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     Roy Nacewicz 10-14-2009 @ 9:13 PM reply profile send p.m. Member Posts: 16 Joined: Oct 2009 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 Roy Nacewicz 10-14-2009 @ 8:39 PM reply profile send p.m. Member Posts: 16 Joined: Oct 2009 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 Rusty 10-14-2009 @ 6:30 PM reply profile send p.m. Member Posts: 21 Joined: Oct 2009 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 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 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? 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 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 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 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. 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

<< 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