avalonjohn

Anyone get the new NCRS 68-69 Judging Manual? My good friend received his copy and is a bit disappointed, specifically in the 68 area. He noted, just to name a few (regarding the L79) there is no mention of the correct stampings on the valve covers, which is a dead giveaway for a replacement. He mentioned the book states ALL SB oil fill caps were painted orange (L79 is flash chrome). There is also no mention of the wider sill plates on early 68's. Also, in regards to A.I.R., the book indicates "early" cars have a sticker on the cup of the diverter and later cars are ink stamped...wrong.

Anyhow, these are just a few things he noticed as he glanced through it. I don't have mine yet so this is second source, but I trust his opinions as he is a Master Judge and specializes in 68-69 (and 78 Pace Cars). He did mention the book was much more comprehensive and had a lot of good points.

Maybe I'm just too picky.

Anyone else see any issues?

Mike Ward

There was an open call for members to contribute to the manual revision some time ago, might be a year or so. Did your friend send in his suggestions at that time?

avalonjohn

he did, plenty of them, including several that I mentioned.

gbvette62

That sounds like a friend of mine. Would he be a gentleman from NJ, who owns several Pace Cars and is deep into a multi year restoration of a very early VIN 68 convertible? If so, I was talking to him about a week ago, and he hadn't received the manual yet, and wondered if I had seen one.

I will say, having worked on the 80-82 Judging Manual, it seems that no matter how many times you go through it, things still get missed. I recently came across something wrong in the 80-82 book, that I must have looked at 100 times before.

It's not a perfect world, which is why the Manuals get updated periodically.

avalonjohn

I agree, no manual is perfect. Just wanted to see if anyone picked up any others. Not being a judge...would a judge take points off for a car that, let's say had aftermarket but correct looking valve covers for an L79 but did not have the stamping? Could the owner argue it makes no mention in the judging manual? I don't know the answer, maybe you guys can tell me. Thanks, john

Mike Ward

If it's typical to see these stampings (not quite clear on what they are) on all L79s and never covers without them, then yes a judge might take a deduction.

No manual could ever include a 100% of information. It's not in the book doesn't get a person very far.

gbvette62

A replacement or repro part, that is correct in every way, except that it's missing a part number or manufacturer's mark, can and likely will receive, a partial deduction.

Generally, repro parts that are correct in their appearance and function, should not be deducted for, but any variation from original, will receive a hit of some sort.

The simple answer is no.

If a manual is wrong, and an owner can prove it, he can argue his case, but something not covered by the manual, is basically at the discretion of the judge and his knowledge.

exposingtime

69 L36 Cars with factory AC have a 2 way tree (3 way tree if PB) at the rear of the intake and do not use a steel vacuum advance line.

At the FL regional last year, I had to get the team leader involved to tell the judges that the lack of vacuum advance line on my car was correct. The deduction had already been made and the judges wanted to move on, but I refused. I didnt have a copy of the AIM with me, and the judging manual states that all L36 cars had the steel vacuum advance lines. The new manual is still the same. A copy of that page in the AIM is now in my binder of pics of the car.

Gary

7T1vette

You would be hard pressed to convince an NCRS judge that he/she should change position because of a difference between the NCRS 'Bible' and one copy of the AIM for that year.

Mike Ward

Please share your first-handed experience to back up this statement .

Thanks.

jr9170

Did not receive mine yet,cant wait to get it.

7T1vette

Are you refuting my statement, Mike? Or are you just babbling-on again?

Mike Ward

As I suspected- you're just bashing again.

gbvette62

As someone who has entered cars in NCRS judging, I've successfully disputed a judge, and I know others who have also.

At the same time, while judging I have been corrected by an owner, and/or sought the help of another judge, when something was in question. I've also been asked to clarify something in question, by other judges.

Admittedly, I haven't judged recently, because I find it a conflict with my business interests in the hobby, but I don't think things have changed that much.

I will say that I would not accept an illustration in the AIM, as outright proof in every situation though. The AIM's illustrations aren't very detailed sometimes, and they often don't correctly illustrate a part. You have to remember that they were intended to help assemble the car, not to identify parts.

JimE

Any mention of "M" coded blocks instead of a casting date on some of the 69's?

Mike Ward

Nor would a half decent judge outright ignore what the owner is presenting. If still in doubt after review, benefit of said doubt goes to the owner.

Our friend with the blue car, who IIRC, has never presented a car for judging or been a judge, possibly never been to a meet, has a long track record of stating absolutes on 'how things work'. You can always pick out the posers in a crowd- they like to make everything out to be black and white

Easy Mike

The chip on your shoulder is showing. Again. Why not bury the hatchet?

avalonjohn

I was just thinking, since there are so many 68 only parts, and differences in production times, and since apparently the book is very long, that they could have been more detailed on some of it. Again, I have not seen it yet.

Also found out there is no mention of the 68 only rear grilles.

Again, I am probably being too picky. BTW, I am an NCRS member, but have never had my car judged. I am a purist "for me" only at this stage.

7T1vette

Mike/Mike...

So, you're saying that, given a choice of judging according to the NCRS Judging Guide or to a one-point-in-time document like a page in the [many times reproduced] AIM...which could easily be "doctored"...an NCRS judge might seriously consider changing his/her opinion?

If that really is true, then NCRS judging is flakier than I thought.

I truly don't think either one of you disagrees with what I stated; I think you just want to be disagreeable.

exposingtime

Am I your friend? I have a blue car