[TR] VTR judging (was Re: Convention agenda)

[Anthony Rhodes]

Mike, I couldn't agree with you more.  The VTR judging is very different from
the AACA rules AFAIK.  AACA scores an original part very highly, and obviously
repro parts are scored rather low.  Patina is OK, even great!.  Grime, not so
OK.

I had a particular bee in my bonnet about judging of my interior on my 4A.  It
is all original.  That means that there are a couple of crazes in the
"varnish" of the walnut dashboard.  The leather seats have some surface
cracking.  The carpets are not faded or threabare.  Repro seats look better,
but they ALL have the piping in the wrong position and the foams have the
wrong shape (too square instead of rounded).  I saw other cars with pretty but
inaccurate repros get higher points than me (in '07).  Whereas in '04, the
judges did not give me downgraded points for some visible age, when they are
clearly original parts.

-Tony




>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:04:08 -0400
>From: Michael Burdick <salty1249y at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [TR] Convention agenda
>To: triumphs at autox.team.net
>Message-ID:
><AANLkTinmctjoqdFtxjKJ5teASQ3Qed5n9bUAhBRfy_q4 at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>I think that's what the rules say, but:  I got 20-some points deducted at
>Jekyll on the engine bay section of the judging form for what I can only
>assume was because of road grime.  I say "can only assume" because
>everything in there is original to the car, just showing 55,000 miles and 38
>years of wear and tear.*  It seems to me that the focus in concours judging
>has shifted from preservation of original cars, to recreation of original
>cars.  A judge told me the standard that they were comparing the entrants to
>was a car sitting on the dealer's floor back in the day - i.e. undriven and
>clean as a whistle.  I guess the clean as a whistle part is doable with a
>car that is regularly driven (just takes elbow grease), but worn original
>parts, even hoses or trim parts (like a top), don't pass muster, so unused
>NOS or reproduction parts are judged higher.  The irony to me was that they
>didn't seem to give much weight to the accuracy of reproduction parts.  If a
>part is inaccurate is all that is available now, it is ok to use.  At least
>that's the gist of some of the discussion I heard during the judging.
>
>I'm not griping, these are just my reflections after my first foray into
>concours - up till now, I've been doing Participants' Choice (3 past VTRs).
> Not sure what I'll do at the next one I attend...
>
>Mike Burdick
>Durham, NC