6 Month Rule - Feeling Guilty

[Jim D.]

Re: 6 Month Rule - Feeling Guilty

Because in the overwhelming majority of cases, six months is WAY beyond the norm, based on observations of hundreds of known-original cars. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

The majority of cases but not 100%. To me, that means a known original car (like my 74 I referred to above) would be judged as not original. That is wrong no matter how you look at it. If it's original, there should be no line drawn.

[Patrick H.]

Re: 6 Month Rule - Feeling Guilty

The majority of cases but not 100%. To me, that means a known original car (like my 74 I referred to above) would be judged as not original. That is wrong no matter how you look at it. If it's original, there should be no line drawn.

Let's imagine his starter.

If the entire car appears unrestored, and the started appears to have lived there since 1973 (or 74 in your case) there may be a reasonable chance that he would get full credit for it. However, now imagine a restored car, or even an original appearing car with a restored starter. Will he get full credit? Not likely, because now it could be "anything" and not just the original part.

And, as has been noted more than once above, the vast majority of parts were well under the 6 month window.

My 72 has lost points for a few original items that weren't deemed to be "right." However, I have not changed them because I think they've been there since early June of 1972.

Patrick

[Ian G.]

Re: 6 Month Rule - Feeling Guilty

From what I've seen most parts aren't more than 3 months old, so 6 months is double what is generally seen...

Now if you could contact the previous owners, assuming you can find them, and get a letter from each with their statement that they never changed those parts.... would that fly in judging, as "documentation"?

[Patrick H.]

Re: 6 Month Rule - Feeling Guilty

From what I've seen most parts aren't more than 3 months old, so 6 months is double what is generally seen...

Now if you could contact the previous owners, assuming you can find them, and get a letter from each with their statement that they never changed those parts.... would that fly in judging, as "documentation"?

I doubt it.
I can't recall what I did to some cars 10 years ago, and I'm only 42. You think that owners remember if they changed a starter?

I'm working on a 72, and when I pulled it out of storage it had an Oldsmobile carb on it. It's a 3 owner car, and the 2nd and 3rd owners are father and son. None of the 3 can recall ever having the carb changed out, but there it is. So a letter would mean....? Just an example.

Patrick

[William M.]

Re: 6 Month Rule - Feeling Guilty

I definitely would not have changed the parts, but I have never been judged, and likely never will.

Let me get this straight though:
1) 5 months 29 days is OK
2) 6 months one day is not ok and would cause a "restorer" to replace with a non original part that is 5 months 29 days old.

How does this advance the hobby?

Exactly. This is the point of my post.

[Joe L.]

Re: 6 Month Rule - Feeling Guilty

I definitely would not have changed the parts, but I have never been judged, and likely never will.

Let me get this straight though:
1) 5 months 29 days is OK
2) 6 months one day is not ok and would cause a "restorer" to replace with a non original part that is 5 months 29 days old.

How does this advance the hobby?

John-----


OK, so let's say the rule was changed to a maximum of 6 months + 1 day. Then, how does that work for the guy that shows up with a piece dated 6 months + 2 days?

Alright, so let's say the rule is changed to 6 months + 2 days. So, how does that work for the guy that shows up with a piece dated 6 months + 3 days?

This could go on-an-on. In about 99.9% of the cases, 6 months represents a very generous allowance. Typically, it was a lot less than that. But, to include most of the "outliers", the 6 month rule was established.

I strongly suggest that folks who believe a component to be original to the car, leave that component on the car. No one is forced to remove and replace a component. In the VAST majority of the cases, the point deduction is going to be irrelevant in the end.

[Harmon C.]

Re: 6 Month Rule - Feeling Guilty

Here's one of my favorite quotes I've seen in the five years I've been visiting the tDB, AND, it was from a pretty sharp, former team leader:

"Judging is, as some have said, a game. The purpose is for entertainment and education. Know the rules and play by them -- you and your car will have a lot more fun that way. The person who brings a football to a baseball game usually doesn't have much fun"

This post from a guy who just bought a restored part, to replace a part that I'm quite sure was original to my April '67 built Corvette. Ridge

I like this Quote

[Mike E.]

Re: 6 Month Rule - Feeling Guilty

As a two-time 61-62 team leader (over about 12 years combined), I can tell you that in that class, in the past, we have "bent" the 6-month rule. If a car is an obvious "restampmobile" and there are dates outside that 6-month window, we wouldn't even consider it. If a car appears to be a very nice original, or a car restored by someone who knew what they were doing and approached us ahead of time and said "I know that this part is dated incorrectly, but it was on the car as far back as we can document it", and if the part is one that is reasonably unique (a 340-360 hp 62 generator, for example, which would not be from a passenger car application and found its way onto a Corvette by accident), we would consider it.

In other words, it's about the context that would lead us to consider or not consider overriding the 6-month rule.

[Jack H.]

Re: 6 Month Rule - Feeling Guilty

"I'm confused as well. If these were warranty replacements, they'd likely have a later date, not an earlier date."

Not really... It depends on when they were replaced and the luck of the draw from service inventory.

If a part was replaced, say, when the car was delivered, the odds are the replacement part was made before the car was built to get into service inventory. All depends on how fast service cycled this/that part + the luck of random draw from inventory...

[Jim C.]

Re: 6 Month Rule - Feeling Guilty

William,

You could state your case until "pigs fly." I TOTALLY see what you're saying, but at some point there has to be some sort of standard, or judging Corvettes won't count for much because there will be an exception for everything!! I think there's probably a significant body of evidence that more often than not supports the six month rule when it comes to parts. I WOULD definitely keep the parts on the car if you believe they are original to the car but outside the six month rule. Like I said before, judging is not an absolute science, and there may be exceptions, but without some kind of basic standards, all judging would be subjective and the credibility of "Top Flight" would be diminished.

I have a VERY VERY late 1966. Consequently, it has several 1967 parts, some of which are pretty significant to include it's cylinder case and heads, as well as a few other things. Several years ago, I was told by a few knowledgeable judges that abnormalities can be added to the "manual" and deemed correct when a few "known to be original" examples are seen and documented. Fortunately, the 1966 manual says that a 1967 block could possibly be found in a late 1966 Corvette. As for some of the other 1967 parts, the date codes are well within the six month time period, and perfect for my car, but the PART numbers are wrong and are not discussed in the manual as possibly being correct for a late 1966. It makes sense that a late 1966 would have some 1967 parts on it as the stock of 1966 parts were depleted at the factory. I'm more than fairly certain that these 1967 parts are original to my car so I left them in place. A few years ago I had my car judged, and as expected, took some "point hits" for having 1967 parts on a 1966 car. My car still made Top Flight, but with a slightly lower score than I believe it should have earned. Hey, that's life in the world of judging Corvettes. I still have the 1967 parts on my 1966 car because I think they are original to the car. Keep the "older than six month" parts on your Corvette, and go driving!!! Don't worry about it.

Jim C.

[John M.]

Re: 6 Month Rule - Feeling Guilty

We agree on this point. Mike E has a good approach also.

My '65 S/N 145 has a least 2 "64" parts on it according to the JM. I'll never change them.

John-----

I strongly suggest that folks who believe a component to be original to the car, leave that component on the car. No one is forced to remove and replace a component. In the VAST majority of the cases, the point deduction is going to be irrelevant in the end.

[William M.]

Re: 6 Month Rule - Feeling Guilty

As a two-time 61-62 team leader (over about 12 years combined), I can tell you that in that class, in the past, we have "bent" the 6-month rule. If a car is an obvious "restampmobile" and there are dates outside that 6-month window, we wouldn't even consider it. If a car appears to be a very nice original, or a car restored by someone who knew what they were doing and approached us ahead of time and said "I know that this part is dated incorrectly, but it was on the car as far back as we can document it", and if the part is one that is reasonably unique (a 340-360 hp 62 generator, for example, which would not be from a passenger car application and found its way onto a Corvette by accident), we would consider it.

In other words, it's about the context that would lead us to consider or not consider overriding the 6-month rule.

So are there any instances where the 6 month rule was bent in C3 judging? In my limited experience of having my car judged twice and being an observer twice, I haven't seen it yet.

[Michael W.]

Re: 6 Month Rule - Feeling Guilty

So are there any instances where the 6 month rule was bent in C3 judging? In my limited experience of having my car judged twice and being an observer twice, I haven't seen it yet.

Yes, I've seen it. The number of cases where it's appropriate to even discuss the point or worth the effort is very rare however.

With your car, I'd weight the point deduct vs. the time and trouble.

BTW, at least one person used the phrase 'argue with the judge'. This is never a good strategy. The amateur, unpaid judges (who have to pay their own way) are there to have an enjoyable day, just like you. They're not there to ruin yours, don't ruin theirs if they are simply using the well known, established judging criteria in an appropriate manner.

[Brian M.]

Re: 6 Month Rule - Feeling Guilty

Maybe I should have phrased it "discuss the point deduct with the judge"

Yes, I've seen it. The number of cases where it's appropriate to even discuss the point or worth the effort is very rare however.

With your car, I'd weight the point deduct vs. the time and trouble.

BTW, at least one person used the phrase 'argue with the judge'. This is never a good strategy. The amateur, unpaid judges (who have to pay their own way) are there to have an enjoyable day, just like you. They're not there to ruin yours, don't ruin theirs if they are simply using the well known, established judging criteria in an appropriate manner.