Re: NCRS judging for 63 with repro knock offs
This comes up with reasonable frequency. Open your copy of the NCRS Judging Reference Manual to Section 4, Standard Deductions, and compare the wording of Rule 6 (GM Service Replacement Parts), to Rule 7 (Reproduction Parts) and then to Rule 10 (Incorrect Replacement Parts).
It's Rule 10 that many apply to force a full deduction on this/that item. The Catch-22 is that the text of the rule reads:
"Non-GM replacement parts which are incorrect are subject to a 100% deduction on both originality and condition."
This says the part must be 'non-GM'. What's that mean? MANY parts were never made by GM, they were purchased from outside suppliers. Many of today's parts sourced from AC, Delco, and Delphi are actually contract manufactured by independent parties... Plus, a number of Chevy dealers have a catalog of GM Licensed Parts suppliers and these too are not made by GM!
The last disconnect is the term 'incorrect'. There's no defintion of what it means to be 'incorrect'.
There are a reasonable number of judges who feel this means that IF they can determine a difference (no matter how small/insignificant) in the part, then it qualifies as being 'incorrect' and should therefore receive a full deduction! That's not my position...
It's obvious to me that the preceeding two rules (6 and 7) came before Rule 10 and they specifically allow partial credit for parts that are either 'incorrect' or 'non-GM' or both.
Therefore, my take is Rule 10 is to be interpreted as applying to a replacement part that fails ALL FIVE tests of originality (Finish, Date, Installation, Configuration and Completeness). That's a TALL order, since most replacement parts at least 'install' the same way as the part they're intended to replace. But, that's my personal interpretation of our rules.
You WILL find other judges who invoke Rule 10, seemingly, at the drop of a hat. But, that's between them and the bathroom mirror they view every morning...
I understand Roy Sinor is getting ready to release the 8th Edition of the NCRS Judging Reference Manual. Maybe it will contain helpful clarification in this area where it appears our rules (letter and intent) seem to conflict with each other.
This comes up with reasonable frequency. Open your copy of the NCRS Judging Reference Manual to Section 4, Standard Deductions, and compare the wording of Rule 6 (GM Service Replacement Parts), to Rule 7 (Reproduction Parts) and then to Rule 10 (Incorrect Replacement Parts).
It's Rule 10 that many apply to force a full deduction on this/that item. The Catch-22 is that the text of the rule reads:
"Non-GM replacement parts which are incorrect are subject to a 100% deduction on both originality and condition."
This says the part must be 'non-GM'. What's that mean? MANY parts were never made by GM, they were purchased from outside suppliers. Many of today's parts sourced from AC, Delco, and Delphi are actually contract manufactured by independent parties... Plus, a number of Chevy dealers have a catalog of GM Licensed Parts suppliers and these too are not made by GM!
The last disconnect is the term 'incorrect'. There's no defintion of what it means to be 'incorrect'.
There are a reasonable number of judges who feel this means that IF they can determine a difference (no matter how small/insignificant) in the part, then it qualifies as being 'incorrect' and should therefore receive a full deduction! That's not my position...
It's obvious to me that the preceeding two rules (6 and 7) came before Rule 10 and they specifically allow partial credit for parts that are either 'incorrect' or 'non-GM' or both.
Therefore, my take is Rule 10 is to be interpreted as applying to a replacement part that fails ALL FIVE tests of originality (Finish, Date, Installation, Configuration and Completeness). That's a TALL order, since most replacement parts at least 'install' the same way as the part they're intended to replace. But, that's my personal interpretation of our rules.
You WILL find other judges who invoke Rule 10, seemingly, at the drop of a hat. But, that's between them and the bathroom mirror they view every morning...
I understand Roy Sinor is getting ready to release the 8th Edition of the NCRS Judging Reference Manual. Maybe it will contain helpful clarification in this area where it appears our rules (letter and intent) seem to conflict with each other.
Comment