DodgeCharger.com Forum

Just got back from the show and all I can say is what a year. 3 Daytonas, 3 OE GOLD awards. Simply amazing and will probably never happen again. I feel special to have been part of the party.

To Gene & Vance, Paul & John.... the cars were excellent and congrats again on the extremely difficult task of building an OE Gold car.

-Mike Mancini

Quote from: 706pkvert on August 13, 2012, 05:25:21 PM
Just got back from the show and all I can say is what a year.

Congratulations......Great Job Mike and glad to hear you made it back safely.  Kick back and enjoy the moment.  All of the Daytona's looked Fantastic.  Be Proud of all your dedication, effort and achieving GOLD!! :2thumbs:

Thanks, Mike - and I agree, it is doubtful the same feat will ever be accomplished again (at least having 3 Daytonas being awarded OE Gold at the same time).

Congrats to you and Tony again.

Gene

Mike,
Nice to meet you at the show and congrats to you, your crew and Tony on another fine OE certified Daytona!
I look forward to meeting up with you and the Daytona at the MCACN show in November!
MJ

Hey gene not to throw a wrench into things but I think they did not want any of the pics from the last location put up anywhere. Not sure if Tim mentioned it to everyone there or if just to me.

now we got to clean all of that gosh darn overspray off of everything so we dont have to explain that to the rest of the world for the remainders of our  lives, lol :icon_smile_big:

I say leave it. Then again I am one of the odd balls that loves that stuff.

I am starting to like yeller Daytonas  :drool5:

Just got home this afternoon.  Tony, Mike , Vance and Gene...great work !

It was really an incredible weekend.

gene and john, thanks alot
compliments from guys like you are very rewarding,

thank you!

del, nah, im not gonna clean off the overspray, but ill betcha ill have a sheet to display with the car detailing the reason why its there, cause ill get worn out real quick splaining that, over and over

To the people that care, those cars need no explanation whatsoever.  Great work you guys.

Quote from: Ghoste on August 14, 2012, 12:37:17 AM
To the people that care, those cars need no explanation whatsoever.  Great work you guys.

sounds good in theory, but remember--there are no stupid questions, just a lot of inquisitive idiots.  make the signs.

aawesome line up of aero hardware  :drool5: :drool5: :drool5:

Quote from: 69_500 on August 13, 2012, 07:29:58 PM
Hey gene not to throw a wrench into things but I think they did not want any of the pics from the last location put up anywhere. Not sure if Tim mentioned it to everyone there or if just to me.

Ah, Tim never mentioned anything about that to me.  I'll pull the pics off.

Congrats to all involved in these painstaking restos...seeing Genes car in person and being shown just a fraction of the small details was mind blowing in itself.....having 3 mind blowing Daytonas in one setting must have been nirvana....

Congrats to all!!  :cheers:

Fantastic display of high caliber cars.  Congrats to all!  Im sure it was well deserved of the awards they received!

Great article on Tony's Daytona in this month's Mopar Collector's Guide.  Congrats to Tony and Mike :2thumbs:

Quote from: johntpr on October 12, 2012, 12:22:40 PM
Great article on Tony's Daytona in this month's Mopar Collector's Guide.  Congrats to Tony and Mike :2thumbs:

A very interesting article indeed.  Like most commentaries looking to amplify or embellish the subject matter, one has to wonder why the author assumed an outcome prior to the actual results. The chagrin caused by such a presumptuous buildup must have left the participants feeling deflated.  It just goes to show that reality can't be changed by hankering verbiage written by a witless columnist.  Ironically, the articles on the three cars will be covered in the order of their final judging results.  From the bottom up!

So Tony's scored the lowest of the 3?
Did I interpret that correctly?

nobody knows the scores yet, the summaries havent been done yet by the judge. from what im told they havent even been done for 2 of the cars at last years judging.

and i just spoke to john antonelli and he hasnt received his yet.

jim belinda said he hasnt received them from keith rohm yet

the reason why they ran the article on my car first was because MCG photograhed it at carlsile in july and was already starting on the text and hadn't photograhed the other cars til the nationals in august.

there was nothing assumed by the author as all 3 cars had been listed on the board at the nationals as oe gold certificate winners at the event and the article wasnt completed til after the nats, thats somewhat obvious as thats where the photo of the 3 cars together was taken

Quote from: TONY on October 12, 2012, 03:43:53 PM
nobody knows the scores yet, the summaries havent been done yet by the judge. from what im told they havent even been done for 2 of the cars at last years judging.

jim belinda said he hasnt received them from keith rohm yet

Standards have obviously changed again with the OE program.  The years I participated (2005 - 2008 - 2010) the results were tallied and given to Jim at the end of the Show.  This was confirmed to us, by Keith, at the Show.  I was told my point totals within a week concerning every car I entered.  When you state that "2 of the cars at last years judging" have not received their summaries, keep in mind that there were only 2 cars that participated in OE last year!  Are they BOTH still waiting for their results?  As with every year, how are OE cars given their results on Saturday if the points have not been calculated?  How are Gold, Silver or Bronze awards determined if "nobody knows the scores"?  Unless the cars are STILL being judged and points manipulated, how could the results not be known two months after the fact?   It shouldn't take weeks to calculate a few deductions from a predetermined amount of points.....should it?  An interview with Keith was recently written in a Mopar Magazine that broke down (in detail) the manner in which they judge a vehicle and the breakdowns for each individual category.  It seemed pretty straight forward.  Eight weeks later and no one knows anything?!?  Yes, some things never change..... :lol:

QuoteHow are Gold, Silver or Bronze awards determined if "nobody knows the scores"?   how could the results not be known two months after the fact?   It shouldn't take weeks to calculate a few deductions from a predetermined amount of points.....should it?

   i agree

At the Nats in 2010 when Dave and I competed there was a sheet posted on the judging table. It had all the results on it and was there around 3pm Saturday if I remember right. On the OE cars of which there was 5 it went from the highest score down to the lowest. Dave had the highest OE gold at the top so he got best of show. Next was our OE gold and then another OE gold. Then there were 2 OE silver awards. There were no point totals ever published. If you go to the Nats web site and pull up 2010 results they reflect the same results as the sheet. The 2011 OE results show only 2 cars certified with both being OE gold and the one with the higher point total is at the top and got best of show. So the only thing for sure at this point is Gene Lewis scored the highest of the OE gold cars as he was awarded
"BEST OF SHOW". So my question is this: was there a judging results sheet posted on the table this year?
MJ

Quote from: Mopar John on October 12, 2012, 07:40:50 PM

So my question is this: was there a judging results sheet posted on the table this year?
MJ

yes there was a sheet

and from the best of my recollection it was in alphabetical order, i believe there is a pic of it on a thread here somewhere

It seems to me that anyone who has gotten that far is really only competing against themself, that is how one gets to that level These cars are so well done that they make most of our cars, well "ordinary". These cars are beyond excellent, 1 or 2 points either way who is really to say.

Quote from: Mopar John on October 12, 2012, 07:40:50 PM
At the Nats in 2010 when Dave and I competed there was a sheet posted on the judging table. It had all the results on it and was there around 3pm Saturday if I remember right. On the OE cars of which there was 5 it went from the highest score down to the lowest. Dave had the highest OE gold at the top so he got best of show. Next was our OE gold and then another OE gold. Then there were 2 OE silver awards. There were no point totals ever published. If you go to the Nats web site and pull up 2010 results they reflect the same results as the sheet. The 2011 OE results show only 2 cars certified with both being OE gold and the one with the higher point total is at the top and got best of show. So the only thing for sure at this point is Gene Lewis scored the highest of the OE gold cars as he was awarded
"BEST OF SHOW". So my question is this: was there a judging results sheet posted on the table this year?
MJ

Hi John!  Thanks for the information.  I talked with Mike Mancinni the day after he returned from the Nationals last year and he had already been given his points score and percentage factor.  I have no idea what was meant by the comment that "nobody knows the scores yet.......from what im told they havent even been done for 2 of the cars at last years judging."  If in fact the Summaries and /or scores have not been provided to last years "winner" it is because the judges do not want to commit (in print) the factual characteristics of the vehicle without contradicting the scores that they awarded.  There were MANY judging contradictions from one year to the next. 

One year they deduct for an original VIN decal with a replacement clear overlay and the next year they award full points for a reproduction VIN decal.  (I know because I made it.)  One year they give a point deduction for an assembly line (working) battery and the next year they give full credit for a reproduction battery.  In 2007, a vehicle received a 70 point deduction for evidence that the person who painted it was UNDERNEATH the car.  (Various areas had paint coverage that would NEVER had been exposed to paint at the Factory.)  In 2011, the same paint errors were completely ignored and given full credit with no deductions whatsoever!  :shruggy: There were many other examples but I'm sure you get the picture.  I hope they were at least consistent with these 3 cars and their unique features.  The new OE program should provide consistency and fairness among future participants! :2thumbs:

Sorry if I have missed it but, is there a thread or somewhere online I can view photos of these cars? Would love to have a real good look over them!

Cheers, Tim.

Quote from: Tim L on October 13, 2012, 01:31:40 AM
Sorry if I have missed it but, is there a thread or somewhere online I can view photos of these cars? Would love to have a real good look over them!

Cheers, Tim.

Below are threads covering the Red & Yellow Daytona.  Maybe the Owner of the White Daytona will post photos (like the other guys) that illustrate things like correct paint coverage on the underside frame-rails, original NOS Interior Door panels, Original Build sheet that was taped and removed from the Glove box, "before" pictures of the Engine w/original plug wires, Original Floor pans prior to the Restoration, etc....... :2thumbs:

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,48725.0.html - RED DAYTONA

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,94185.0.html - YELLOW DAYTONA

QuoteBelow are threads covering the Red & Yellow Daytona.  Maybe the Owner of the White Daytona will post photos (like the other guys) that illustrate things like correct paint coverage on the underside frame-rails, original NOS Interior Door panels, Original Build sheet that was taped and removed from the Glove box, "before" pictures of the Engine w/original plug wires, Original Floor pans prior to the Restoration, etc....... 2thumbs

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,48725.0.html - RED DAYTONA

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,94185.0.html - YELLOW DAYTONA

Thanks ECS, I should have been a a little more specific in that I was hoping for event photos so I could check out Tony's white car..

http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/tag/dodge-charger-daytona/

The 2012 MOPAR NATIONALS results are now posted on their website!
MJ

Ok so does this mean  Gene had the most points cause they listed his name first?
It's not alphabetic...  :shruggy:

Quote from: WINGIN IT on October 14, 2012, 09:11:00 PM
Ok so does this mean  Gene had the most points cause they listed his name first?

Yep!  But you shouldn't call him "mean Gene".   :lol:   He is a really nice guy.  :2thumbs:

All three of these cars will be at the Muscle Car Nationals in Rosemont in November.

Quote from: ECS on October 14, 2012, 09:41:03 PM

Quote from: WINGIN IT on October 14, 2012, 09:11:00 PM
Ok so does this mean  Gene had the most points cause they listed his name first?

Yep!  But you shouldn't call him "mean Gene".   :lol:   He is a really nice guy.  :2thumbs:

How about Gene Gene the Dancing Machine  :boogie:

Quote from: WINGIN IT on October 15, 2012, 08:12:15 AM

Quote from: ECS on October 14, 2012, 09:41:03 PM

Quote from: WINGIN IT on October 14, 2012, 09:11:00 PM
Ok so does this mean  Gene had the most points cause they listed his name first?

Yep!  But you shouldn't call him "mean Gene".   :lol:   He is a really nice guy.  :2thumbs:

How about Gene Gene the Dancing Machine  :boogie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suzwaW_SqtU&feature=related

Stu - I think it's time you handed over your man card after posting that link... :o   :yesnod:  :lol:

I was referring to THIS Gene Gene the Dancing Machine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuJHKVQ2kLA

Quote from: WINGIN IT on October 15, 2012, 02:06:44 PM
Stu - I think it's time you handed over your man card after posting that link... :o   :yesnod:  :lol:

I was referring to THIS Gene Gene the Dancing Machine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuJHKVQ2kLA

:smilielol: :smilielol: :smilielol:  havent had a man card for a long time   :smilielol: :smilielol: :smilielol: I automatically read it Dancing Queen    :icon_smile_big:

Quote from: moparstuart on October 15, 2012, 02:30:06 PM

Quote from: WINGIN IT on October 15, 2012, 02:06:44 PM
Stu - I think it's time you handed over your man card after posting that link... :o   :yesnod:  :lol:

I was referring to THIS Gene Gene the Dancing Machine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuJHKVQ2kLA

:smilielol: :smilielol: :smilielol:  havent had a man card for a long time   :smilielol: :smilielol: :smilielol:

I'm afraid to click on ANY link from you guys...  :o

I do wonder though... was GGtDM actually Chuck Barris' supervisor/handler when he was working for the CIA as an assassin?   :scratchchin:

[/hijack]

Quote from: hemigeno on October 15, 2012, 02:58:00 PM

Quote from: moparstuart on October 15, 2012, 02:30:06 PM

Quote from: WINGIN IT on October 15, 2012, 02:06:44 PM
Stu - I think it's time you handed over your man card after posting that link... :o   :yesnod:  :lol:

I was referring to THIS Gene Gene the Dancing Machine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuJHKVQ2kLA

:smilielol: :smilielol: :smilielol:  havent had a man card for a long time   :smilielol: :smilielol: :smilielol:

I'm afraid to click on ANY link from you guys...  :o

I do wonder though... was GGtDM actually Chuck Barris' supervisor/handler when he was working for the CIA as an assassin?   :scratchchin:

[/hijack]

Sam Rockwell was great in the movie   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_a_Dangerous_Min

Quote from: moparstuart on October 15, 2012, 02:30:06 PM

Quote from: WINGIN IT on October 15, 2012, 02:06:44 PM
Stu - I think it's time you handed over your man card after posting that link... :o   :yesnod:  :lol:

I was referring to THIS Gene Gene the Dancing Machine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuJHKVQ2kLA

:smilielol: :smilielol: :smilielol:  havent had a man card for a long time   :smilielol: :smilielol: :smilielol: I automatically read it Dancing Queen    :icon_smile_big:

Key work "AUTOMATICALLY"   :yesnod: :lol:

This better for you Stu:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJUyqhj4zMM&list=FLhCMSB5sd4Ezd8Ns8pwy0UA&index=4&feature=plpp_video

Congratulations Brother Gene!  THE SECOND HIGHEST OE SCORE IN THE HISTORY OF THE MOPAR NATIONALS!!!  I couldn't be more proud for you with this accomplishment.  Besides an excellent Restoration performed by you and Vance, your goals were attained with honesty and integrity.  You guys did a superb job of presenting the facts as they pertained to the Vehicle and the results are a huge exclamation point on the final chapter of a fascinating journey.  I don't mean to sound too "ballistic" but I wanted to express my sincere appreciation and happiness for the successful outcome of a good Friend.  SUPERB JOB!! :2thumbs:

Have all the points for all 3 cars been published?
Does this mean Gene's car was the top of the 3 ?

The individual points totals have not been published anywhere as far as I know, and I'm not 100% sure of the Nat's "ranking" apart from what I've been told by others.  Yes, my car did score the highest of the three, and I'm honored that the judges recognized the 6 years (10, if you count parts scrounging and researching) invested in making the car as correct as we possibly could.  In all honesty, I have not even looked at my certificate or judging summary yet.  My wife received a replacement OE certificate from the 'Nats (John Antonelli had notified them of a type-o on our VIN numbers) in the mail while I was at MCACN, and she read the results to me over the phone.  That's the only reason I have any notion of my score's total.

I'll leave the balance of the discussion about score totals, comparisons, etc. to others - but thanks anyway, Dave.

Quote from: hemigeno on November 21, 2012, 10:55:29 AM
I'll leave the balance of the discussion about score totals, comparisons, etc. to others - but thanks anyway, Dave.

You're too humble Mean Gene!  You just scored the Second Highest score in the History of the Nats my Friend!!  In the final OE competition (a venue that spanned over 25 years) you finished with the Best Score and a Best of Show!  After all the malarkey that occured last year, you might have been surprised with my reaction upon hearing your Great news.  One year I am accused of being angry about the success of a "friend" yet the very next year, I'm extremely Happy for a (true) Friend who experiences the same results!  I guess I must be going crazy, huh?  I probably need a student of psychology to explain why I reacted so differently toward the same type of scenario. :smilielol:  I just hope all this Fame doesn't go to your head and you accuse me of impeding your efforts with bad products, services, etc........! :lol:

We are looking forward to visiting with you and the Daytona next week.  :2thumbs:   Have a very Happy Thanksgiving Gene!      

Wow, congrats Gene!  Just curious, how did everyone do out at the MCACN in Chicago?

Quote from: hemigeno on November 21, 2012, 10:55:29 AM
I'll leave the balance of the discussion about score totals, comparisons, etc. to others......

Congratulations on the article in Mopar Collectors Guide Gene.  One of the more humorous parts of the commentary was where Keith Rohm continues to spin the facts with regards to ATF being used in the Power Steering reservoirs by the Service Department at the Dealerships.  EVERY SINGLE piece of Chrysler service literature from that time period adamantly instructs the employees NOT to use ATF because it will damage the rubber components of the Power Steering System.  His explanation about how they used ATF because it was a cheaper alternative than using Power Steering Fluid is comical at best.  I guess we should accept the warped rationale that Chrysler allowed the Dealerships to ignore their Engineering instructions (in order to save a few pennies on Power Steering fluid) so they could pay much higher Warranty work when they had to replace the entire Power Steering System due to such negligence.  Two years after the fact and the "Judges" are STILL upset that their past judging errors were exposed. :lol:  When the facts are revealed and you need to save face, Deny....deny....deny! :smilielol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pmBC_CrQS4



 

Did I understnad correctly that OE judging is going away?

Dave,

I remember reading something on Moparts a couple years ago about the whole issue with the power steering fluid.  If it has been proven to them that ATF was NOT supposed to be used due to it causing possible failure of parts, why would they then put it in there.  Was there a hidden objective to Chrysler looking for people to come back in with warranty or after warranty issues?  Planned obsolescence? 

My opinion is that Chrysler would NOT have done that due to all the money they would lose and potential customers they would lose due to "they make a crappy product" customer view.  I still can't believe that the judging system would still take off points for this especially after factory documentation was provided to them.

"The paint should appear just as the dealer would've received it - not too shiny and with slight imperfections.  On the other side of the coin is the window of acceptability.  Could this car have a modification done at the dealership or factory? An example of this would be red power steering fluid. At the time when these cars were built, power steering fluid would've been checked at the new car prep department at the dealership. If the fluid was low, they would've installed the cheaper ATF instead of factory power steering fluid. Things like this are considered when going through a car."


The above commentary (taken from Gene's MCG article) is an example of how the OE program became a venue for promoting incorrect, unsubstantiated, "flip flop" criteria instead of Factory correctness.  In the first sentence, the head judge for OE states that the paint had to appear as the Dealer would have "received it" from the Factory.  If they are so cognoscente of intricate paint details with "slight imperfections" why are they not deducting for Base/Clear Paint jobs?  The Factory NEVER manufactured Chrysler's with Base/clear paint and ANYONE can recognize this type of paint work.  Where is the consistency for judging Factory paint details while turning a blind eye to a paint procedure that is 100% incorrect?

Also in his statement, he basically claims that "red" ATF fluid might have altered the CORRECT clear PS fluid that was used at the Factory.  If that be the case, why did they tell me that I was deducted for not having "red" fluid in my PS reservoir?  This is a contradiction in OE judging consistency.  They are making up (incorrect) guidelines as they go along.  How were the Judges able to document random errors made by the Dealership with respect to Factory correctness?  Where is the accountability for substantiating their judging criteria?    If an OE vehicle exhibited a "unique" feature that varied from normal assembly protocol, the Judges MANDATE that the OE Participant provide PROOF for the "unique"  assembly variation of their vehicle!  If they cannot provide proof, the Participant receives a deduction for the questionable feature.  Where is their DOCUMENTED proof regarding "Red ATF" fluid being used by the Dealerships?  To the contrary, ALL Chrysler maintenance instructions are explicit about using Chrysler approved Power Steering fluid in their systems.  Even the Service manuals used by the Dealership Employees state that using ATF will damage the rubber hoses and/or rubber components in the Power Steering System.  (See attachments below)  It is absurd for a Judge to HYPOTHESIZE that the Dealerships would ignore Chrysler Engineering instructions in order to save a few pennies on PS fluid and risk having to cover more expensive warranty work due to this type of negligence.  Maybe this OE Judge can provide some valid proof that substantiates his claim that Dealerships used "red" ATF fluid on newly delivered vehicles.  If he can't, his OE program deserves a deduction! :lol:

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2010/2010-08-17/02.jpg)

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2010/2010-08-17/04.jpg)

Is this the mandate of a single judge or a committee?

Quote from: Ghoste on November 30, 2012, 02:34:58 PM
Is this the mandate of a single judge or a committee?

If the "mandate" is stated by the Head Judge, you have to assume that his "committee" is in step with his oversight.  In 2008, I entered my 1970 Challenger in the OE competition.  I received a deduction because the #1 Spark Plug Wire boot had a quarter inch split in the rubber.  Steve Been said the split must have occurred while he was pushing it onto the spark plug. He told the Head Judge that a similar occurrence could have happened at the Factory.  We were told that since we didn't have "Before" pictorial proof that the wire came that way from the Factory, it was pure speculation on our part.  I received a deduction for the split in the boot!  I am not complaining about the deduction because it was absolutely qualified.  Keep in mind however that the acronym "OE" should represent Factory protocol (Original Equipment) and not the inability of a Restorer to replicate a correct Factory process or "acceptable" Dealership alterations.

I agree.  Would other entrants not be pissed about some of that too?  The base clear one seems a biggie to me.

Quote from: Ghoste on November 30, 2012, 03:05:53 PM
I agree.  Would other entrants not be pissed about some of that too?  The base clear one seems a biggie to me.

One thing is for sure.  The incorrect, political and subjective assessments handed down by the Judges did not change reality or the History of how Factory cars were built. :2thumbs:  

Dave,

That is similar to the AACA judging as to which I have a beef with.  AACA prides themselves on factory restorations and you will get deducted for points for stuff that was not available during that model year.  Paint clearly falls into this category.  Yet they allow for base / clear as long as it is a factory optional color AND do not care if it is a different color than what the car was born with (say F8 Dark metallic green and is currently an R4 bright red color).  As long as it was factory optional for that car and year it is acceptable.  They also allow for "over restoration" which I disagree with too.  Items such as satin black suspension and under hood stuff being painted gloss so it looks nicer in my opinion should be deducted for yet they don't do.  There was also talk about them allowing for radial tires vs. bias ply tires as the radial tires are safer.  The last I heard, they upheld that if the car came with bias plys that the car still had to have them.  If you want to drive the car, do what I do and get a second set of rims and tires that have radials and use the bias plys for strict point shows.

Quote from: resq302 on November 30, 2012, 05:41:31 PM
......and you will get deducted for points for stuff that was not available during that model year.

Don't think that the AACA has an exclusive with "phantom" deductions.  The same year I entered my 1970 Challenger in the 2008 OE program, they gave me a "points" deduction for not having the Certi-Warranty Card!  Keep in mind that Chrysler stopped using Certi-Warranty Cards in 1968 or 1969!  :smilielol:  :2thumbs:

Quote from: ECS on November 30, 2012, 10:03:09 PMKeep in mind that Chrysler stopped using Certi-Warranty Cards in 1968 or 1969!  :smilielol:  :2thumbs:

Do you have a closer approximation as to when that happened?  I've heard of but have not seen '69 certicards.  Did that coincide with the switchover from IBM cards for cars, or did that happen earlier?

Quote from: pettybird on November 30, 2012, 10:29:15 PM
Do you have a closer approximation as to when that happened?  I've heard of but have not seen '69 certicards.  Did that coincide with the switchover from IBM cards for cars, or did that happen earlier?

Hi Doug!  I know that they definitely used them on all 1968 Chrysler vehicles.  There may have been a few early 1969 vehicles (that were built in the calendar year of 1968) that made it out of the Factory with these cards secured to their inner fender wells.  I do not know the exact month that they started to phase them out.  Since I have never restored a 1969 or earlier vehicle, I have not researched those particular model years in detail.  I can assure you if I placed myself in the position of being an OE judge, I would know every aspect about the the vehicle I was judging.  :yesnod:  

If the new OE program compromises Factory characteristics like Base/Clear Paint, Reproduction Components and incorrect Restoration Features, then they should not refer to the venue as "OE".  They should merge it with the Concours /Modified Class since they no longer follow Factory protocol.    

Quote from: ECS on November 30, 2012, 10:03:09 PM

Quote from: resq302 on November 30, 2012, 05:41:31 PM
......and you will get deducted for points for stuff that was not available during that model year.

Don't think that the AACA has an exclusive with "phantom" deductions.  The same year I entered my 1970 Challenger in the 2008 OE program, they gave me a "points" deduction for not having the Certi-Warranty Card!  Keep in mind that Chrysler stopped using Certi-Warranty Cards in 1968 or 1969!  :smilielol:  :2thumbs:

Dave,

AACA gets better than just "phantom" deductions.  If you do not achieve the award you are after, you can write for and request a copy of the judging sheet.  The Vice President of judging will then send you a copy of the judging sheet back with the area highlighted as to what they deducted for.  Not how many points, no a specific location, or what the problem was.  For instance, we were going for a Grand National first place with our 70 SS el camino.  We ended up getting a second place.  We wrote to the VP trying to figure out what we got deducted for and got the sheet back with one of the areas highlighted in pink, seat belts.  All of the seat belts were in pristine shape and condition.  The only thing I can figure out is that they might have seen one of the inside buckles crossed instead of being on top of each other which the factory could have installed that way.  The AACA's attadge is that the owner is supposed to know the car and do the research on it.

Quote from: resq302 on December 01, 2012, 08:01:06 AM
President of judging.....

The Head Judge of OE made a public comment in MCG that stated:

Afterward, I spoke with head judge Keith Rohm. I asked, "With the high level of restoration, how do you take points away?" He told me points are deducted in as little 1/4 point increments, and every area of the car is gone over thoroughly............Could this car have a modification done at the dealership or factory? An example of this would be red power steering fluid. At the time when these cars were built, power steering fluid would've been checked at the new car prep depart- ment at the dealership. If the fluid was low, they would've installed the cheaper ATF instead of factory power steering fluid. Things like this are con- sidered when going through a car.

In 2010 they were going to deduct 1.5 points because the Valiant had clear "factory power steering fluid."  In 2005, my Cuda had clear PS Fluid and nothing was mentioned about red ATF coloring.  In 2008, my Challenger had the EXACT same clear PS Fluid and again nothing was mentioned about the color being incorrect.  His quote above basically conveys that it was the DEALERSHIP that added incorrect "ATF" fluid to the PS reservoirs.  My question is, why were they going to deduct for the Valiant NOT having red ATF fluid if the Factory fluid was clear?  Why weren't they going to deduct for clear PS Fluid in 2005 or 2008?  Did the history concerning PS Fluid color (in 1970) change from 2005, 2008 and then again in 2010?  He is STILL trying to cover for their judging error in 2010.  I know he is aware of this thread and I ask him to come here and substantiate his "ATF" comment.  Just as I provided documented Chrysler proof to the contrary, please provide just ONE Chrysler printed document that supports your "ATF" statement.  OE Contestants are required to provide proof for their vehicle characteristics!  By the same measure that you judge your OE participants, you should be willing to offer your judging "proof" as well.  :2thumbs:  

Quote from: ECS on December 02, 2012, 01:07:08 AM

Quote from: resq302 on December 01, 2012, 08:01:06 AM
President of judging.....

The Head Judge of OE made a public comment in MCG that stated:

Afterward, I spoke with head judge Keith Rohm. I asked, "With the high level of restoration, how do you take points away?" He told me points are deducted in as little 1/4 point increments, and every area of the car is gone over thoroughly............Could this car have a modification done at the dealership or factory? An example of this would be red power steering fluid. At the time when these cars were built, power steering fluid would've been checked at the new car prep depart- ment at the dealership. If the fluid was low, they would've installed the cheaper ATF instead of factory power steering fluid. Things like this are con- sidered when going through a car.

In 2010 they were going to deduct 1.5 points because the Valiant had clear "factory power steering fluid."  In 2005, my Cuda had clear PS Fluid and nothing was mentioned about red ATF coloring.  In 2008, my Challenger had the EXACT same clear PS Fluid and again nothing was mentioned about the color being incorrect.  His quote above basically conveys that it was the DEALERSHIP that added incorrect "ATF" fluid to the PS reservoirs.  My question is, why were they going to deduct for the Valiant NOT having red ATF fluid if the Factory fluid was clear?  Why weren't they going to deduct for clear PS Fluid in 2005 or 2008?  Did the history concerning PS Fluid color (in 1970) change from 2005, 2008 and then again in 2010?  He is STILL trying to cover for their judging error in 2010.  I know he is aware of this thread and I ask him to come here and substantiate his "ATF" comment.  Just as I provided documented Chrysler proof to the contrary, please provide just ONE Chrysler printed document that supports your "ATF" statement.  OE Contestants are required to provide proof for their vehicle characteristics!  By the same measure that you judge your OE participants, you should be willing to offer your judging "proof" as well.  :2thumbs:  

Dave, I can relate your angst about this judge's decision to my roadtest to obtain my driver's license many, many decades ago ....When I questioned the examiner's results of a 98 points scored after the test, I asked why I lost 2 points?, as there was no indication why on the score sheet,... he replied "speeding"....so after questioning him as to where/why/how, I replied that I was maintaining speed with the current traffic flow, rather than impede the traffic by actually driving the speed limit, which was clearly outlined in the driving manual supplied at the time, his response to that was "Your RIGHT, but NOBODY gets a 100 POINT SCORE with ME!, ...NOBODY!"......


Mike

In both cases it seems like the old crappy combo of little men with big egos and a dash of authority to make a big jackass.

Quote from: Ghoste on December 02, 2012, 09:12:37 AM
.......seems like the old crappy combo of little men with big egos and a dash of authority........

You hit the nail on the head.  At the show in 2010, we were told that a 1.5 point deduction was taken due to the absence of "red" Power Steering Fluid.  The Monday following the Nationals, there was a Moparts thread about the Valiant and someone asked what deductions had been found.  The red colored PS fluid was mentioned.  The head OE Judge publicly posted on that thread how "they didn't miss things that many Contestants think they can sneak by them".  On Tuesday we found Chrysler service information that PROVED his ATF scenario was wrong.  I sent private emails to him with 4 separate attachments illustrating that using ATF in Chrysler vehicles could cause damage to the Power Steering System components.  His response was that I should "Keep Pandora in her Box" regarding the subject matter!!  I responded by saying that people might put ATF in their Chryslers due to the erroneous information he posted and that he needed to correct his statement.  After a couple of days he did nothing, so I went on the Forum and disclosed his incorrect judging information.  That hit a nerve and made me an instant bad guy with him.  He was willing to let his incorrect judging assessments possibly cause someone component damage by using ATF in their Power Steering Reservoirs.  As evident by the recent MCG article, he STILL continues to spin and mislead about this topic because he can't admit being wrong.  Here (again) is one of the 1970 service bulletins that I forwarded to the head OE Judge a couple of days after the Show in 2010.

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2010/2010-08-17/02.jpg)

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2010/2010-08-17/04.jpg)

That kind of thing bugs me.  It would be one thing if they were willing to ACCEPT the red fluid based on the premise that some dealerships might have added ATF but to deduct points even without the benefit of the service bulletin seems stupid to me when it should be well known that the FACTORY fluid was clear and the only way to have red would be for the dealership to install it.  Whether it was right for the dealership to do it or not is moot when the factory put in clear.  You may as well deduct points from all three of this years Daytona's because the dealerships that sold them new didn't install Mod Top vinyl.  What about dealer installed aftermarket wheels?  By this logic it would mean you lose points for having factory rims since some dealerships MIGHT have installed aftermarket ones.

Great point Ghoste.  I have a friend who sold some cars new in the mid to late 70s and they told me that it was pretty common if a customer wanted a certain rim / tire combo and they had a car on the lot that had them, they would swap them out and just charge or credit the customer the difference.  How would something like this come into play for judging?

Also, Dave, would this certain judge happen to own or work for a steering component rebuilder?  To me, that would be the only reason why they would try and with hold this important info otherwise a lot of people could end up damaging their steering systems or worse, have the hose soften, rupture, and then start the whole car on fire.

Quote from: resq302 on December 02, 2012, 03:30:38 PM
....would this certain judge happen to own or work for a steering component rebuilder?

You're getting close.  The head Judge for the Mopar OE program worked for and retired with Ford Motor Company.  As you know, I am a Licensed Manufacturer/Supplier for Chrysler, Ford and General Motors.  I have a fair amount of knowledge for all 3 venues regarding their early 70's vehicles.  IT WAS FORD MOTOR COMPANY THAT USED AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION FLUID (TYPE F) IN THEIR POWER STEERING SYSTEMS!!! He switched the Power Steering fluid requirements between Ford and Chrysler!  Rather than admit the error, he is trying to save face by blaming the Dealerships for something that cannot be proven or documented.  Check your original Owner's Manual for ANY 1970 Chrysler vehicle.  They ALL say:

Only petroleum fluids specially formulated for minimum effect on rubber hoses should be used.  Power Steering Fluid (Part No. 2084329) is recommended.


On the flip side, the original Owner's Manual for my 1970 Boss 302 Ford Mustang says:

LUBRICANT SPECIFICATIONS/ Power Steering (Pump Reservoir) and Convertible Top Reservoir - Automatic Transmission Fluid - Ford Part No. C1AZ-19582-A - Ford Spec # M2C33-F (Type F)


It appears my Valiant Power Steering System was being judged using Ford guidelines at the 2010 Mopar OE Nationals!  :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote from: TONY on August 13, 2012, 08:43:50 PM


del, nah, im not gonna clean off the overspray, but ill betcha ill have a sheet to display with the car detailing the reason why its there, cause ill get worn out real quick splaining that, over and over

On one of the Power Tours, a guy I was running with started answering questions when I was away because he said he heard them so many times.  And this was after three days!

Applause applause for keeping that bar raised SO painfully high that I'll just have to say "forget it" and keep driving the snot outta mine!   :icon_smile_wink:

C'mon Dave.  You mean to tell me that Ford and Chrysler and GM didn't have all the same service practices?  You say that we can't put the orange Dex-cool (or as I like to call it DEATH-cool) coolant into my Ford that requires the Gold coolant?  While we are at it, why don't we just start using motor oil in place of the brake fluid.  This way it will keep all the seals lubricated and prevent any rusting of the cylinder bores!   :smilielol:

Quote from: resq302 on December 03, 2012, 08:49:37 AM
You mean to tell me that Ford and Chrysler and GM didn't have all the same service practices?.....

Well Master Brian, it doesn't appear a response will be given concerning the judging information being discussed here.  Not surprising!  I hope the detractors who characterized my assessments as a "crazy conspiracy" realize that the ensuing 2011 year was in fact, an attempt to lower the bar we had set the year before.  Coincidently, reproduction parts and incorrect paint jobs became the new protocol after we exposed the judging errors/inconsistencies from 2010.  It is obvious that the judges had no idea or appreciation of the Factory correctness that the Valiant conveyed.  Below is a current link showing the "Assembly Line" restoration and processes we performed on the vehicle.  It was stated in the 2011 Mopar Nationals Trailways brochure that the OE standards were actually HIGHER in 2011. :scratchchin: Maybe one the participants from that year can showcase their entry in order to substantiate that claim! :2thumbs:    

http://www.cuda-challenger.com/cc/index.php?topic=84614.0    

What I don't understand is how a judging system could be higher one year than the next or previous years.  Did the structure of the system change?  Was new information found on ways certain things were installed or made?  To me, it should be like say AACA or ACES and start with a set point total (ex. AACA starts with 400 points) and then deficiencies get subtracted from the total.  Just out of curiosity, but does anyone know what the total possible points were (perfect score) in 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012?  My assumption was that the point total was always the same.  Maybe I am wrong.   :shruggy:

Quote from: resq302 on December 11, 2012, 07:50:38 PM
What I don't understand is how a judging system could be higher one year than the next or previous years.  Did the structure of the system change?  Was new information found on ways certain things were installed or made?

My 1970 Cuda and 1970 Valiant were judged on a 2250 point scale.  Those years were 2005 & 2010.  In 2008, my 1970 Challenger was judged on a 2801 point scale.  There were 3 different point levels.  I am not sure what the other total was.   Due to the changes in the OE program, I have decided to bring my Hemicuda out of retirement and give it another try.  I choose this car because it has the best chance of scoring high points under the new judging criteria.  It has a Base/Clear Paint job, reproduction glass, a reproduction battery, a Legendary reproduction leather interior along with some other non "Original Equipment" features that are currently being accepted & overlooked by the OE program.  I would have chose the Challenger or Valiant but I didn't want to expose any additional contradictions or shortcomings that probably exist in the program.  Those who have benefited from this abatement can continue to spin reality and feel good about their substandard work.  :2thumbs:
 
With that said, I was hoping to get some input on a "judging" dilemma I am faced with.  I recently saw a picture of a 2012 OE vehicle that had a very impressive, LARGE Broadcast Sheet taped to the hood of the car.  I too would like to add some additional, incorrect features to the Cuda before having it judged again.  I can't figure out if I should tape one of those big "Bingo Cards" to the hood or plaster the car with the individual Broadcast Sheets.  (Either display is basically conveying the same thing.)  First, I have to figure out how to spin the story with the Judges.  I could start by having an "Expert" validate this Build Sheet scenario with a scripted & fallacious letter.  I understand this works when something like a service replacement grill needs to be underhandedly legitimized as being Factory correct.  Below are a couple of pictures showing the two options I am faced with.  Which one will provide a greater diversion from the other incorrect aspects that will be displayed when the Cuda is re-judged? :shruggy:  :smilielol:

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2012/12-12/02.JPG)

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2012/12-12/03.JPG)

I like the "bingo card" idea.(Don't need glasses to read it)
Can I get one??

Now Dave, why don't you just take post it notes and go all over the car!  This way you can give it a custom stripe with a different color post it note.    :smilielol:  Honestly, that would be cool to have the large broadcast sheet with a car.  I have only seen one of those large ones once and that was at a Dodge Charger meet and the guy had a silver charger with black vinyl top and the strobe orange to yellow to red stripe on it.

Quote from: resq302 on December 13, 2012, 07:01:54 PM
Now Dave, why don't you just take post it notes and go all over the car!  This way you can give it a custom stripe with a different color post it note.    :smilielol:  Honestly, that would be cool to have the large broadcast sheet with a car.  I have only seen one of those large ones once and that was at a Dodge Charger meet and the guy had a silver charger with black vinyl top and the strobe orange to yellow to red stripe on it.

All joking aside, it is the little things that most "experts" overlook when researching Assembly Line protocol.  Many believe that simply studying the cars and tearing them apart will provide the necessary information for identifying OE characteristics.  This misconception is a HUGE mistake when trying to understand the subject matter.  It is the peripheral or cryptic data that provides a factual history for these cars.  You need to study the criteria that was established under SAE Law and the DOT specifications that were mandated PRIOR to the manufacturing process.  When you understand the guidelines that were established by these committees, the pieces fall into place.  When ignored, incorrect translations for the way these cars were built is the common result.  

"Experts" resort to filling in the blanks with unsubstantiated and incorrect data.  Examples of this are not knowing when the DMV changed Engine Block (stamping) Fonts, not knowing when NHTSA changed emission standards and equipment, not understanding how DMV law was used in formulating a Monroney Sticker, not correctly translating the physics of a Factory Paint procedure, not understanding the process/logic for how Broadcast Sheets were processed, not knowing what parts were Original vs Service Replacements, etc......  These small (but crucial) details are what exposes the contradictions in many OE Restorations.  Knowing the information that shaped the Automobile Industry can help to eliminate a multitude of embarrassing fallacies.  The same rationale can be used when pursuing Judging knowledge.

So what would happen with say, a recall where the vehicle would have been brought back to the dealership to get a recall part replaced.  Now that original part would no longer be on the car, yet be correct for the car to be an "as delivered / produced" car.  Would such a car lose points over not having a part that was recalled?  For example, a car with the famous Recall wheels.

Looks like the bingo cards were in use in '68.

Quote from: resq302 on December 14, 2012, 10:55:46 PM
So what would happen with .........

I just read the inside cover of Mopar Action and all I can say is WOW......what a difference a year makes.  Or should it be said that what a difference the "contestant" makes?  A few catch phrases came to mind while reading the Editorial.  The Hunter has become the Hunted!  Turnabout is Fair Play!  Revenge is better served Cold!  Poetic Justice!  But one of my favorites.....Hypocrisy has met its Match!

It should now be obvious that "conspiracy" is not just a "paranoid" concept.  One of the participants who I will not name (that owned the white car), obviously did not appreciate the outcome.  I don't know why?  The year before, he was happy and content with the shenanigans that took place at the 2011 OE event.  As a matter of fact, he started a Moparts thread "congratulating" the same theme that he and his Columnist crony now have a problem with!  They supported Reproduction and NON Original Parts as acceptable OE criteria in 2011!?!  What happened Gentlemen?  Why the change of heart?  Don't be upset with the outcome Guys!  You actually helped to establish the depravity that has come back to bite you in the rear.  One last catch phrase that comes to mind........Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword!  :2thumbs:

Ok, at least it was not just me that was confused by the article on the inside cover. :scratchchin: :rotz:

Quote from: resq302 on December 22, 2012, 11:54:55 PM
Ok, at least it was not just me that was confused by the article on the inside cover. :scratchchin: :rotz:

I found the Editorial to be a blind synopsis on more than one front.  It was comical to read input about restoration procedures, given by someone who has never been involved with the topic that they summarized.  How can an "expert" who subcontracts all of his Restoration work to others, make the statement: "Restoration is all about Parts.  Anyone can learn and apply technique."  Really?  If that were true, "someone" has been getting ripped off when they supply all those original parts and their results still look manipulated and inaccurate.  Maybe they themselves should attempt the work and then determine what can or can't be done by "anyone."    

Being involved with both ends of the spectrum, I can assure you that simply having Picasso's painting tools doesn't guarantee becoming an Artist.  Quite honestly the most enjoyable & easiest part of a project is the hunt for original parts.  You don't have to build them, engineer or fabricate them.  When you find them you simply buy them!  The hard part for many is having enough money to do so.  An authentic restoration occurs when the Restorer can install those original parts AND assemble them in a manner that looks like it was done by the Factory.  If you can't do that, you only have 50% of the equation covered.  In most instances, 50% is a failing grade!

A big congrats to all three for jobs well done,don't know Tony,so Gene and John,very nice jobs,real nice cars !!!!!What a painstaking process it is to do what you guys did!!!! Both Gene and John,a couple of great,down to earth guys to talk to in person. :2thumbs:

So what all has changed in the OE judging?  Are they now allowing undercarriages to be fully painted?  Gloss paint used where satin black paint was?  Or has OE judging gone back to what it should have been, all original parts that are restored and to the way that the factory had them rolled off the assembly line?

Quote from: resq302 on December 24, 2012, 04:21:46 PM
So what all has changed in the OE judging?

There is more here than meets the eye!  The restoration techniques mentioned in the Editorial was a diversion to justify the shenanigans that took place over an eight year period.  Mr. "White-Car" spent years using a forum alias to criticize my cars because he felt they incorporated too many reproduction parts for OE competition.  He and his cronies resorted to blatant lies about the Valiant project because there were no significant areas to legitimately criticize.  It became apparent that it was never really about reproduction parts.  It was a personal vendetta.  

In 2011 Mr. White-Car flip flopped and PRAISED his restorer's work which incorporated TEN TIMES the reproduction parts that he had criticized my vehicles for having!  What about the Base/Clear Paint job that the Bloomington Gold Program would also never allow to be judged in their Program?  (Sound Familiar?)  They couldn't admit to the reproduction parts used on their 2011 OE entry because it would tarnish their ignoble award and expose the abated standards of the program.  Their newfound acceptance for OE incorrectness was nothing more than a hypocritical campaign to roll out the red carpet for their 2012 entry.  

The premise for which they were given a trumped up score in 2011 is now being criticized in 2012!  And why?  Because they were blindsided and shocked by the outcome!  When it was beneficial to their agenda, the OE program was without reproach!  Things were wonderful as long as THEY were the ones benefitting from the abated OE standards.  Why wasn't the contradiction in OE judging standards written about and disclosed in 2011?  What was it about the 2012 OE show that caused the Editorial consensus that the "Gold doesn't Glitter" anymore?  Just a delayed coincidence? I don't think so.

 :brickwall: :brickwall: what a horrible inside cover article they did no rear research on that POS
another mag I can cancell off my list

Quote from: moparstuart on December 26, 2012, 02:50:44 PM
what a horrible inside cover article they did no rear research on that POS

The responsibility for magazine candor should be shared by both the Editor and those who provide the vehicle Information.  An Editor relies on the report given by the Person who owns the car and/or the Restoration Facility that did the work.  When BOTH parties consent to the same deception, the information can no longer be viewed as accurate.  It becomes a calculated effort to deceive the target audience.

Below are two commentaries that describe a "rust free" vehicle prior to the Restoration.  If you recall, Mr. Honesty tried to spin this subject matter in another thread by stating that the words "rust free" were ONLY used to describe the body panels.  What a fiasco!  Any person who purchases an automobile of this pedigree looks at every area of the vehicle before taking possession.  The floor pans are usually the first area inspected in order to properly evaluate the condition of the car.  If there was no rust to be found, what caused the holes in the floors?  What destroyed the Fender Tag and how was it repaired to look new again?  How could the restoration shop concur that "body rot" was "virtually non-existent"?  Just an innocent play on words?  According to the magazine articles, the Broadcast Sheet, Fender Tag and Sheet Metal was all original.  Did every publication coincidentally print the same "rust free" story without input from the owner or restorer?


(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2012/12-27/01.jpg)

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2012/12-27/02.jpg)

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2012/12-27/03.jpg)

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2012/12-27/04.jpg)

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2012/12-27/05.jpg)

Quote from: ECS on December 02, 2012, 06:04:39 PM
IT WAS FORD MOTOR COMPANY THAT USED AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION FLUID (TYPE F) IN THEIR POWER STEERING SYSTEMS!!! He switched the Power Steering fluid requirements between Ford and Chrysler!  

LUBRICANT SPECIFICATIONS/ Power Steering (Pump Reservoir) and Convertible Top Reservoir - Automatic Transmission Fluid - Ford Part No. C1AZ-19582-A - Ford Spec # M2C33-F (Type F)

I'm looking for NOS parts for a '55 T bird restoration we're doing here, and was amused to come across these.  Seems Ford wanted it both ways...


http://www.ebay.com/itm/1960s-1970s-Ford-Thunderbird-Mercury-Automatic-Transmission-Fluid-C1AZ19582-A-/190766096519?pt=Vintage_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&vxp=mtr&hash=item2c6a8ba087 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1960s-1970s-Ford-Thunderbird-Mercury-Automatic-Transmission-Fluid-C1AZ19582-A-/190766096519?pt=Vintage_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&vxp=mtr&hash=item2c6a8ba087)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1960s-1970s-Ford-Thunderbird-Mercury-Power-Steering-Fluid-1-Quart-NOS-can-/190766096522?pt=Vintage_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&vxp=mtr&hash=item2c6a8ba08a (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1960s-1970s-Ford-Thunderbird-Mercury-Power-Steering-Fluid-1-Quart-NOS-can-/190766096522?pt=Vintage_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&vxp=mtr&hash=item2c6a8ba08a)


The power steering can is a '76 part number specification while the Type F is 15 years older.  They must have changed the ATF to PS fluid standard for some reason.  Those poor guys doing concours restorations on Mustang II's must be going nuts  :smilielol:

Thats too funny!    :smilielol:

I guess he could have been a GM judge, too...we have a '54 Skylark we're working on and it says to use "type A" automatic transmission fluid on the lid.  Since Dave's post I'm paying more attention to yet another silly item ;)


At the Frankenmuth meet a few years ago we went to the (Visteon?) plant in Saginaw where our power steering pumps were built.  We asked them if it mattered which fluid, and while they urged us to use approved PS fluid, they said that there was VERY little that was different between the two, and that it simply didn't matter.  The hydraulic and anti foaming properties were nearly identical. 

Quote from: resq302 on December 24, 2012, 04:21:46 PM
So what all has changed in the OE judging?  Are they now allowing undercarriages to be fully painted?  Gloss paint used where satin black paint was?  Or has OE judging gone back to what it should have been, all original parts that are restored and to the way that the factory had them rolled off the assembly line?

     I was emailed about this thread today, so thought I would read it from the beginning.  Dave, you should be in Congress grilling all the politicians-they wouldn't get anything over on you!

     For those who don't know, all OE judging at the Mopar Nationals will now be headed by myself and a team of qualified and diverse judges.  These are not my friends or cronies-I may not even like some of them, but that is not what is important.  I appreciate those who have paved the way before me, but I have heard a lot of complaints that need to be addressed.
     I have consulted with top restorers, enthusiast and prior Chrysler employers to get a feel of what needs to be done to make this program top notch.  My goal is to bring integrity, transparency and an outstanding reputation to the program.
     I have a lot of ideas and my work is cut out for me, but many have offered their help and I will probably take them up on it! I'm always open for ideas, so if you have any just shoot me an email sometime at moparnut@insightbb.com.
         

Quote from: paul jacobs on December 28, 2012, 10:35:01 PM
I'm always open for ideas........

Hi Paul,
I don't have much time to type this.  I am on my way to Washington to oversee the Fiscal Cliff negotiations.  It shouldn't take too long though.  My advice is simple!  Stop spending more than you take in! :flame:

On a separate note, I hope the new OE program will truly represent its acronym....ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT.  Anything that deviates from that descriptive should not be given a blind pass.  Base clear/paint jobs were NEVER a Chrysler OE process in the late sixties or early seventies.  (If a judge cannot recognize this style of paint job, they need to brush up on their braille lessons.)  While there is nothing wrong with that type of paint, it is not Factory correct.  Most restorers default to using a base/clear process with metallic paints.  They resort to using a clear coat so they can sand out imperfections and dirt particles without ruining the metallic paint pattern that lies underneath the clear.  This is just ONE area that has been ignored for the past few years.  The answer to this dilemma is simple.  Offer a true OE class!  For those cars that can't meet the OE criteria, provide a different class.  Refer to it as something other than "OE".  By no means does it have to designate a sub-standard vehicle or restoration, it will simply protect the status and classification that OE is suppose to represent.

Thanks for all your input Dave, I completely agree. While I realize NOS/assembly parts are hard to find, it is not impossible to achieve a true OE status for the most part. In the past five years I have seen many OE restorations come through the judging with really, really nice repo parts, but I don't think they should get a pass-period! You know as well as anyone, it is not fair for those who spend hours upon hours to restore an original part to get the same credit as a new repo part! 
I can tell you without a doubt, there will not be an easy route to a Gold under my watch! I want any OE certificate to mean something special.

Quote from: paul jacobs on December 29, 2012, 12:32:22 PM
Thanks for all your input Dave, I completely agree. While I realize NOS/assembly parts are hard to find, it is not impossible to achieve a true OE status for the most part. In the past five years I have seen many OE restorations come through the judging with really, really nice repo parts, but I don't think they should get a pass-period! You know as well as anyone, it is not fair for those who spend hours upon hours to restore an original part to get the same credit as a new repo part! 
I can tell you without a doubt, there will not be an easy route to a Gold under my watch! I want any OE certificate to mean something special.

Paul,

Excellent to hear.  I really hope you can bring the OE program back to what it used to be!   :2thumbs:

This is some welcome news.

Paul, I look forward to the future OE program. I am sure it will be a lot of work, but you and your team are up to the task. Thank you guys for keeping OE alive.

Mike Mancini

I think someone needs to do a OEM-correct restoration on a '69 Charger 500 now..

And, I'll even give up mine for a donor scholarship.  :icon_smile_big:

Quote from: hemi68charger on December 30, 2012, 10:14:07 AM
I think someone needs to do a OEM-correct restoration on a '69 Charger 500 now..

And, I'll even give up mine for a donor scholarship.  :icon_smile_big:

I would love to see anyone do up a 500 to that level.

Here is a factory shot with the large Build Sheet on the body (with broadcast sheet), and a smaller (Bingo card) Build Sheet on the K-frame
(http://www.71superbee.com/images/Factory%20Aug%201971%20003.jpg)

Quote from: paul jacobs on December 29, 2012, 12:32:22 PM
I can tell you without a doubt, there will not be an easy route to a Gold under my watch! I want any OE certificate to mean something special.

Hey Paul!  It's been about 6 months since the Show and I think those involved have seen things for what it's worth.  If you decide to enter another vehicle in an OE type venue, do not ignore the "new" recipe for success.  Find a dishonest magazine editor to re-write history and then pledge to sponsor the venue that you will be competing in.  You would be amazed at the deceitful things you can make people believe or scoring that can magically change after offering a nice sponsorship payoff.  It won't change reality or speak too highly about the confidence you have in your work but who cares?!  One thing is for sure......the concept of "Charlie" is alive and well for those who will never reach a legitimate level of OE stature. Sorry Charlie!  :rofl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Wy_BRFElc

Dave-
I have to say I am amazed at the things that come up in magazine articles-things that are outright lies! I have never read a feature article on someones car, when mysterious subjects come up-subjects, say, that could be the controversial points of other cars?
All I know is it's great to hear such expert opinions from people who have NEVER EVEN BUILT a car, much less restored them to the OE level, but all of a sudden they know so much! It's almost as if someone from the inside is feeding them information they would never know to ask!! But that couldn't be true because we have all been told otherwise right?
NEVER let the truth get in the way of a good, fictional story!
Cheers
Paul

Quote from: ECS on December 29, 2012, 12:55:00 AM
 Base clear/paint jobs were NEVER a Chrysler OE process in the late sixties or early seventies.  (If a judge cannot recognize this style of paint job, they need to brush up on their braille lessons.)  While there is nothing wrong with that type of paint, it is not Factory correct.  

I've often thought that there is no way to properly restor a Daytona because of them being farmed out for conversion once they left the plant. To be THAT correct, the car should be painted in acrylic enamel & then 3/4 of the car must be masked and resprayed by a 16 year old with even lower quality paint (with no hardener). For extra authenticity, might as well paint it out in the driveway and catch some dust in the paint. I'm not poking fun at you; rather I'm just saying that there isn't a Daytona out there that is restored to that (poor of a) level. To a lesser extent, 500 owners are in the same boat if they want to be "correct".

Todays paint & body work techniques are far better than they were 45 years ago. We all know that these cars were not built to the highest standards and when they left the factory and is shoddy workmanship & lousy paint going to be what it takes to score points with judges? :shruggy:

I think most people, myself included, enjoy a "best case scenario" restoration. Yes these Daytona's were awful. Actually, a lot of other Chrysler's were quite nice, if you have ever seen 2000 mile survivors.
When it comes to resale, I think you may have people questioning the truly authentic, or just plain bad restorations!

It's a very interesting point you make though.

Quote from: paul jacobs on February 18, 2013, 01:23:03 PM
All I know is it's great to hear such expert opinions from people who have NEVER EVEN BUILT a car, much less restored them to the OE level, but all of a sudden they know so much!

Even certain "professional shops" who MODIFY these cars don't know what they are doing.  They solicit the help of others to substantiate the incorrect things they do in their restorations.  If you can get another "quasi expert" to write a letter to support your lie, then BINGO.....history is re-written and an unchallenged lie becomes the truth!  (Like a replacement front grill being "original" for example.)  Add a biased editor to the mix who is determined to write that the "standout" car of the event was a car that LOST and it becomes the joke it is.  You have to laugh knowing that a HUGE celebration had already started before the conclusion of the Show.  How embarrassing it must have been to presumptively allocate magazine space for a "victory article" only to find they had to back track and re-shuffle the cards.  It's pathetic when these editors go on witch hunts to downgrade correct aspects of "certain" vehicles but then deliberately turn a blind eye to the DOZENS of errors they could write about with respect to their "friends" car.  I don't know what's worse Paul?  Prematurely celebrating a Loss as a Victory or a clueless editor writing an article that conveyed the losing car had actually won!  You know the old saying.......never count your chickens with a hatchet.

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2013/02-Feb/02-18/01.jpg)    

Dave,

Funny how things like that come to be.  Reminds me of a certain tan 69 hemi 4 spd charger that took a first place in the special charger class at the Hemmings New England Concours show in 2009.  Its pretty bad when it doesn't even place in the show the day prior and one of the judges who is one of the editors comes up asking what the code for a hemi engine is on the VIN because the VIN was mangled on the one side.  THEY were even questioning if it was a real / true hemi car.  And yet at the actual concours show it takes a first place with missing weather stripping, scatter shield bell housing, 3" exhaust, manual disc brake conversion, shoddy body work (grille recessed about 1/2" behind front edge of fender on pass side and sticking out about the same amount on the driver side PAST the front edge of the fender.) and countless other stuff wrong with it.  Since then, I have found NUMEROUS issues with Hemmings and the shows they put on including their publications.  Again, it seems like someone who "contributes" to the show or company hosting the show seems to come out on top with whatever kind of work has been done.

Quote from: resq302 on February 18, 2013, 05:26:53 PM
Again, it seems like someone who "contributes" to the show or company hosting the show seems to come out on top with whatever kind of work has been done.

A few upstanding shops have to rely on underhanded measures to support the work they do. How else are they to suppose deal with declining results from one year to the next?!?  Here is how their actions should be translated:

"I know my work is substandard so I will use any means available to bolster my shortcomings.....even if it means having to underhandedly manipulate the outcome!"

Just remember that all of the shenanigans in the World won't change the facts.  The Winners are still the Winners and the (complaining) sore losers are still the losers.  :rofl:  :hah:

Quote from: resq302 on February 18, 2013, 05:26:53 PM
Again, it seems like someone who "contributes" to the show or company hosting the show seems to come out on top with whatever kind of work has been done.

It's funny how things continue to expose themselves following the different Shows that these cars are entered in.  I heard from a reliable source (who witnessed this first hand) that one of the participants who did not have a "perfect" score at the conclusion of the MCACN Show, ended up getting a "perfect" score AFTER the event was over!  One of the Daytona contestants was arguing with the judges after the judging was complete, regarding characteristics exhibited on his vehicle.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a person with a perfect score wouldn't have a reason to argue their results if they already had a "perfect" score.  He was following the judges like a lap dog trying to appeal his deductions.  After a little arguing and some continued Show sponsorship promises.....PRESTO.....a "perfect" score magically occurred!  Too bad some folks can't walk the walk and have to rely on extra curricular efforts to "win" a phony award.  It makes you wonder how a person of integrity and/or character can feel ANY pride knowing that their results are influenced by disingenuous shenanigans.  It appears that Political payoffs are not only occurring in Washington DC. :smilielol: 

Yeh, it is absolutely amazing what lengths some people go to just to be "better" than other people or to make their car appear better than what it really is.  I'd be curious if the same participant went around to the judges while they were judging the competition and made sure to point out what was incorrect on their cars also.  I remember at a certain Mopar show over the summer where a certain individual was groping around the owners car and was telling him what was wrong with his car even though he wasn't a judge at the show.   :rotz: :slap:

Quote from: resq302 on March 06, 2013, 06:07:05 AM
I remember at a certain Mopar show over the summer where a certain individual was groping around the owners car and was telling him what was wrong with his car even though he wasn't a judge at the show.   :rotz: :slap:

It must be some type of mental deficiency for these individuals.  You just described EXACTLY what he did to my cars at various Shows.  For example, I personally over-heard him telling the Judges and a Magazine Editor that my ORIGINAL battery cable (on the Challenger) was a reproduction unit.  I had invited "Mr. Honesty" behind the ropes to look at my car and he repaid the kindness by telling the Judges and Richard Ehrenberg, that various things were wrong with my car.  I confronted him about the scenario, he completely denied it ever happened and said that I was "delusional & paranoid".  He also went on moparts under his alias "BEAST" and continued his attack on my Challenger.  Jealousy seems to be the catalyst that prompts these underhanded shenanigans.
 
Now here is where it gets funny!  About 2 years after this ordeal had taken place, Tom Barcroft and I were sorting through pictures that he had randomly shot at the 2008 Nationals.  While scrolling through the photos, a picture popped up that had us falling out of our chairs in laughter.  Tom had randomly caught "Mr. Honesty" doing exactly what he had adamantly denied ever took place.  It was a photo of him standing and pointing at my "incorrect" NOS battery cable.  I emailed him the picture and he proceeded to give a bogus explanation about a scenario that he initially said never took place!  He also used his editor friend "cliffy" to fabricate lies and deception regarding my Restorations.  It's funny how these guys concoct falsehoods about "correct" aspects of other people's cars but then try to justify "incorrect" aspects about their own projects.  They cry foul when THEIR deceptive practices are exposed with the truth!  Lets not forget that "Rust Free" Daytona or the "Original Broadcast Sheet and Fender Tag" that was written about by his "hip pocket" editor friend.  You know the old saying.......pictures don't lie!

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2013/03-Mar/03-06/01.jpg)

shenanigans aside, that white/blue/blue chally looks amazing!

Quote from: pettybird on March 06, 2013, 03:43:51 PM
... that white/blue/blue chally looks amazing!

:iagree: :2thumbs:

Quote from: ECS on March 06, 2013, 03:00:04 PM

Quote from: resq302 on March 06, 2013, 06:07:05 AM
I remember at a certain Mopar show over the summer where a certain individual was groping around the owners car and was telling him what was wrong with his car even though he wasn't a judge at the show.   :rotz: :slap:

It must be some type of mental deficiency for these individuals.  You just described EXACTLY what he did to my cars at various Shows.  For example, I personally over-heard him telling the Judges and a Magazine Editor that my ORIGINAL battery cable (on the Challenger) was a reproduction unit.  I had invited "Mr. Honesty" behind the ropes to look at my car and he repaid the kindness by telling the Judges and Richard Ehrenberg, that various things were wrong with my car.  I confronted him about the scenario, he completely denied it ever happened and said that I was "delusional & paranoid".  He also went on moparts under his alias "BEAST" and continued his attack on my Challenger.  Jealousy seems to be the catalyst that prompts these underhanded shenanigans.
 
Now here is where it gets funny!  About 2 years after this ordeal had taken place, Tom Barcroft and I were sorting through pictures that he had randomly shot at the 2008 Nationals.  While scrolling through the photos, a picture popped up that had us falling out of our chairs in laughter.  Tom had randomly caught "Mr. Honesty" doing exactly what he had adamantly denied ever took place.  It was a photo of him standing and pointing at my "incorrect" NOS battery cable.  I emailed him the picture and he proceeded to give a bogus explanation about a scenario that he initially said never took place!  He also used his editor friend "cliffy" to fabricate lies and deception regarding my Restorations.  It's funny how these guys concoct falsehoods about "correct" aspects of other people's cars but then try to justify "incorrect" aspects about their own projects.  They cry foul when THEIR deceptive practices are exposed with the truth!  Lets not forget that "Rust Free" Daytona or the "Original Broadcast Sheet and Fender Tag" that was written about by his "hip pocket" editor friend.  You know the old saying.......pictures don't lie!

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2013/03-Mar/03-06/01.jpg)

Dave,

You must be mistaken and seeing things.   :smilielol:  That person would NEVER do such a thing!   :smilielol:  He is simply just pointing out how much better your car is than his!  I mean, c'mon, you gotta believe that rusted out metal can regenerate itself to prior rust free metal conditions right? :rofl:

Quote from: pettybird on March 06, 2013, 03:43:51 PM
shenanigans aside, that white/blue/blue chally looks amazing!

I have one with the same combo except it is a rag-top - Lotsa blue inside!

Quote from: maxwellwedge on March 07, 2013, 01:36:54 PM

Quote from: pettybird on March 06, 2013, 03:43:51 PM
shenanigans aside, that white/blue/blue chally looks amazing!

I have one with the same combo except it is a rag-top - Lotsa blue inside!

cool another one I can inherit 

Quote from: pettybird on March 06, 2013, 03:43:51 PM
shenanigans aside, that white/blue/blue chally looks amazing!

Thanks for the compliment.  Here are a few more pictures from different angles.

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2013/03-Mar/03-07/09.jpg)

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2013/03-Mar/03-07/10.jpg)

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2013/03-Mar/03-07/11.jpg)

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2013/03-Mar/03-07/12.jpg)

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2013/03-Mar/03-07/13.jpg)

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2013/03-Mar/03-07/14.jpg)

OK, I'll take it.


Who does your H pipes?  Is that NOS or Gardner or someone else?

Wow that blue stripe really sets off the white!

Quote from: pettybird on March 07, 2013, 04:20:54 PM
Who does your H pipes?  Is that NOS or Gardner or someone else?

Those are Head Pipes that Steve Been fabricated and put the flat spots in.  I recently purchased the equipment (that will be used in conjunction with our Exhaust Line) to make H Pipes & Head Pipes that look Assembly Line correct.  Steve will be bending all of our piping.  I don't believe anyone else is making them with the Factory correct contours and/or flat spots.

I'm not into E-bodies (any more), but that really is a very pretty car.

Quote from: ECS on March 07, 2013, 04:38:57 PM

Quote from: pettybird on March 07, 2013, 04:20:54 PM
Who does your H pipes?  Is that NOS or Gardner or someone else?

Those are Head Pipes that Steve Been fabricated and put the flat spots in.  I recently purchased the equipment (that will be used in conjunction with our Exhaust Line) to make H Pipes & Head Pipes that look Assembly Line correct.  Steve will be bending all of our piping.  I don't believe anyone else is making them with the Factory correct contours and/or flat spots.

It looks truly awful, which, for an H pipe, is high praise.  It makes you wonder how those cars got out of their own way with mangled tubes. 

Its simple Pettybird...... highly powered engine can push ANYTHING out of its way, even something as restricted as the indented exhaust.

Also, would the front pipes be considered H pipes since they are not connected?  I know 440s and hemis got the H pipe cross over but I thought the 383s got the individual front pipes.

Quote from: resq302 on March 07, 2013, 06:22:27 PM
Its simple Pettybird...... highly powered engine can push ANYTHING out of its way, even something as restricted as the indented exhaust.

Also, would the front pipes be considered H pipes since they are not connected?  I know 440s and hemis got the H pipe cross over but I thought the 383s got the individual front pipes.

Hi Brian!  Hemi cars used H Pipes.  My Challenger is a 440 4V and used 2.25" diameter head Pipes.  If memory serves me correct, 440 Six Pack E Body cars used Head Pipes that were 2.5" diameter and the end of the pipe that connected to the resonators were "shrunk" down to 2.25".  I think some B Body cars may have used H-Pipes on their 440 Six Pack cars.  Having never owned a Six Pack vehicle (or extensively researching one) I can't say for sure.  Maybe someone else can chime in with additional facts.

that blue interior  :drool5: :drool5: :drool5:  is truely fantastic

Quote from: ECS on March 07, 2013, 08:29:35 PM

Quote from: resq302 on March 07, 2013, 06:22:27 PM
Its simple Pettybird...... highly powered engine can push ANYTHING out of its way, even something as restricted as the indented exhaust.

Also, would the front pipes be considered H pipes since they are not connected?  I know 440s and hemis got the H pipe cross over but I thought the 383s got the individual front pipes.

Hi Brian!  Hemi cars used H Pipes.  My Challenger is a 440 4V and used 2.25" diameter head Pipes.  If memory serves me correct, 440 Six Pack E Body cars used Head Pipes that were 2.5" diameter and the end of the pipe that connected to the resonators were "shrunk" down to 2.25".  I think some B Body cars may have used H-Pipes on their 440 Six Pack cars.  Having never owned a Six Pack vehicle (or extensively researching one) I can't say for sure.  Maybe someone else can chime in with additional facts.

I guess its been a while since I looked at pics of your car.  I could have sworn it was a 383 in there.  Oh well.  They say the mind is the second thing to go..... Can't remember what the first was.....   :lol:

B-Body 440's got the H-Pipe  :2thumbs:

thanks for the reassurance that I'm not crazy.  well, ok I might be crazy but at least I was correct in my thinking.   :lol:

Quote from: maxwellwedge on March 08, 2013, 08:58:13 AM
B-Body 440's got the H-Pipe  :2thumbs:

how about 71-up 440 cars?  just curious nonsense...

Quote from: resq302 on March 08, 2013, 08:10:16 AM
I guess its been a while since I looked at pics of your car.  I could have sworn it was a 383 in there. 

Here is a link that shows additional interior photos and some of the details surrounding the restoration.  You can click on the pictures to enlarge the images.

http://www.moparaction.com/Article/PoP/PoP.html

 :2thumbs:  Thanks Dave.  Again, simply amazing car!

Quote from: resq302 on March 10, 2013, 05:53:26 PM
:2thumbs:  Thanks Dave.  Again, simply amazing car!

Too bad I couldn't enter it in the 2012 Nationals for re-certification.  I tried but was given the run around after the Power Steering Fluid debacle in 2010.  (The Head Judge didn't like it when his incompetence was exposed concerning that situation.)  I would LOVED to have gone head to head with the other white car!  Slam dunk!

How funny would that have been if you had topped your old score?   Although, they might not have allowed that to happen.

Quote from: resq302 on March 11, 2013, 10:24:31 AM
How funny would that have been if you had topped your old score?   Although, they might not have allowed that to happen.

I was deducted 17 points for having oil on my bare metal parts.  I had not developed RPM yet so the oily parts were my largest deduction.  Since the 2010 Nationals, the other 4.5 points have been "corrected" along with the metal parts that were covered in oil.  (Out of 2801 possible points, I was deducted 21.5)  That being said, you would think the car might receive a perfect OE score but something tells me that new deductions would mysteriously be discovered.  Lets not forget that one of the areas I was deducted for was because my 70 Challenger did not have its certi-warranty card.  I was able to "fix" that rather easily due to the fact that no 1970 Chrysler vehicle came from the Factory with one.  We were told in 2010 that no car would ever receive a perfect score.  And why not?  The criteria for doing an OE car should not be subjectively based on an infinite scale of outcomes or possibilities!  I was deducted for phantom things like "red" power steering fluid and certi-warranty cards, while other contestants were given free passes on REAL infractions like base/clear paint, incorrect paint-overspray & undercoat patterns, reproduction parts, wrong assembly features & procedures, phoney "home made" looking finishes, etc...... :shruggy: :smilielol:

Quote from: ECS on March 11, 2013, 01:17:44 PM

Quote from: resq302 on March 11, 2013, 10:24:31 AM
How funny would that have been if you had topped your old score?   Although, they might not have allowed that to happen.

I was deducted 17 points for having oil on my bare metal parts.  I had not developed RPM yet so the oily parts were my largest deduction.  Since the 2010 Nationals, the other 4.5 points have been "corrected" along with the metal parts that were covered in oil.  (Out of 2801 possible points, I was deducted 21.5)  That being said, you would think the car might receive a perfect OE score but something tells me that new deductions would mysteriously be discovered.  Lets not forget that one of the areas I was deducted for was because my 70 Challenger did not have its certi-warranty card.  I was able to "fix" that rather easily due to the fact that no 1970 Chrysler vehicle came from the Factory with one.  We were told in 2010 that no car would ever receive a perfect score.  And why not?  The criteria for doing an OE car should not be subjectively based on an infinite scale of outcomes or possibilities!  I was deducted for phantom things like "red" power steering fluid and certi-warranty cards, while other contestants were given free passes on REAL infractions like base/clear paint, incorrect paint-overspray & undercoat patterns, reproduction parts, wrong assembly features & procedures, phoney "home made" looking finishes, etc...... :shruggy: :smilielol:

Dave,....it's said,"The most difficult part of attaining perfection, is finding something to do as an encore", ...well I think you achieved that with the Challenger and the Valiant, it'll be a long time before anyone even comes close to the effort you put forth, never mind surpasses it,... if that's even possible?

Mike

Quote from: ECS on March 11, 2013, 01:17:44 PM

Quote from: resq302 on March 11, 2013, 10:24:31 AM
How funny would that have been if you had topped your old score?   Although, they might not have allowed that to happen.

I was deducted 17 points for having oil on my bare metal parts.  I had not developed RPM yet so the oily parts were my largest deduction.  Since the 2010 Nationals, the other 4.5 points have been "corrected" along with the metal parts that were covered in oil.  (Out of 2801 possible points, I was deducted 21.5)  That being said, you would think the car might receive a perfect OE score but something tells me that new deductions would mysteriously be discovered.  Lets not forget that one of the areas I was deducted for was because my 70 Challenger did not have its certi-warranty card.  I was able to "fix" that rather easily due to the fact that no 1970 Chrysler vehicle came from the Factory with one.  We were told in 2010 that no car would ever receive a perfect score.  And why not?  The criteria for doing an OE car should not be subjectively based on an infinite scale of outcomes or possibilities!  I was deducted for phantom things like "red" power steering fluid and certi-warranty cards, while other contestants were given free passes on REAL infractions like base/clear paint, incorrect paint-overspray & undercoat patterns, reproduction parts, wrong assembly features & procedures, phoney "home made" looking finishes, etc...... :shruggy: :smilielol:

Dave,

Im sure if that you even were to somehow travel back through time, purchase a brand new car off the lot and stick it away in a climate controlled sealed up garage or bubble, then unwrap it and take that practically zero mile car to this show, the judges would find something wrong with it.  This very thing (ok, maybe no time travel) was done by the AACA at a national judging seminar where they had a brand new Pontiac Solstice brought in to be "judged" as if this vehicle was and survived 25 yrs in this factory assembled condition.  If I remember correctly, out of the 150 people attending the seminar who were already AACA national judges, only one had said that the car should have gotten a perfect score of 400.  The other judges were complaining about how the pin striping wasn't perfect or slightly misaligned and how there was weld splatter on the intake manifold, but the person giving the seminar agreed with the one person who said it should have received a perfect score.  Reason- Thats how the factory had made it!  Just because it is pretty and nice and neat doesn't mean it is correct or how the factory could have done it!

Quote from: resq302 on March 11, 2013, 06:07:56 PM
Just because it is pretty and nice and neat doesn't mean it is correct or how the factory could have done it!

That's funny Brian...coming from you.  :slap:

Now Chris, if you look at my charger close enough, you will find paint runs and orange peel on the exterior paint.  Also, the gaps on my doors are not perfect either.  To top it off, my charger even has a factory mistake which still has not been corrected.

Quote from: DAY CLONA on March 11, 2013, 05:38:08 PM

Dave,....it's said,"The most difficult part of attaining perfection, is finding something to do as an encore", ...well I think you achieved that with the Challenger and the Valiant, it'll be a long time before anyone even comes close to the effort you put forth, never mind surpasses it,... if that's even possible?

Mike

You are MUCH too nice Mike!!  Coming from a Master Craftsman like yourself, I really am humbled by your sentiments.  Thank you very much for the kind words of support.     

Hi Master B!  It's one thing to have the Judges mess with a contestant but it is totally unacceptable when a competitor has a relationship with a crooked magazine editor who does his best to demean and disparage the other guys.  It is sad what Gene & John have had to experience regarding the bogus coverage that has ensued following the Show.  Lies told about Gene's car!  Lies told about John's car!  I'll tell you for a FACT that Gene AND John's cars had more ORIGINAL parts than the "other" competitor who has been on a tirade crying about the results.  His editor buddy can't re-write History no matter how hard he tries.  Since they continue to conjure up lies about the other contestants, why not bring some archived information back regarding the "rust free" white car as it pertains to the "Body".  Remember how they said the "Body" did not include the floor pans of a car?  What about the Doors?  Are they considered part of the Body?  Rather than cover that topic in this thread, let's answer that question in the thread that centered around the actual topic.  I'm sure that the "Honest" folks won't mind the discussion being revisited since they continue to spin things in a negative manner regarding Gene & John's restoration!  :2thumbs:

OEOEOEO, who cares, stock s^@t stinks, add some personality to any of those cars and then you would have something, dont get me wrong they are all great looking cars but they are boring, about like going to the dealer and looking at the same new challenger over and over with a different color, add some good wheels and tires, a tach, headers, aluminum intake, a big cam, an maybe a hoodscoop, then you would have something special and a real mopar the way most were back in the day.

What I'd like to comment,what a horrible shame that a couple die hard Mopar hobbiest take their level of a OE concours resto to, with all their hard work,researching,parts hunting,etc and then try to enjoy the fruits of their labor,but instead to have to deal with this kind of outcome.As if it's not hard enough to do a full blown resto of that caliber,now you have to put up your boxing gloves for defense and be ready for punches from different angles?
I know both Gene and John,great guys,great cars,and applaud their efforts.Can't really speak about Tony or his car,never dealt with him,other than him buying parts from me at Carlisle for resale at his spot.
The hobby is supposed to be fun, view all the restored cars,gain knowledge and information, get to know people, make friends,etc,in turn,ends up like big highschool drama. :rotz:

I think the underlying problem is that some people try and either make up stories about their car to make their car appear better than what it was so people feel bad for them that it should have scored better than what it did OR that they complain to the judges trying to get the judges to change a score to either drop the score of the other cars or raise their score some how.  Either way, I think it is pretty low.  Especially when you rip apart someones car when the judges are near!

Quote from: ECS on March 06, 2013, 01:25:52 AM

Quote from: resq302 on February 18, 2013, 05:26:53 PM
Again, it seems like someone who "contributes" to the show or company hosting the show seems to come out on top with whatever kind of work has been done.

It's funny how things continue to expose themselves following the different Shows that these cars are entered in.  I heard from a reliable source (who witnessed this first hand) that one of the participants who did not have a "perfect" score at the conclusion of the MCACN Show, ended up getting a "perfect" score AFTER the event was over!  One of the Daytona contestants was arguing with the judges after the judging was complete, regarding characteristics exhibited on his vehicle.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a person with a perfect score wouldn't have a reason to argue their results if they already had a "perfect" score.  He was following the judges like a lap dog trying to appeal his deductions.  After a little arguing and some continued Show sponsorship promises.....PRESTO.....a "perfect" score magically occurred!  Too bad some folks can't walk the walk and have to rely on extra curricular efforts to "win" a phony award.  It makes you wonder how a person of integrity and/or character can feel ANY pride knowing that their results are influenced by disingenuous shenanigans.  It appears that Political payoffs are not only occurring in Washington DC. :smilielol:  

Just so you guys all know.  This above is all a complete lie about the MCACN show.  Nothing got changed, nothing got moved around.  All the totals are calculated by people separate from judging.  And they are presented the information.

What ever they got at the MCACN show is what they got.  It was not changed later.  I was there.

Ryan

Quote from: Devil on March 17, 2013, 12:52:57 PM
What ever they got at the MCACN show is what they got.  It was not changed later.

My score WAS changed later (and not for the better, nor did I argue or complain even though it was total BS).  Fact.

:Twocents:

Wow, I just got an email from someone, on this board. But wow, some people have some serious problems they need to work out.

FORGET I SAID ANYTHING.

Ryan

Again, it is all how high of a person you know, pay, or whatever to get the desired result that you want.  Some people do it the honest and fair way and others lie, cheat, steal, bribe, etc to showcase their car as being the best even though the story is a complete lie.

Quote from: hemigeno on March 17, 2013, 01:20:53 PM

Quote from: Devil on March 17, 2013, 12:52:57 PM
What ever they got at the MCACN show is what they got.  It was not changed later.

My score WAS changed later (and not for the better, nor did I argue or complain even though it was total BS).  Fact.

:Twocents:

WOW  :popcrn:   

Quote from: Devil on March 17, 2013, 02:23:33 PM
What do you mean by "later".

"Later" in this instance means between the time that the judges left my car with my signature on the judging sheet and when I received my judging sheet after the awards were handed out.  That is absolutely, positively what happened with my car despite any protestations to the contrary.  I know it's not supposed to work that way, and regardless of what happened, I actually do enjoy the MCACN show for the wide variety of great muscle cars which it attracts (Furry People notwithstanding).

As far as some of the other MCACN-related comments posted recently, I'm not the only one who witnessed one other participant's actions, and those discussions were most definitely held after this person's car was "judged".  A comment was made within the group I was with to the effect that "it was time for the political lobbying to kick in."  IMHO, that's exactly what happened and I am not the only one to make this exact same observation. 

I could have appealed each and every one of the (very few) deductions my car was given, and John Antonelli plus a few other participants I know could have done the same after looking at their sheets.  At the time I intentionally chose to take the high road and leave well enough alone.  If someone now wants to use MCACN's judging results in an attempt to "prove" that their car is, in fact, a better restored vehicle, OR to invalidate another venue's judging results, I know that conclusion is not grounded in reality.  That's based on my own personal observations of how things were handled as well as my knowledge of what's correct and what's not.  If that's not a politically-correct statement to make, oh well.  These judging results are all in the book already, and I don't care about having any record "set straight" or my own score changed.  That simply doesn't matter to me - but I chuckle every time I see such a reference to the results (or at least certain ones) since it's not reflective of the truth.

Let me add that I actually agree with folks who say that stuff like this doesn't really matter.  Cars are not what's important in life.  People are what's important.

I'd much rather leave all this in the past and move forward, but to sit on the sidelines is to invite the revisionist historians to do their thing.

Pardon my last post if it seems pompous and overbearing.  Those that know me, also know that this petty bickering stuff is not what I'm all about. It's hard to express everything that's happened within the confines of a couple of posts on an internet forum.  I've also tried to maintain some semblance of neutrality, but there comes a point that I have to speak out even if it's not what I would rather do.

My apologies for the  :soapbox:

Quote from: hemigeno on March 17, 2013, 03:41:49 PM
Let me add that I actually agree with folks who say that stuff like this doesn't really matter.  Cars are not what's important in life.  People are what's important.

I'd much rather leave all this in the past and move forward, but to sit on the sidelines is to invite the revisionist historians to do their thing.

Pardon my last post if it seems pompous and overbearing.  Those that know me, also know that this petty bickering stuff is not what I'm all about. It's hard to express everything that's happened within the confines of a couple of posts on an internet forum.  I've also tried to maintain some semblance of neutrality, but there comes a point that I have to speak out even if it's not what I would rather do.

My apologies for the  :soapbox:

Quote from: hemigeno on March 17, 2013, 03:15:48 PM

Quote from: Devil on March 17, 2013, 02:23:33 PM
What do you mean by "later".

"Later" in this instance means between the time that the judges left my car with my signature on the judging sheet and when I received my judging sheet after the awards were handed out.  That is absolutely, positively what happened with my car despite any protestations to the contrary.  I know it's not supposed to work that way, and regardless of what happened, I actually do enjoy the MCACN show for the wide variety of great muscle cars which it attracts (Furry People notwithstanding).

As far as some of the other MCACN-related comments posted recently, I'm not the only one who witnessed one other participant's actions, and those discussions were most definitely held after this person's car was "judged".  A comment was made within the group I was with to the effect that "it was time for the political lobbying to kick in."  IMHO, that's exactly what happened and I am not the only one to make this exact same observation. 

I could have appealed each and every one of the (very few) deductions my car was given, and John Antonelli plus a few other participants I know could have done the same after looking at their sheets.  At the time I intentionally chose to take the high road and leave well enough alone.  If someone now wants to use MCACN's judging results in an attempt to "prove" that their car is, in fact, a better restored vehicle, OR to invalidate another venue's judging results, I know that conclusion is not grounded in reality.  That's based on my own personal observations of how things were handled as well as my knowledge of what's correct and what's not.  If that's not a politically-correct statement to make, oh well.  These judging results are all in the book already, and I don't care about having any record "set straight" or my own score changed.  That simply doesn't matter to me - but I chuckle every time I see such a reference to the results (or at least certain ones) since it's not reflective of the truth.

Where is the like button?!     :iagree: :notworthy:

Quote from: resq302 on March 17, 2013, 04:40:43 PM

Quote from: hemigeno on March 17, 2013, 03:41:49 PM
Let me add that I actually agree with folks who say that stuff like this doesn't really matter.  Cars are not what's important in life.  People are what's important.

I'd much rather leave all this in the past and move forward, but to sit on the sidelines is to invite the revisionist historians to do their thing.

Pardon my last post if it seems pompous and overbearing.  Those that know me, also know that this petty bickering stuff is not what I'm all about. It's hard to express everything that's happened within the confines of a couple of posts on an internet forum.  I've also tried to maintain some semblance of neutrality, but there comes a point that I have to speak out even if it's not what I would rather do.

My apologies for the  :soapbox:

Quote from: hemigeno on March 17, 2013, 03:15:48 PM

Quote from: Devil on March 17, 2013, 02:23:33 PM
What do you mean by "later".

"Later" in this instance means between the time that the judges left my car with my signature on the judging sheet and when I received my judging sheet after the awards were handed out.  That is absolutely, positively what happened with my car despite any protestations to the contrary.  I know it's not supposed to work that way, and regardless of what happened, I actually do enjoy the MCACN show for the wide variety of great muscle cars which it attracts (Furry People notwithstanding).

As far as some of the other MCACN-related comments posted recently, I'm not the only one who witnessed one other participant's actions, and those discussions were most definitely held after this person's car was "judged".  A comment was made within the group I was with to the effect that "it was time for the political lobbying to kick in."  IMHO, that's exactly what happened and I am not the only one to make this exact same observation. 

I could have appealed each and every one of the (very few) deductions my car was given, and John Antonelli plus a few other participants I know could have done the same after looking at their sheets.  At the time I intentionally chose to take the high road and leave well enough alone.  If someone now wants to use MCACN's judging results in an attempt to "prove" that their car is, in fact, a better restored vehicle, OR to invalidate another venue's judging results, I know that conclusion is not grounded in reality.  That's based on my own personal observations of how things were handled as well as my knowledge of what's correct and what's not.  If that's not a politically-correct statement to make, oh well.  These judging results are all in the book already, and I don't care about having any record "set straight" or my own score changed.  That simply doesn't matter to me - but I chuckle every time I see such a reference to the results (or at least certain ones) since it's not reflective of the truth.

Where is the like button?!     :iagree: :notworthy:

Well put......so no apologies needed.

Drama aside, one benefit from the discussion, more people are aware of the possible fake issue.

When buying......a BS isn't the only thing to look at. Buyer beware!

Quote from: ECS on March 06, 2013, 01:25:52 AM

Quote from: resq302 on February 18, 2013, 05:26:53 PM
Again, it seems like someone who "contributes" to the show or company hosting the show seems to come out on top with whatever kind of work has been done.

It's funny how things continue to expose themselves following the different Shows that these cars are entered in.  I heard from a reliable source (who witnessed this first hand) that one of the participants who did not have a "perfect" score at the conclusion of the MCACN Show, ended up getting a "perfect" score AFTER the event was over!  One of the Daytona contestants was arguing with the judges after the judging was complete, regarding characteristics exhibited on his vehicle.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a person with a perfect score wouldn't have a reason to argue their results if they already had a "perfect" score.  He was following the judges like a lap dog trying to appeal his deductions.  After a little arguing and some continued Show sponsorship promises.....PRESTO.....a "perfect" score magically occurred!  Too bad some folks can't walk the walk and have to rely on extra curricular efforts to "win" a phony award.  It makes you wonder how a person of integrity and/or character can feel ANY pride knowing that their results are influenced by disingenuous shenanigans.  It appears that Political payoffs are not only occurring in Washington DC. :smilielol: 

Paul; first off, congrats on your accomplishments with your Challenger. It is indeed one of the finest restorations I have had the pleasure of personally viewing.

Now on to the facts;

1.First and foremost, I want to make it clear that we do not do OE judging or use the OE criteria at the MCACN show. Our 4-page Concours and Concours Day 2 judging sheets were written specifically for OUR show. We use a 1,000 point scale, with deductions taken from 1,000 based on these judging sheets. We do not require original or NOS parts, and do allow reproduction parts if they are deemed appropriate.
2. There were absolutely NO "perfect scores" at the 2012 MCACN show. Zip-zero-zilch. Regardless of who your reliable sources may be, the facts are the facts.
3. We are very proud of the fact that we require of judges to go over the judging sheets personally with the owner or designated owners rep, so that any and all possible discrepancies can be addressed ONSITE and immediately. If an owner disagrees with any of the judges findings and can not clearly prove to the judge any differences of opinion, they sign at the bottom with a simple "I disagree" which signals our staff to call in our judging supervisor to re-evaluate the car. If the judging supervisor is not able to come to a decision on the possible discrepancy, he calls in addition marque experts, who weigh in until a majority ruling is made. All of this is clearly explained to the participant IF he has sign off on the sheet "I Disagree. to the best of my knowledge, we are the only show that operates in this manner.
4. We do not publicize the final total points earned. This is for the owner to disclose at his/her own discretion. If an owner wishes to claim he has a 999 point car when he really has a 951 point car, (both being "Gold" level under our criteria), that would be between himself and his conscience.
5. The ACTUAL SHEETS are tallied after the owner signs off on them, (with either "I agree" or "I Disagree") and triple checked for accuracy in the point tally. At this point, they are turned over to the Judging supervisor for final sign off.
6. There was NEVER any talk of potential sponsorship deals or any other of your implied incentives made to the MCACN show. We quite simply value our integrity much more than any possible financial gain to our bottom line.

I rarely get involved in judging discussions, but in this case, I recommend that you do your research before posting derogatory comments regarding the Muscle Car and Corvette Nationals show, or any other show for that matter.

I would like to again invite you to join us at our upcoming show in Chicago, so that you can personally be a part of what has become the world's finest all indoor specialty show devoted to Muscle Cars, Dealer-built Supercars and the country's finest and rarest Corvetttes.

I always welcome feedback and input, and can be reached at bastion426@gmail.com or you can call me personally at 586-549-5291.

Thank you;

Bob Ashton
MCACN Managing Member
www.mcacn.com

Quote from: hemigeno on March 17, 2013, 03:15:48 PM

Quote from: Devil on March 17, 2013, 02:23:33 PM
What do you mean by "later".

"Later" in this instance means between the time that the judges left my car with my signature on the judging sheet and when I received my judging sheet after the awards were handed out.  That is absolutely, positively what happened with my car despite any protestations to the contrary.  I know it's not supposed to work that way, and regardless of what happened, I actually do enjoy the MCACN show for the wide variety of great muscle cars which it attracts (Furry People notwithstanding).

As far as some of the other MCACN-related comments posted recently, I'm not the only one who witnessed one other participant's actions, and those discussions were most definitely held after this person's car was "judged".  A comment was made within the group I was with to the effect that "it was time for the political lobbying to kick in."  IMHO, that's exactly what happened and I am not the only one to make this exact same observation. 

I could have appealed each and every one of the (very few) deductions my car was given, and John Antonelli plus a few other participants I know could have done the same after looking at their sheets.  At the time I intentionally chose to take the high road and leave well enough alone.  If someone now wants to use MCACN's judging results in an attempt to "prove" that their car is, in fact, a better restored vehicle, OR to invalidate another venue's judging results, I know that conclusion is not grounded in reality.  That's based on my own personal observations of how things were handled as well as my knowledge of what's correct and what's not.  If that's not a politically-correct statement to make, oh well.  These judging results are all in the book already, and I don't care about having any record "set straight" or my own score changed.  That simply doesn't matter to me - but I chuckle every time I see such a reference to the results (or at least certain ones) since it's not reflective of the truth.

Gene; congratulations on your accomplishments, both at my show and the others, and thanks for being a part of the 2012 MCACN show.

The only time a point total would be changed after the participant signs off would be if a clerical number error was made when the judges write down a point deduction, and our tallying crew caught it. Obviously, I would never assume there isn't the possibility of errors being made, but there would be no reason to add or subtract points after the judges have concluded their inspection.

Thanks;

Bashton
MCACN Managing Member
www.mcacn.com

Quote from: hemigeno on March 17, 2013, 03:41:49 PM
Let me add that I actually agree with folks who say that stuff like this doesn't really matter.  Cars are not what's important in life.  People are what's important.

Exactly Gene!  If you recall I also told you I would do ANYTHING I could to help you beat my worthless OE score.  According to mike, I was "jealous" of his score but YOUR Daytona scored even higher than anything he has entered.  According to Mike's accusations and logic, I will soon be attacking you because you are now the closest recipient to the OE score we received with my lowly Valiant. 

With that said Gene please let me say.......FANTASTIC job on your Daytona and your OE results!  It is truly the Best, most Authentic Daytona Restoration on the Planet.  I couldn't be more proud for you and Vance.  Thank you for allowing me to be a very small part of your tremendous success!

Quote from: hemigeno on March 17, 2013, 03:41:49 PM
 Cars are not what's important in life.  People are what's important.

That's the way I'va always felt. It's just too bad all these other mooks around here can't be more like you and I.  :cheers:

Quote from: Bashton on March 17, 2013, 05:10:51 PM
2. There were absolutely NO "perfect scores" at the 2012 MCACN show. Zip-zero-zilch. Regardless of who your reliable sources may be, the facts are the facts.

Bob Ashton
MCACN Managing Member
www.mcacn.com

Hello Bob,
Thank you for taking the time to come here to clarify the Facts.  Below is commentary written by Cliff Gromer of Mopar Action Magazine.  He has directly contradicted the comment you made regarding any "perfect" scores being awarded at your 2012 event.  If you have been following these threads you will notice that this type of false information has been common place concerning the white Daytona which was part of your Show.  Do you have any idea where the contradictory comments made by Cliff Gromer may have originated?  If they did not come from any of your constituents, one would conclude that Cliff Gromer was responsible for this false information or it was given to him by Tony D'Agostino or Mike Mancini.

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2013/03-Mar/03-18/02.jpg)

Quote from: ECS on March 18, 2013, 12:14:59 PM

Quote from: Bashton on March 17, 2013, 05:10:51 PM
2. There were absolutely NO "perfect scores" at the 2012 MCACN show. Zip-zero-zilch. Regardless of who your reliable sources may be, the facts are the facts.

Bob Ashton
MCACN Managing Member
www.mcacn.com

Hello Bob,
Thank you for taking the time to come here to clarify the Facts.  Below is commentary written by Cliff Gromer of Mopar Action Magazine.  He has directly contradicted the comment you made regarding any "perfect" scores being awarded at your 2012 event.  If you have been following these threads you will notice that this type of false information has been common place concerning the white Daytona which was part of your Show.  Do you have any idea where the contradictory comments made by Cliff Gromer may have originated?  If they did not come from any of your constituents, one would conclude that Cliff Gromer was responsible for this false information or it was given to him by Tony D'Agostino or Mike Mancini.

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2013/03-Mar/03-18/02.jpg)

Since I have never spoken to Cliff Gromer and he wasn't quoting me (or anyone else for that matter), it would have to be an assumption on your part as to who provided any information to him. As far as Tony or Mike are concerned, I don't think either one of them gives a hoot whether the car scored a 1,000 points or 999, as either reflects the high quality and workmanship that went into the restoration.

This thread kind of reminds me of that commercial with the "French Model" I see on TV.

Let's remember, any of the cars that achieve this level are indeed the best of the best and a select few. I am grateful for the owners and the restorers who choose to make the commitment to restoring them and especially for sharing them with all of us for our viewing pleasure. And that is what it should be...pleasure, plain and simple.

Thanks;

Bashton
MCACN Managing Member
www.mcacn.com

Quote from: Bashton on March 18, 2013, 03:40:14 PM

Quote from: ECS on March 18, 2013, 12:14:59 PM

Quote from: Bashton on March 17, 2013, 05:10:51 PM
2. There were absolutely NO "perfect scores" at the 2012 MCACN show. Zip-zero-zilch. Regardless of who your reliable sources may be, the facts are the facts.

Bob Ashton
MCACN Managing Member
www.mcacn.com

Hello Bob,
Thank you for taking the time to come here to clarify the Facts.  Below is commentary written by Cliff Gromer of Mopar Action Magazine.  He has directly contradicted the comment you made regarding any "perfect" scores being awarded at your 2012 event.  If you have been following these threads you will notice that this type of false information has been common place concerning the white Daytona which was part of your Show.  Do you have any idea where the contradictory comments made by Cliff Gromer may have originated?  If they did not come from any of your constituents, one would conclude that Cliff Gromer was responsible for this false information or it was given to him by Tony D'Agostino or Mike Mancini.

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2013/03-Mar/03-18/02.jpg)

Since I have never spoken to Cliff Gromer and he wasn't quoting me (or anyone else for that matter), it would have to be an assumption on your part as to who provided any information to him. As far as Tony or Mike are concerned, I don't think either one of them gives a hoot whether the car scored a 1,000 points or 999, as either reflects the high quality and workmanship that went into the restoration.

This thread kind of reminds me of that commercial with the "French Model" I see on TV.

Let's remember, any of the cars that achieve this level are indeed the best of the best and a select few. I am grateful for the owners and the restorers who choose to make the commitment to restoring them and especially for sharing them with all of us for our viewing pleasure. And that is what it should be...pleasure, plain and simple.

Thanks;

Bashton
MCACN Managing Member
www.mcacn.com

I said it before  BUT WOW   :popcrn: :popcrn: :popcrn: :popcrn: :popcrn:

Hi Bob,

I have to say, reading all the shady stuff (and now you saying that you did not talk to Cliff) you have to wonder why exactly one would go to all this trouble to hide or cover up the facts if it didn't matter to them whether they scored a 999 or 1000?  You are right that these are all nice cars but if they are all nice cars, why do people try to hide the fact about not having any rust or rot on the car when there clearly was?  Then agree with people but then saying that the floors are not considered part of the floor?

Honestly, how would you feel if you just awarded Best of Show to a vehicle (be it ANY vehicle) under a false pretense that say it was all original metal, engine, etc yet they covered up the fact that they used reproduction pieces while all the long claiming they had all original paperwork and rolled the odometer back to make it look like a low mileage, unrestored car for prior pics to support that it was "all original metal" due to the low mileage.

Im sorry, but if it were me, I would be absolutely pissed off to the enth degree.  Especially if I was the one buying the car down the road!

Quote from: resq302 on March 18, 2013, 03:50:49 PM
Hi Bob,

I have to say, reading all the shady stuff (and now you saying that you did not talk to Cliff) you have to wonder why exactly one would go to all this trouble to hide or cover up the facts if it didn't matter to them whether they scored a 999 or 1000?  You are right that these are all nice cars but if they are all nice cars, why do people try to hide the fact about not having any rust or rot on the car when there clearly was?  Then agree with people but then saying that the floors are not considered part of the floor?

Honestly, how would you feel if you just awarded Best of Show to a vehicle (be it ANY vehicle) under a false pretense that say it was all original metal, engine, etc yet they covered up the fact that they used reproduction pieces while all the long claiming they had all original paperwork and rolled the odometer back to make it look like a low mileage, unrestored car for prior pics to support that it was "all original metal" due to the low mileage.

Im sorry, but if it were me, I would be absolutely pissed off to the enth degree.  Especially if I was the one buying the car down the road!

You lost me here. I am not sure what the history is of this car is, and rarely any of the cars being judged, and as far as our judging goes, that does not have any relevance to our judging process. Also, as previously stated, we do not require original sheetmetal and we allow reproduction parts that are deemed acceptable. At the MCACN show, The car is judged according to our sheets based on what our judging team see's, not on any story or previous history. If the car is later sold, I would hope the potential buyer would do his/her due diligence to make sure they were making a sound buying decision. Is MCACN judging the "standard" for our hobby? Absolutely not. Is a Gold Level Concours award exceptionally hard to earn and something to be extremely proud of? Absolutely.

It appears to me that there are people on this site that have some kind of problem or personal vendetta with some of the parties involved, and this is an area I have no interest in. If someone has a problem with another person, I believe they should take that offline and either discuss it or forget it. Life is short and most people actually are in this for the fun and fellowship, not to get into a soap opera situation of clashed personalities. Bottom line is, all of the cars discussed in this thread are fine restorations, perhaps some of the finest, and are all worthy of the accolades they have rightfully earned.

Seriously, this is supposed to be fun, and even though I am one who makes my living doing this, I would walk away in a minute if it stops being fun.

Thanks;

Bashton
MCACN Managing Member
www.mcacn.com

I have to add another thing; at the MCACN show, we offer a wide variety of ways to participate, including what we call "Non Comp/Pick Eligible". I find that many of our participants prefer this, including a large majority of owners of some of the finest and rarest cars in our hobby, and we welcome them.

Being somewhat subjective, as realistically nobody can categorically state what is really black and white, (especially with our beloved Mopars!) I believe that much of our continued success is due to this availability. For example, we had 5  of the '71 Hemi 'Cuda convertibles in our show in 2010 and 6 of the 8 Trans Am convertibles in the show last year, and not a single one of them was judged. I guess just having the opportunity to own one, share it with others and be the temporary caretaker is enough for some owners.

For those who do wish to participate in the judging process, I can certainly appreciate the dedication,  determination and effort.

(Steps off of the Soapbox)

Thanks;

Bashton
MCACN Managing Member
www.mcacn.com

Hi Bob,

I am well aware that your show offers multiple ways to compete.  I had a few friends out there this year.  Some with and some without cars.  All of them  got what they set out to achieve be it with their chevelle convertible or mopars which they brought.  From what I have heard, you have a very nice show and my compliments on that.  Might you be able to clarify what your judging sheets actually score on / for?  I know you said original sheet metal is not required but am curious as to how a vehicle would be judged in say, a stock class or even a light modified class? 

I don't know about anyone else on here but I have no personal vendettas against anyone.  Do I dislike people that are liers, cheats, and people that bend the truth to benefit themselves?  Absolutely!

Brian

Mr Bashton,

    I first want to say I have judged for 20 years and know what a thankless job it is.  I have also never had the opportunity to attend your show but I hear it's very nice.  With that said, I have a few observations.
    I think the problem lies in the fact that your show gives out these "Gold" awards and it is a mis-representation of what a Gold award has always stood for.  
    In the past, "OE Gold" has set the standard for excellence in restorations based off of a production line car-flaws and all.  It does take into account all the NOS/OE parts and correct application and execution of said parts-after all, anyone can throw a car togther.  
    You have a program that's based on a totally different set of standards-your standards. We could have all these 1000 point Gold winners out there with basecoat/clearcoat paint, Year One reproduction parts, and incorrect assembly procedures and have the whole world snowballed into thinking their car is the best.  This is actually a slap in the face to the competitors who do achieve such a standard whether it be the Mopar Nationals or Bloomington Gold.  
    And judging is not really subjective as you say-it's objective based on years of research and a set of collective minds that can prove their case with years of photo's and factory documentation.  If you base your judging on anything less, and don't disclose to the world, you open yourself up to a lot of criticism.  People will accuse you of giving show sponsors preferred treatment & changing scores!  
    I hope in the future you guys can change a few things that will prevent this kind of issue because you would have a premiere event.
    GENE-it's nice of you to take the high road, but speaking the truth is indeed taking the high road.  You are very humble and I know you don't care for controversy, but enough is enough.  You have, bar none, the best Daytona on the face of the planet.  The years of research that Vance and you did deserves a historical award in itself.
    Now, I'm off MY soapbox. :cheers:

Very nicely put, Paul!   :2thumbs:

Quote from: paul jacobs on March 19, 2013, 09:36:26 AM
1000.......

I had to go back and read your words of wisdom Paul.  At first I thought your "1000" was referencing sponsorship fees to these shows.  I always find it comical that the folks that usually do the best are the ones who sponsor the event that they themselves are "competing" in.  They don't have confidence in their work so they sponsor the event for the "extra credit" possibilities.  I know any event that I ever sponsored was in done the years that I WAS NOT competing in to make sure there would be no accusation of impropriety.  But what do I know?  I'm was recently told I was "jealous" of a guy not qualified to sweep the bathroom floors of my business! :rofl:

Quote from: paul jacobs on March 19, 2013, 09:36:26 AM
... You have, bar none, the best Daytona on the face of the planet.  The years of research that Vance and you did deserves a historical award in itself.
    ...

Here Here.. I don't know the details of the other two to the level I know and have seen with Geno's tireless documentation via his thread on this Board. But, at MOST, they could tie for the best. I doubt with all my Mopar-soul there is another Daytona better. I don't claim to be some Guru of Mopar, but I've been around awhile ( going on 35 years of exposure to these car even before they had the level of pedigree they have now - Hell, I drove my 1st v-code Charger as my one-and-only daily driver in the proverbial Florida-everyday-rain ).... So, I've seen them bone stock, modified, restored, re-restored and yeap, re-re-restored......

Quote from: paul jacobs on March 19, 2013, 09:36:26 AM
    GENE-it's nice of you to take the high road, but speaking the truth is indeed taking the high road.  You are very humble and I know you don't care for controversy, but enough is enough.  You have, bar none, the best Daytona on the face of the planet.  The years of research that Vance and you did deserves a historical award in itself.

You're very kind with your comments, Paul - and coming from a person with a great deal of knowledge and skill (as exemplified by your own stellar restoration of John's Daytona plus other OE Gold & Best Of Show winners), I'm particularly honored you'd say that.



I will add a thing or two about the MCACN judging format.  It is a bit confusing when their top award is similar in name to the Mopar Nationals'.  Having gone through the MCACN judging program twice and the 'Nats OE Certification once, I never got the impression that it was the same style or type of judging itself - nor did I ever feel that Bob Ashton misrepresented anything at all to me (speaking for myself, of course).  It's possible I felt that way because before participating myself, I had talked to others who were already familiar with the judging format?   :shruggy:  MCACN caters to a much broader audience than just Mopars, and it would be a physical impossibility to retain enough judges with enough OE-specific knowlege to assess all the vehicles in the time (and space!!) available.  I think it's a great show which offers something completely different than the Mopar Nationals.  Whether it's clear from the award name or not, the two judging formats are apples and oranges.  Paul, I know you're looking at this from a brand-identity perspective, and you have a compelling reason to do so in your new position in the 'Nats OE program... but I've never felt myself that Bob/MCACN is working against or trying to water down what you and the 'Nats are trying to accomplish.

:Twocents:

Quote from: paul jacobs on March 19, 2013, 09:36:26 AM
Mr Bashton,

    I first want to say I have judged for 20 years and know what a thankless job it is.  I have also never had the opportunity to attend your show but I hear it's very nice.  With that said, I have a few observations.
    I think the problem lies in the fact that your show gives out these "Gold" awards and it is a mis-representation of what a Gold award has always stood for.  
    In the past, "OE Gold" has set the standard for excellence in restorations based off of a production line car-flaws and all.  It does take into account all the NOS/OE parts and correct application and execution of said parts-after all, anyone can throw a car togther.  
    You have a program that's based on a totally different set of standards-your standards. We could have all these 1000 point Gold winners out there with basecoat/clearcoat paint, Year One reproduction parts, and incorrect assembly procedures and have the whole world snowballed into thinking their car is the best.  This is actually a slap in the face to the competitors who do achieve such a standard whether it be the Mopar Nationals or Bloomington Gold.  
    And judging is not really subjective as you say-it's objective based on years of research and a set of collective minds that can prove their case with years of photo's and factory documentation.  If you base your judging on anything less, and don't disclose to the world, you open yourself up to a lot of criticism.  People will accuse you of giving show sponsors preferred treatment & changing scores!  
    I hope in the future you guys can change a few things that will prevent this kind of issue because you would have a premiere event.
    GENE-it's nice of you to take the high road, but speaking the truth is indeed taking the high road.  You are very humble and I know you don't care for controversy, but enough is enough.  You have, bar none, the best Daytona on the face of the planet.  The years of research that Vance and you did deserves a historical award in itself.
    Now, I'm off MY soapbox. :cheers:

Paul;

We can certainly agree to disagree; our programs are indeed apples and oranges, and one is not any better than the other. As far as your reference to any misrepresentation of the terminology "Gold", this is something that goes back to the Olympics and probably much further than either of us know, and your opinion is just that, your opinion. And so you know, acheiveing Gold status at BG or the Mopar Nats does not guarantee Gold status at MCACN, as the judging and criteria are indeed different, and always will be. Better or worse? Well, you and the participants of all of the shows can decide for themselves on that one. Achieving Gold status at ANY of the mentioned events is certainly something to be proud of, and a something that takes a lot of dedication and commitment.

I am certainly surprised to see you make the statement that a particular car is "the best Daytona on the planet". Have YOU personally inspected these three cars and every other Daytona on the planet? Don't get me wrong, all three of these cars are spectacular and as stated before, deserve all the accolades they have earned, but seriously.... :rotz: and perhaps it IS the best, but who would be qualified to make such a statement? Certainly not you or me.

I also extend an invitation to you to check us out in person before you cast judgement and make statements about how we do business, as we are long past establishing ourselves as a "Premier Event" and the amount of complaints regarding our judging is consistently extremely low every year. (Can YOU say that?) This is something I am very proud of, since we employ over 90 judges and we judge over 300 of the 550+ cars that participate in our show annually. Perhaps we will never meet your standards, but rest assured, we will be around for a long time, enjoying the cars and more importantly, the history and the people. Will mistakes be made? Certainly. I indeed believe ALL judging, whether your style, mine or anyone else's needs to always keep an open mind, listen to all input and always be willing to learn.

Thanks;

Bashton
MCACN Managing Member
www.mcacn.com

Quote from: hemigeno on March 19, 2013, 10:50:52 AM

Quote from: paul jacobs on March 19, 2013, 09:36:26 AM
    GENE-it's nice of you to take the high road, but speaking the truth is indeed taking the high road.  You are very humble and I know you don't care for controversy, but enough is enough.  You have, bar none, the best Daytona on the face of the planet.  The years of research that Vance and you did deserves a historical award in itself.

You're very kind with your comments, Paul - and coming from a person with a great deal of knowledge and skill (as exemplified by your own stellar restoration of John's Daytona plus other OE Gold & Best Of Show winners), I'm particularly honored you'd say that.



I will add a thing or two about the MCACN judging format.  It is a bit confusing when their top award is similar in name to the Mopar Nationals'.  Having gone through the MCACN judging program twice and the 'Nats OE Certification once, I never got the impression that it was the same style or type of judging itself - nor did I ever feel that Bob Ashton misrepresented anything at all to me (speaking for myself, of course).  It's possible I felt that way because before participating myself, I had talked to others who were already familiar with the judging format?   :shruggy:  MCACN caters to a much broader audience than just Mopars, and it would be a physical impossibility to retain enough judges with enough OE-specific knowlege to assess all the vehicles in the time (and space!!) available.  I think it's a great show which offers something completely different than the Mopar Nationals.  Whether it's clear from the award name or not, the two judging formats are apples and oranges.  Paul, I know you're looking at this from a brand-identity perspective, and you have a compelling reason to do so in your new position in the 'Nats OE program... but I've never felt myself that Bob/MCACN is working against or trying to water down what you and the 'Nats are trying to accomplish.

:Twocents:

Thanks for your post; it is nice to hear from someone who HAS actually participated in both of the events and can offer an educated observation.

Bashton
MCACN Managing Member
www.mcacn.com

Quote from: paul jacobs on March 19, 2013, 09:36:26 AM
Mr Bashton,

    I first want to say I have judged for 20 years and know what a thankless job it is.  I have also never had the opportunity to attend your show but I hear it's very nice.  With that said, I have a few observations.
    I think the problem lies in the fact that your show gives out these "Gold" awards and it is a mis-representation of what a Gold award has always stood for.  
    In the past, "OE Gold" has set the standard for excellence in restorations based off of a production line car-flaws and all.  It does take into account all the NOS/OE parts and correct application and execution of said parts-after all, anyone can throw a car togther.  
    You have a program that's based on a totally different set of standards-your standards. We could have all these 1000 point Gold winners out there with basecoat/clearcoat paint, Year One reproduction parts, and incorrect assembly procedures and have the whole world snowballed into thinking their car is the best.  This is actually a slap in the face to the competitors who do achieve such a standard whether it be the Mopar Nationals or Bloomington Gold.  
    And judging is not really subjective as you say-it's objective based on years of research and a set of collective minds that can prove their case with years of photo's and factory documentation.  If you base your judging on anything less, and don't disclose to the world, you open yourself up to a lot of criticism.  People will accuse you of giving show sponsors preferred treatment & changing scores!  
    I hope in the future you guys can change a few things that will prevent this kind of issue because you would have a premiere event.
    GENE-it's nice of you to take the high road, but speaking the truth is indeed taking the high road.  You are very humble and I know you don't care for controversy, but enough is enough.  You have, bar none, the best Daytona on the face of the planet.  The years of research that Vance and you did deserves a historical award in itself.
    Now, I'm off MY soapbox. :cheers:

Mr Bashton,

Since you explained everything else, could you please answer Paul's comment on this part in bold?

he answered, before being asked. check reply #'s 148 and 149 on the previous page, where he made it clear that had not occurred.

There was NEVER any talk of potential sponsorship deals or any other of your implied incentives made to the MCACN show. We quite simply value our integrity much more than any possible financial gain to our bottom line.

The only time a point total would be changed after the participant signs off would be if a clerical number error was made when the judges write down a point deduction, and our tallying crew caught it.

Quote from: held1823 on March 20, 2013, 07:45:54 PM
he answered, before being asked. check reply #'s 148 and 149 on the previous page, where he made it clear that had not occurred.

There was NEVER any talk of potential sponsorship deals or any other of your implied incentives made to the MCACN show. We quite simply value our integrity much more than any possible financial gain to our bottom line.

The only time a point total would be changed after the participant signs off would be if a clerical number error was made when the judges write down a point deduction, and our tallying crew caught it.

Thank you, held1823;

And as I said, we can agree to disagree, as I firmly believe that judging is indeed a combination of objective and subjective. Simply put, there are always area's that can never be "black or white" especially when referring to judging production line automobiles. I certainly can acknowledge your opinion if you care to disagree.

Thanks;

Bashton
MCACN Managing Member
www.mcacn.com

Ok, I apologize, I must have missed that and just would have thought it would have been addressed (if not referred to) with the other reply.  I got it now, no preferential treatment will be given to contestants especially if they are a sponsor of the show.   :cheers:

hey guys,

Life is short, matching numbers or not..drive the wheels off of it and have some fun!

best regards,
Marcel, the Netherlands

Quote from: resq302 on March 21, 2013, 06:59:40 AM
Ok, I apologize, I must have missed that and just would have thought it would have been addressed (if not referred to) with the other reply.  I got it now, no preferential treatment will be given to contestants especially if they are a sponsor of the show.   :cheers:

I dont buy into that BS , If you don't want stones thrown or people doubting . The right thing to do would not allow contestants to be affiliated with any sponsors and vise versa .  Or Impropriety will be called every time  :Twocents:

Quote from: moparstuart on March 21, 2013, 09:28:31 AM

Quote from: resq302 on March 21, 2013, 06:59:40 AM
Ok, I apologize, I must have missed that and just would have thought it would have been addressed (if not referred to) with the other reply.  I got it now, no preferential treatment will be given to contestants especially if they are a sponsor of the show.   :cheers:

I dont buy into that BS , If you don't want stones thrown or people doubting . The right thing to do would not allow contestants to be affiliated with any sponsors and vise versa .  Or Impropriety will be called every time  :Twocents:

thats a tough one there...where do you draw the line?

...that car can't be in because the owner is a sponsor...
...that car can't be in because the restorer is a sponsor...
...that car can't be in because it has reproduction parts from a sponsor...
...that car can't be in because the previous owner was a sponsor...
...that car can't be in because the owner's wife's brother's neighbor is a sponsor....
:shruggy:

all you need is judges with integrity and none of that other stuff matters.  :2thumbs:

Quote from: richRTSE on March 21, 2013, 04:09:29 PM

Quote from: moparstuart on March 21, 2013, 09:28:31 AM

Quote from: resq302 on March 21, 2013, 06:59:40 AM
Ok, I apologize, I must have missed that and just would have thought it would have been addressed (if not referred to) with the other reply.  I got it now, no preferential treatment will be given to contestants especially if they are a sponsor of the show.   :cheers:

I dont buy into that BS , If you don't want stones thrown or people doubting . The right thing to do would not allow contestants to be affiliated with any sponsors and vise versa .  Or Impropriety will be called every time  :Twocents:

thats a tough one there...where do you draw the line?

...that car can't be in because the owner is a sponsor...
...that car can't be in because the restorer is a sponsor...
...that car can't be in because it has reproduction parts from a sponsor...
...that car can't be in because the previous owner was a sponsor...
...that car can't be in because the owner's wife's brother's neighbor is a sponsor....
:shruggy:

all you need is judges with integrity and none of that other stuff matters.  :2thumbs:

The top two on your list absolutely , the rest not so much .  

I would have to agree with Paul on this one. Gene's Daytona is the nicest Restored Daytona I have ever seen. I certainly have not seen every one out there but I would venture to say I have seen probably half of the Daytona's produced.

Geno's car was raised by the village. He was very open to let everyone in on his cars progress all along the way and wanted everyone's opinions on all areas of the car as it was progressing. And....He made the changes when there was a concensus on correctness. Very astute thinking. He even crossed countries with rubber glove wielding border guards (named Olga)....across tundra and glaciers to look at original cars.  :2thumbs:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KEBr6Otc_z8/RoW97Jc1HDI/AAAAAAAAAhQ/Zmzo36g05Cc/s320/scary%2Bnurse.jpg)

Thanks, Jim (& Danny too).  I really did set out to get as much feedback and consensus opinions as could be gathered.  No one person knows every little detail, but some guys - like Jim - have both a wealth of knowledge and the original reference examples.  I learned a whole lot from your feedback and looking at your cars.  Speaking of which...

Quote from: maxwellwedge on March 22, 2013, 08:24:59 AM
He even crossed countries with rubber glove wielding border guards (named Olga)....

That wasn't ALL she was wielding...   :o  :-X



BTW, Happy (early) Birthday, Jimbo!

Thanks Geno for reminding me!  :'(    :lol:

You put your stuff out there for the world to see (I am talking about your car......not Olga) and it culminated into a great result.

I still send kudo's to all that go the extra mile to strive for correctness at the OE level....Been there - done that....It's what I imagine child birth to be like.  :cheers:

Quote from: maxwellwedge on March 22, 2013, 09:38:49 AM
Thanks Geno for reminding me!  :'(    :lol:

You put your stuff out there for the world to see (I am talking about your car......not Olga) and it culminated into a great result.

I still send kudo's to all that go the extra mile to strive for correctness at the OE level....Been there - done that....It's what I imagine child birth to be like.  :cheers:

happy birthday  Daddy    :icon_smile_big:

I haven't posted in a long time but felt there was too much misinformation out there just to let go.

Ecs hadn't showed interest in wing cars on this board until coming on just to campaign negativity. He even posted that because my car had a title that the vin started with XS, that it wasn't a real Daytona, a rookie mistake.   When one of the 2 Daytona threads that he posts on doesn't have responses for a period, he or resq302 would post again just to keep it alive and then respond back and forth to one another even though they do talk daily or at least almost daily from what they recently posted that they do. I know when I was on good terms with ecs that he would occasionally ask me to post on his behalf too.

Just count all of the repetitive and redundant posts of the same pictures that ecs has posted, its easy to lose count and odd that would even be permitted. Look at all of the time and effort that he has spent posting pictures and replying with the same stuff over and over again, it makes it hard to hide your motive.

In regards to all of the "truths" posted by ecs
The "truths" that he posts, are his version, half truths, assumptions, all with an obvious agenda
to harm, harass, devalue, lessen, hound and stalk myself, my car, mike mancini, magazine editors, judges and whoever else he may have issue with at the time, which is anyone that challenges his views.

He had his "truth" about my car having been disassembled and sold as a regular charger, with no proof.

He also had his "truth" about all aar and t/a cars having to been driven 500 miles prior to delivery, and had many of his "truths" to back that up, which of course was proven untrue.

He also had his "truth" that he made 2 new build sheet copies for me,
When I showed pictures of them along with 2 old ones, his new "truth" changed to say he had made 4 or more.
Then he showed another new "truth" of how my original wasn't real because of the spacing of some wording on it. He was proved wrong on that as other examples were shown that were the same. He then came up with a new "truth" that the location of the lettering wasn't correct.
Disputing with him is like a dog chasing his tail.

Do you start to see the pattern that when his "truths" are questioned, he comes up with new "truths" to fit his needs and agenda

Funny, Paul Jacobs didn't want to have anything to do with ecs because he went through the ire of ecs a few years ago, but when ecs heard that paul was restoring johns car for last years oe, ecs felt the need to make amends with paul so he would have more on his side when he started to spew his latest hate campaign. Too bad paul fell for it because in a moment, he could be on the bad side of ecs again.

ecs feels he has his reasons, but the vast majority of them fall into his wrongful assumptions.
He accused me of saying negative things to the oe judges about his car/cars, that's untrue, I never met or spoke to any of the oe judges prior to meeting Keith at the 2012 nats.

In reference to his positive cable on the challenger. I first asked ecs about it, my point was that I felt it was a later service cable, ecs told me that he got it from frank mitchell and it was nos, after ecs and I spoke,  I was looking at the engine compartment when Rick Ehrenberg asked what I saw and I told him the same thing I had said to ecs. Rick had also asked me if something else that he pointed out may have been incorrect, and I told him no, that it was correct. The other thing that ecs is referring to is my erroneous answer when I was asked about the vc gasket on his valiant. I wrongfully answered that I didn't believe rubber valve cover gaskets were correct, I was wrong and shouldn't have answered as I had never researched a 225 engine. Ecs's cars are great/excellent top restorations.

I also supplied him with some rare parts he needed (as he supplied some of his products to me), and went to bat for him publicly when he had some judging issues. But you don't hear about any of the good stuff.

In nov of 2011 Ecs and I had a 3+ hour conversation, I apologized to him about what I had said about his vc gasket, and we had what I felt was a good and productive conversation. We had kept in regular contact and despite his issue with mike mancini, who he had said his problem wasn't with mike, but with the oe judging and mike was just "collateral damage", we were on what ecs led me to believe were good and friendly terms.  Then in June of 2012 he starting posting all of his fabricated stories and the pictures that I had taken. I can only guess that he was leading me on the whole time and just waiting for the time to get closer to the nats when he felt his wrath would do the most harm.

In regards to the mcacn judging.
I wasn't at my car when it was being judged, so it was impossible for me to have been "following the judge around" as was stated prior. I was called when the judge was almost finished to answer a question. The question the judge had was that he felt daytonas shouldn't have organisol paint on the rear body panel. I told him that it should and I asked what did he see on the other daytonas? He said he hadn't gotten to them yet. He suggested that WE look at the other daytonas there, I said ok, but warned him while looking at restored cars wont always give you the correct answer depending on how correctly the car was restored. So WE looked at other cars there and I told him why don't we look at Malcolm's car as that car is unrestored and wouldn't have been subject to a restoration. After looking at the other cars and Malcolm's he agreed that organisol was correct. I don't think any of the other owners would have acted differently. Although I was painted to look like I was following the judge around while my car was judged,  another untruth.

In regards to the mcacn score. My score also changed after it was signed off on. And it too was reduced. A 1000 point total was signed off on when the judges left my car.
Afterwards, bill braun, the head judge called for me to talk with him. He told me that because he took so much flak after a car scored 1000 points a few years ago, that he will no longer allow a car to get a 1000 point score and took a point off of my total and had it signed off on.
I never complained about that or made any issue out of it, I just did mention it to bob ashton only after it was brought up in this thread. I told the same story to the mopar action writer and he felt since the car was signed off on 1000 points then had a phantom point removed, that he would go with the 1000 point reference in the story.

In reference to the tires that ecs OFFERED to me. I DID want them when I thought they were polyglas tread, not speedway tread. Once I found out that they weren't the correct tread for a Daytona I was no longer interested. The 1 owner coronet at the nationals with the speedway tread spare is correct for a coronet as they weren't built at Hamtramck where polyglas and firestone 14" redlines were used.

In reference to the rot hole on the original drivers door to my car. That door hasn't been on the car since about 1975. Remember in all of the magazine stories on my car, it mentioned how the car was hit in the drivers door?  The door was replaced with another door by the brothers that owned it, and it doesn't/didn't have any rot. The original door was stored in the garage where the car was, and mice had a mouse house in that corner of the door that caused the rot hole. That door wasn't used, the replacement door is still on the car and I still have the original door.

Ecs also mentioned how we were having a celebration of some sorts at the nats but that we were disappointed after the awards or judging. I have no idea what he's referring to, zero. He wasn't even at the nats this year?  Makes you wonder who is fueling the fire. I was very pleased that my car was awarded a gold. I also congratulated john and gene on their accomplishments.  I said prior to the event, my only hope was that the car would earn oe gold, it did, I'm very happy it did.

Just to make a point of how little I'm concerned with the judging, I left Sunday morning prior to the award ceremony at the mcacn event.

contd

Before the judging sheets from the nats were released, I had mentioned to paul Jacobs that since the oe judging is so vague and very unspecific that I would consider having my car rejudged when he was running the judging since he plans to be more interactive with the owner. He replied to me that my car wouldn't really get a different point score, I said I wasn't concerned with the score as much as what the shortcomings were so if I deemed them important enough, I would correct them. The point of that is how did paul already know what score my car got and what the deductions were for?? I still don't know what the majority of the deductions were for, I'm still wondering about that.

Paul also had told me that him and gene checked out the tire dates on my car. Of course the tire dates are on the back side of the tires, perhaps that's when the pics of the undercarriage and wheels/tires of my car were taken and forwarded to ecs, since ecs wasn't at the nationals to take the pics himself. At one point I told gene that it was fine with me if he took some pics of my car. I found it odd that he placed his camera at the front of the RH valve cover and pointed towards the RF hood pin pocket area and took some pics of that area amongst other areas. I realized why when ecs posted that he felt my car had improper paint coverage in the hood bumper pocket area. So I guess ecs is being sanctioned by gene, which explains why a member is permitted to post here only for the means to start trouble.

In reference to what was posted here about mopar action writing stuff not to their liking, do you think it may have something to do with the magazine being threatened with legal action and that possibly rubbed somebody the wrong way??   John told me that his mcg story wasn't exactly what it was supposed to have been. Anyone that has had their cars in magazines know the story isn't always exact, as some embellishing and sensationalizing for the sake of a better story takes place.
In regards to the mopar action story with the reference to the rot in the rear interior floor pans, it was told to all 3 publications, but they pick and choose what they want to print, mopar actions story was really the first of the 3 magazine stories that was initiated and the mention of the floor rot was in there from the beginning, due to space limitations in the magazine and being that they are a bimonthly publication the story didn't go to print til after the mcacn show, and that's why there was mention of those results in the story.

Have at it, I wont be part of a back and forth

Thank you

Quote from: TONY on March 22, 2013, 10:57:32 AM
Paul also had told me that him and gene checked out the tire dates on my car. Of course the tire dates are on the back side of the tires, perhaps that's when the pics of the undercarriage and wheels/tires of my car were taken and forwarded to ecs, since ecs wasn't at the nationals to take the pics himself. At one point I told gene that it was fine with me if he took some pics of my car.

Are you REALLY that paranoid and clueless about people passing around pictures of your car Tony?  Every photo posted of your "undercarriage" is on the internet and in the magazines for the World to see.  Your editor posted them.  Didn't you know that?  The incorrect "double wheel weight" picture was taken from the 2012 Nationals video that was distributed by FIVE STAR productions.  No one "forwarded" those pictures to me.  Here is the Mopar Action link showing the "tires" that you referenced.  Scroll through and see them for yourself. 15 photos down from the top. :2thumbs:

http://www.moparaction.com/Article/LORD_OF_THE_WINGS/LORD_OF_THE_WINGS.html

Since some of you have taken a liking to my rap name, here's a lil beat.....


(in rapping voice)

yo, yo, yo, yo!
I'm Grand Master B,
I'm here to make ya see,
that I'm all for the hobby,
here's what Im bout to lobby,
no matter what car,
neither here, nor too far,
ill care 'bout your ride,
as long as its bonafide! (TRUE!)

don't care for manipulation,
im here for verification!
cause of my occupation,
theres no deliberation!  (boy!)
you better watch out you scammers,
cause we're 'bout to drop the hammer!
Cause all ya gotta be is TRUE!
and thats why Mopars RULE! (WORD!)    :coolgleamA:


written and (badly) sung by Grand master B
aka - Brian  - Resq302

Quote from: TONY on March 22, 2013, 10:57:32 AM
.....the rot in the rear interior floor pans, it was told to all 3 publications, but they pick and choose what they want to print.....

Really?!  Is that how they did it?  They just coincidently wrote detailed observations about the same inaccuracies?  Hmmmmm....   :smilielol:

(http://ecsautomotive.com/other/2012/12-27/01.jpg)