Dave,

First of all it's not my judging system, I'm just one of the judges involved.

As far as watering it down, I understand where you are comming from but I don't agree. There is a very specific difference between the two cars and it's kept on record. If the cars judged have improvements (or vice versa) they can be re-judged at a later date to give them to a higher level or just for an update in the ICCA records to.

i'm not knocking the people that want the OE gold . hey everyone needs a hobby. and i'm glad there are people out there that are the meticulous with their restorations. it gives everyone a reference for their cars.


as for the judges, I'm not knocking them either. some shows you go to you HAVE TO ENTER YOUR CAR and IT WILL BE JUDGED, or you'll be parking with the nissans and acceller-yotas. well, you can put "don't judge" on the dash card too, which I've done in the past.

car show judging is not an easy thing either. i've seen extremely nice restored cars lose to a 79 t-bird pink and maroon paint with a leopard print interior

what some people won't do to their cars

I wasn't inferring that it was yours Scott. By your involvement I only assumed you were in agreement with it's point of view. A few people in these posts have said that i have tried to press my view and opinion on others. Let me be perfectly clear that not one word I have spoken has been my "opinion." To the contrary, it is THOSE guys who have spoke their opinions while continuously ignoring the facts. Reality is what it is! You can either accept it or be blindsided by it!

First of all Scott you and I are friends so our commentary should not be viewed as divisive. The term "OE" means original equipment. Period. That is not "my" definition or description. Unlike these other folks who claim I am trying to "spin" my opinion, I simply ACCEPT reality for what it is!!! Think about it Scott....if all these cars can get OE Gold certified with varying degrees of reproduction parts, what is the purpose of the program? Why not just certify EVERY car OE Gold and then proceed to tag them with the appropriate, "except for this and this and this and that"! Nobody gets offended and everyone's a winner! Is that really the direction we want this hobby to move in? Why not just set things up to appropriately represent what they ACTUALLY are? Is a car any different (in reality) if it is classified as a Silver recipient compared to an OE Gold car BUT with a 56% black or red or whatever stipulation? It reminds me of Ed Norton on the Honeymooners! He didn't want to be called a "Sewer Worker"....he wanted to be called "An Underground Engineer". The job position was the same regardless of the title! A title or classification does not make the car. The car itself should be the "Show".

wasnt it "subterranean sanitation engineer" ??

back to the topic,
unless a car is 100% survivior an OE status is not obtainable according to the different levels discussed here

i mean how far does it go?

what you can see or what you cant see too (brake shoes, pads, oils, air, grease, camshaft, bearings, etc)

as close a copy of an original paint job, if the paint isnt factory pack mixed from the year the car was built then its not "OE" ????

are nos parts refered to as reproduction because they were produced after the car was assembled and were reproduced by the factory, even if exact.
but what if the part was made prior to the cars production?
there is a point to that i guess

what if the same mfg company was found and they started making widgets again with the same materials and same tooling, is that a reproduction??

or if a new company makes a part, and you can hold both parts in hand and not tell the difference from an original,
what happens then??

i fully agree that the cost and effort of locating and buying correct nos parts shouldnt be ignored, but what if they are indistingishable from a reproduction ??

just to play devils advocate

hey Beast, (that sounds weird)

it goes as far as someone is willing to take it.

there is an OE thing in every facet of this hobby. not just Chrysler, you can include Ford and GM too. I've seen it first hand. those guys are doing the same thing. and most of these guys (Mopar, Ford and GM) will set the standard, next to original unrestored.

since this thread is called - Original restorations Repo. VS original parts -

here is a question to everyone,

what do you prefer? repo parts or original/NOS parts?

is it a money factor in your decision which to buy?

i've found that all the repo parts i buy, i have to modify it in some way, shape or form.

original and NOS parts fit like a glove.

Good question Joelson6.
I can see both sides of it. Repo. parts are getting better and better but in most cases they do need to be worked. Think of it, the original tooling and engineering probably cost millions of dollars to create and the repo. manufacturer, due to realistic limitations of return on investment, only can spend thousands and the look and fit may not be as good as original parts.
Now as far as using repo. vs. original parts, I feel there is a place for both. For some cars the goal is different than others and using repo. parts is perfectly acceptable and other cars have a different goal and NOS or original parts are needed.
It is sometimes humorous to listen to some people say "why would I buy that old part, I can get a brand new one from Year One" and then later they go to install it and are frustrated when it does not bolt on easily or the fit is not good.

Remeber too, that in concourse judging classes at the nats, there are 12 cars that must be judged in one day and there is only so much time they can spend on each car. It's kind of hard to REALLY judge a car to great detail in the alotted amount of time. Also the judging sheets are general in nature. And again, you can't expect all the volunteers who judge the shows to know all the minute differences. Think about the following scenario-A judge walks up to a car and sees an NOS grille in the car. He may not know it's NOS, but he sees the die/stretch marks and fuzzy paint lines. Then he goes to the next car and sees a grille that was done by, say Alltrim or MrBelvedere. This grille is going to be flawless in it's finish. If he doesn't know the difference he may just mark the "prettier" grille higher in value vs the NOS grille!
In OE judging, they spend hours going over everything with a fine tooth comb. We are talking thousands of points and hundreds of categories! It's just not practical to do at most shows.

First off to start, yes Dave, you and to that end I consider all of this friendly conversation.

Quote:

---

This line of thinking really opens up various trains of thought for OE judging and what should or should not be acceptable.

---

I don't see this as a new train of thought at all. When I judge a car I only scrutinize and compare the parts with parts that would have come on the them on the production line, there is no other "correct" period (IMHO). Anything else with a visible difference of any kind is a deviation of one sort or another and would lose points accordingly.

On the topic of a part being classified as a reproduction part vs a service replacement/continuation part. That's a little harder to define and I'd agree there are points where the lines get blurry for sure. Another blurry line would be the subject of which reproduction part or continuation part is the "best" in terms of matching a production line example. Since VERY few "Perfect" reproduction parts (Perfect being that they are indistinguishable to ANY degree as compared to production line examples) exist, there is a bit of subjectivity involved in making a call on which of them is the best replacement part, and along that line, which of them might garner more points in a judging situation.

Quote:

---

This line of thinking really opens up various trains of thought for OE judging and what should or should not be acceptable.

---

I don't see this as a new train of thought at all. When I judge a car I only scrutinize and compare the parts with parts that would have come on the them on the production line, there is no other "correct" period (IMHO). Anything else with a visible difference of any kind is a deviation of one sort or another and would lose points accordingly.

On the topic of a part being classified as a reproduction part vs a service replacement/continuation part. That's a little harder to define and I'd agree there are points where the lines get blurry for sure. Another blurry line would be the subject of which reproduction part or continuation part is the "best" in terms of matching a production line example. Since VERY few "Perfect" reproduction parts (Perfect being that they are indistinguishable to ANY degree as compared to production line examples) exist, there is a bit of subjectivity involved in making a call on which of them is the best replacement part, and along that line, which of them might garner more points in a judging situation.

---

O.K. Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. What really constitutes an NOS part? Something thats been sitting on a shelf for 20 to 40 years, or something of recent manufacture that is Licensed and built to the Manufacturers Specifications by a licensed Parts supplier?

As most of you probably don't know every Auto Mfg. has / had multiple suppliers for the same parts. Each supplier was given a set of "Blueprint Specifications" and built the parts to those specs. However there are plus / minus tolerances within all specifications, so you could end up with a part that didn't fit eactly right during production and afterward when the Vendor/supplier made replacement parts. that's why you see variation within the same part when looking / comparing multiple examples of like parts. ie. '70 Cuda Grills variation in the argent paint color - some light, some darker ! Which one is Correct? They both were ... LOL

So how can anyone reasonable say "What is Right" for these cars?

In my opinion after 34 years of working in an Auto Mfg. Plant, I believe that any part manufactured under License and built to the Manufacturers specifications constitures an "NOS" part. Regardless of build date.

Most of you out there call them Repo parts, but suppliers like BEA (as an example) that are licensed and provide the part numbers cast or stamped/painted into the parts and built to Manufacturers Specifications are building NOS parts.

The distinguishing difference is the Date of Build that is generally cast or stamped on a part.

That in IMHO is the only way to seperate the two.

However now you can get correctly date coded NOS / Repo parts for the cars so if they are cast with the part numbers and proper dates, one would have to reasonale accept them as OEM or NOS as long as they are produced under proper licensing and built to spec.

Not trying to step on anyones toes, just expressing a different perspective on this subject.


Just my worth.

Bogusracer

In ragards to OE judging and frommy earlier post below, I'll say it again:

Quote:

---

I don't see this as a new train of thought at all. When I judge a car I only scrutinize and compare the parts with parts that would have come on the them on the production line, there is no other "correct" period (IMHO). Anything else with a visible difference of any kind is a deviation of one sort or another and would lose points accordingly.

---

It doesn't matter how the part is classified/named, etc.; Reproduction, NOS, Continuation, etc. If it has any visible differences as compared to what came on them on the assembly line they will get points deducted.

If choosing replacement parts for my own car I look for parts that (IMO) match the production line examples the best. While this is somewhat subjective, I have found that if there happens to be several parts to choose from (current reproductions, old service parts, continuation parts still produced, etc.) that there is usually one that most agree is the best match for production, and on occasion, some that are 100% perfect matches to production examples. It's all about educating yourself on the variables and selecting what you feel is the best.


When it comes to defining what "NOS" means, in my opinion it means "New Original Stock" or "New Old Stock". I first remember the term being used MANY years ago in reference to old dusty long obsolete dealer inventory, etc. long before many reproduction parts ever existed. Since there is no hard & fast definition these days it seems many would like to assosiate the term with thier "new" parts in an effort to boost thier perceived values.

---

O.K. Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. What really constitutes an NOS part? Something thats been sitting on a shelf for 20 to 40 years, or something of recent manufacture that is Licensed and built to the Manufacturers Specifications by a licensed Parts supplier?

As most of you probably don't know every Auto Mfg. has / had multiple suppliers for the same parts. Each supplier was given a set of "Blueprint Specifications" and built the parts to those specs. However there are plus / minus tolerances within all specifications, so you could end up with a part that didn't fit eactly right during production and afterward when the Vendor/supplier made replacement parts. that's why you see variation within the same part when looking / comparing multiple examples of like parts. ie. '70 Cuda Grills variation in the argent paint color - some light, some darker ! Which one is Correct? They both were ... LOL

So how can anyone reasonable say "What is Right" for these cars?

In my opinion after 34 years of working in an Auto Mfg. Plant, I believe that any part manufactured under License and built to the Manufacturers specifications constitures an "NOS" part. Regardless of build date.

Most of you out there call them Repo parts, but suppliers like BEA (as an example) that are licensed and provide the part numbers cast or stamped/painted into the parts and built to Manufacturers Specifications are building NOS parts.

The distinguishing difference is the Date of Build that is generally cast or stamped on a part.

That in IMHO is the only way to seperate the two.

However now you can get correctly date coded NOS / Repo parts for the cars so if they are cast with the part numbers and proper dates, one would have to reasonale accept them as OEM or NOS as long as they are produced under proper licensing and built to spec.

Not trying to step on anyones toes, just expressing a different perspective on this subject.


Just my worth.

Bogusracer

---

Very well put, we are fighting a battle that can not be won. Whether we like it or not, the term “OE” means original equipment and nothing less than that. "OE" parts are assembly line when built parts a not a part that was made a day after the vehicle build date.

Judging, oh boy, hope this isn’t taken the wrong way. There isn’t a judge on the planet qualified to judge an entire car to a true absolute "OE" status. Lets face it, unless you put together a group of guys that live and breath a specific model, say an ebody, that can “Helen Keller” a screw and tell you where it goes, with documentation, not to mention different years there will always be room for opinions to contradict the judging. I’ve been working on ebodies all my life, I don’t consider myself anywhere near an expert.

I truly understand the thought process that Dave Wise had when developing his judging criteria using red/black points and I applaud him for that. It allows more people to restore their cars and participate in this awesome hobby we all get so snotty about. I am grateful for what he has been able to accomplish and share with us. However, there is a big difference between true "OE" and what is being judged under their "OE" judging criteria. The term “OE” has no business in this type of judging, call it something else, anything but “OE”.

We complain about the guys that have the knowledge and finances to achieve “true” gold, it’s not for everyone, fact is, I’ll bet of all the cars judged gold many would not make the grade if judged with the absolutes it takes to get there. Let’s not dilute the true meaning of “OE Gold”, lets applaud the ones that have made it there. Let’s face it, 99% or more of us restoring cars, myself included, don’t make the grade to walk in that upper echelon of factory perfection.

Very well said Mike Ross.....OE Gold needs to stay as the top of the heap and not watered down to make it easier to compete.

As for what Paul Jacobs said about a judge walking up to a car with an NOS grille vs. the beautifully restored one, I can equate that to having a woman who has Natural beauty vs. a woman who needs to spend 2 hours getting ready to go out. For many the made up girl gets most of the attention but the natural beauty is far more appealing to me!
The perfect restored grille does look great but sometimes the factory flaws are more beautiful!!

Mark

Keep in mind that if our newer parts are allowed to be considered "NOS" the acronym will need to be translated as NEW ORIGINAL STOCK. (There I go again....changing things to facilitate my agenda!)

Scott, Mike Ross , Bill and all concerned.

I'm not trying to water down the OE judging etc. I agree with what the objectives are for anyone who works to achieve "OE-Gold" status for a car they are restoring. They are trying to duplicate the processes that went into producing a car just as it came off the Assembly Line. I applaude them for their efforts and I know how much work goes into restoring a car to try and achieve that level. Having put cars in the Mopar Nats Judging many years ago and having helped a friend who got a Silver Certificate on his Superbird in the OE Judging, I know about the efforts involved.

I also acknowledge the efforts of those who have established the standards for the judging of these vehicles. What a hard job they undertook.

The majority of us out there are not trying to achieve OE-Gold Status. We just want a car that is representative of what it was like when new. We like/want parts that have correct casting numbers, trademark logos etc. on our cars, but the "Build -Dates" aren't that critical on non visible parts. ie wiring harnesses, ight bulbs etc.- (O.K. let the bashing begin .... LOL)

I just wanted to voice my opinion about what has become a somewhat controversial issue to many, and express my opinion based on my knowledge about what happens in assembly plants and within the service parts divisions.

Many people are not even aware that in the 60's, 70's and up into the 80's most Manufacturers took the unused parts left in the assembly plants, after the model year was completed, and boxed them up and sent them to the service parts division to be sold as "service replacement parts" ie. NOS parts.

With advances in parts management / material handling, most plants are on a "Just in Time -JIT" delivery basis for their parts now. The Assembly Plants no longer keep a huge inventory of parts on hand for build. ie - 2 to 4 hours parts on hand today vs. 2-4 weeks parts on hand back in the day.


That's why back in the day there was so much substitution of parts when MFG. ran short on the current part, they'd substitute a like part that would function the same but may not be spec'd for the build. Most of the time the replacement part would be an "Upgrade part" ie. higher cost option part.

Today - we have groups of individuals who have taken the bull by the horn and spent their time, money and effort to provide the parts to keep our Cars and Hobby alive. Some have gone the extra mile to become licensed by the Manufacturers and get signed contracts to produce the parts, utilizing the trademark logos and part numbers/ marking etc. just like they were originally made. These as stated in my opinion are NOS parts. New - Old Stock.

Let's not all get caught up in the semantics of which is "better/ more correct", and bash anyone who uses a Licensed - new mfg. Part (IMHO - NOS part). They are using the best they can afford.

We should applaud each effort for the hard work, dedication and workmanship put into restoring the cars, and THANK the guys who produce our much needed parts.

After all that is what enables us to continue to enjoy our Hobby.


Time to step down off my soapbox ...... LOL


Also Scott - The Six Pack carbs you restored for me look and work Great - Thanks.

Best wishes to all.



Bogusracer

Reading over these posts it's like a who's who on my cell phone list , we all know each other and I think most of us knows where the others are comming from. I also think that while we all have our individual opinions on the subject, in GENERAL we all are on the same page. As you said Jeff, we would not be where we are in the hobby today without the efforts of many of the guys posting here, Bill, Dave, and Mike, have all contributed greatly towards getting some of the finest and most accurate parts available today back into production. All of that "Old" NOS would be allot more costly and difficult to find without them



*Glad to hear that your carbs are working well Jeff! Thank you for your business!

I personally have absolutely no interest in restoring a car with the intentions of having it judged in an OE or any other kind of class, but here is my take on all of this.

Back in 2000 I bought a second owner 1968 Hemi Charger that was all numbers matching with history to the original owner that need restoration. I began looking around for a judging manual for OEM cars. I just wanted to have a guideline to make sure I didn't spend time and money doing something wrong during resto to this great car. I found that the venue that people were using was the Mopar Nationals and that there was no judging manual available to "regular people." This meaning that the ones judging these cars either just had their own notes or a manual that they would not "share" with outsiders. To add insult to injury, the majority of the judges were also people in the business of restoring others csrs for profit and were often judging car THEY had restored. Obviously I was not the only one that thought this was totally wrong but no one seemed to be doing anything about it.

The only other experience I had ever had with a situation like this was with Corvettes I used to own. Since 1974 NCRS has produced and sold judging manuals for the cars they judge on an OEM level. Anyone could buy them and they incouraged people that want to participate to buy them prior to starting their resto. Everything was spelled out regarding what was right and what points were awarded right or wrong.

I know that since then there is now a new judging format with a written judging manual available for this purpose for Mopars, however from the sounds of this thread, it seems that there is STILL a lot of laditude for individual judges to make their OWN decisions regarding scoring rather than adhereing to black and white written judging rules. I hope I am wrong for the sake of the people having cars judged.