Posts: 16 Joined: Oct 2009 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 reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 2758 Joined: Oct 2009 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 reply profile send p.m. Member Posts: 2 Joined: Oct 2009 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 reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 584 Joined: Oct 2009 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

<< previous || next >>

PAGE: 1 2 3

NOTE: YOU MUST BE A REGISTERED USER AND BE LOGGED IN TO POST (and reply to) messages in this forum. If you are a first time user, please click the CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT in the masthead above to register and Log In. After that, all you do is LOG IN to enjoy using this site.

DISCLAIMER: The V-8 Club does no independent testing of any of the opinions, thoughts or suggestions presented in the website on the Forum, in the Tech Tips section, or any section. A reader should consider the website to be a forum wherein differing solutions to a particular set of circumstances may be discussed. Ultimately, the selection of an item for an individual's vehicle must be based upon the independent study of the vehicle owner in consultation with people in the hobby and restoration experts.

EFV-8 Club Forum Home | Back to Home Page | Contact the Webmaster

Copyright © 2009 - EFV-8.org
Powered by < CF FORUM > v.2.1