Author Topic: Concours judging concensious question  (Read 852 times)

Offline Bob Gaines

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4406
Concours judging concensious question
« on: December 08, 2017, 08:47:51 PM »
I am interested in what my peers think about what is expected in regards to Concours Trailered at MCA , SAAC DIV II or even Heritage class at Mid America Shelby. I am under the impression that all three have the same expectations in this regard that I want to pose a question about. The question is one in general as it relates to all Mustang's and Shelby's.  I am wondering the consensus of how relevant a engineering number is for this class on a part given the shape and finish are consistent with assemblyline look?  Are there parts that should be treated differently in this regard and if so why?
Bob Gaines,Shelby enthusiast, Shelby collector , Shelby concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby

Offline caspian65

  • Charles Turner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5931
Re: Concours judging concensious question
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2017, 10:23:10 PM »
A lot of parts, by default, should have period correct engineering numbers, otherwise there would be obvious design differences.

An example might be an aluminum water pump for a '65.  The later alternator V8 cars usually had the C5AE-C engineering number, although Ford serviced a nearly identical pump with a -D.  There is a very subtle design difference in the casing(usually).  I'd have a hard time deducting for a -D marked pump in a concours trailer/Div 2 class.  It would definitely be something worth mentioning as an improvement item though.  It would have to be at least some kind of deduction for T-bred/Div.  Especially considering that any -D pump would most likely not have a period correct date code anyway.

There aren't a whole lot of other items that come to mind with engineering numbers... radiators, exhaust manifolds, transmissions, motor mount insulators, exhaust pipes/muffler, some suspension parts like rubber boots, shocks...
Charles Turner - MCA/SAAC Judge
Concours Mustang Forum Admin

Offline Bob Gaines

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4406
Re: Concours judging concensious question
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2017, 10:49:48 PM »
A lot of parts, by default, should have period correct engineering numbers, otherwise there would be obvious design differences.

An example might be an aluminum water pump for a '65.  The later alternator V8 cars usually had the C5AE-C engineering number, although Ford serviced a nearly identical pump with a -D.  There is a very subtle design difference in the casing(usually).  I'd have a hard time deducting for a -D marked pump in a concours trailer/Div 2 class.  It would definitely be something worth mentioning as an improvement item though.  It would have to be at least some kind of deduction for T-bred/Div.  Especially considering that any -D pump would most likely not have a period correct date code anyway.

There aren't a whole lot of other items that come to mind with engineering numbers... radiators, exhaust manifolds, transmissions, motor mount insulators, exhaust pipes/muffler, some suspension parts like rubber boots, shocks...
Those are quite a few. C4 and C7 control arm boots appear the same but of course different number . Would a C7 boot that looks the same as a C4 boot be worthy of a deduction in trailered concours and if so why?
Bob Gaines,Shelby enthusiast, Shelby collector , Shelby concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby

Offline caspian65

  • Charles Turner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5931
Re: Concours judging concensious question
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2017, 11:06:42 PM »
Those are quite a few. C4 and C7 control arm boots appear the same but of course different number . Would a C7 boot that looks the same as a C4 boot be worthy of a deduction in trailered concours and if so why?

My opinion is for concours trailer class/Div 2, that would not be worth a point deduction and should be at most an improvement item comment on the judging sheet.  On a T-bred/Div 1 car, I would expect the correct engineering number.

There has to be concessions for trailer concours, otherwise the class is the same as t-bred.

Charles Turner - MCA/SAAC Judge
Concours Mustang Forum Admin

Offline Bob Gaines

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4406
Re: Concours judging concensious question
« Reply #4 on: December 08, 2017, 11:16:49 PM »
My opinion is for concours trailer class/Div 2, that would not be worth a point deduction and should be at most an improvement item comment on the judging sheet.  On a T-bred/Div 1 car, I would expect the correct engineering number.

There has to be concessions for trailer concours, otherwise the class is the same as t-bred.
would the same thing apply In your mind for shocks given that some OEM shocks appear the same shape and detail as assemblyline when painted properly?
Bob Gaines,Shelby enthusiast, Shelby collector , Shelby concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby

Offline caspian65

  • Charles Turner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5931
Re: Concours judging concensious question
« Reply #5 on: December 08, 2017, 11:59:52 PM »
would the same thing apply In your mind for shocks given that some OEM shocks appear the same shape and detail as assemblyline when painted properly?

For shocks that are otherwise identical in design and appearance, I could overlook whether or not they were the correct engineering number.  Again, a perfect opportunity to give a comment for improvement on the judging sheets.
Charles Turner - MCA/SAAC Judge
Concours Mustang Forum Admin

Offline J_Speegle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14768
Re: Concours judging concensious question
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2017, 12:04:23 AM »
Depends. engineering number are often used to determine things on the first sheets such as is the engine, transmission correct for the car since no one wants to give a top trophy to a car with the wrong engine or trans in the car even though the appear similar to most bystanders.

As for general parts that make up the car and are covered in the judging sections of the sheets if depends on the parts up to this point. On some we've always instructed owners and judges that if you don't see the engineering numbers then they get a pass (example shocks) but if they have incorrect markings then you can deduct since they are visible different from the originals and that is the focus and goal of the classes. I don't think we've been faced with many examples of cast items or others being marked differently than what was original but I've always seen judges deduct for C7 (for example) parts on a 65 for example or for example the incorrect

If the wrong engineering number is ok then is a Motorcraft marked part different than an Autolite marked one?  Lets say on the distributor or the alternator. Since the engineering number is no less visible than the makers (in this example) marks.

If I have a starter with the engineering number stamped into the housing or with an Autolite ink stamp on it is that as correct or original as one marked with the correct FoMoCo. And if so how are we rewarding the owner/builder that got it correct, maybe not once but twenty times on his car compared to the other car with the differences. What good does it do for the people who spend their time and effort to reproduce and make available the correct parts or spend the time searching out the right ones?

Now if your limiting the discussion to minor details such as the exact same part but one is a -C and the other is a -D then we have a slightly different discussion and of course on a graduated scale and point deduction system were then talking about percentages that are much smaller than in other wore incorrect details.

You asked  :)
Jeff Speegle

Anything worth doing is worth doing concours ;)

Offline Bob Gaines

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4406
Re: Concours judging concensious question
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2017, 12:27:59 AM »
So what about fuel pumps flange number wise ? hipo vs no hipo number ? Cobra jet vs multi BB application number? Would there be a deduction for incorrect flange number where every other aspect is correct? As per the thread Trailered Concours not Thoroughbred criteria .   
Bob Gaines,Shelby enthusiast, Shelby collector , Shelby concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby

Offline J_Speegle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14768
Re: Concours judging concensious question
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2017, 12:47:17 AM »
So what about fuel pumps flange number wise ? hipo vs no hipo number ? Cobra jet vs multi BB application number? Would there be a deduction for incorrect flange number where every other aspect is correct? As per the thread Trailered Concours not Thoroughbred criteria .

In the case of the flange engineering numbers our past practices would depend on what organization since there are limitations placed on us because of the structure and rules. but in either case if checked on all the cars within the class then there may or may not be a deduction. Normally a note would be made and since the "value" of that detail does not reach the 51% of a point on some sheets or 25% in that section on another set of sheets. If not it's left to be considered with other minor details that did not meet the threshold in the last section of the main section, that way consideration and benefit is given to the owner/builder/car that didn't have these less than correct parts.

We all know every car that wins the top award has shortcomings but any of them rarely, on their own, will cost a car the award. More often it is a collection of incorrect parts, processes, and choices that produce a lesser outcome. Its often an unrelated larger thing or a large group of minor things that in total cost cars an award level.

Think paying attention to details, notating them and deducting for them (though very lightly in most cases) when appropriate is the only way to be fair without ignoring a defect,  creating a slippery slop that lowers the standards and expections while still rewarding effort as well as focus on originality and celebrating the accomplishments of those that get it right.  And lastly its just fair.



« Last Edit: December 09, 2017, 12:55:40 AM by J_Speegle »
Jeff Speegle

Anything worth doing is worth doing concours ;)

Offline caspian65

  • Charles Turner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5931
Re: Concours judging concensious question
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2017, 12:58:28 AM »
It's definitely a gray area and we could all benefit from more concise guidelines/expectations for each judging class.

Charles Turner - MCA/SAAC Judge
Concours Mustang Forum Admin

Offline caspian65

  • Charles Turner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5931
Re: Concours judging concensious question
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2017, 01:05:13 AM »
Think paying attention to details, notating them and deducting for them (though very lightly in most cases) when appropriate is the only way to be fair without ignoring a defect,  creating a slippery slop that lowers the standards and expections while still rewarding effort as well as focus on originality and celebrating the accomplishments of those that get it right.  And lastly its just fair.

The key here is to know precisely what the boundaries are for each judging class, only then can we more effectively reward effort where it's due.

For instance, a '65 hipo with a fuel pump that's exact in every detail except it's not a 3939S.  If we say that for concours trailer/Div 2 class that the stamped number is not factored into the judging, then the car with a 3939S or one with a 3911S get the same credit/points.  We can't factor in 'reward' for the owner with the 3939S if it's not applicable to the guidelines set forth.
Charles Turner - MCA/SAAC Judge
Concours Mustang Forum Admin

Offline Bob Gaines

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4406
Re: Concours judging concensious question
« Reply #11 on: December 09, 2017, 01:32:00 AM »
The key here is to know precisely what the boundaries are for each judging class, only then can we more effectively reward effort where it's due.

For instance, a '65 hipo with a fuel pump that's exact in every detail except it's not a 3939S.  If we say that for concours trailer/Div 2 class that the stamped number is not factored into the judging, then the car with a 3939S or one with a 3911S get the same credit/points.  We can't factor in 'reward' for the owner with the 3939S if it's not applicable to the guidelines set forth.
The same thing can be said for the entrant of a car in trailered concours that choose to show it with original tires instead of the more common re issue tires. Although nice I don't think it is up to venue to reward someone who goes above and beyond the established guidelines for a given class. That is what the next class up is for. Maybe encourage them to enter into the next class up.
Bob Gaines,Shelby enthusiast, Shelby collector , Shelby concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby

Offline Bob Gaines

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4406
Re: Concours judging concensious question
« Reply #12 on: December 09, 2017, 01:36:45 AM »
It's definitely a gray area and we could all benefit from more concise guidelines/expectations for each judging class.
I believe we are giving mixed signals unless we are all on the same page. And speaking of the same page the details need to be spelled out so entrants know what to expect. 
Bob Gaines,Shelby enthusiast, Shelby collector , Shelby concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby

Offline J_Speegle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14768
Re: Concours judging concensious question
« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2017, 02:04:25 AM »
The key here is to know precisely what the boundaries are for each judging class, only then can we more effectively reward effort where it's due.

For instance, a '65 hipo with a fuel pump that's exact in every detail except it's not a 3939S.  If we say that for concours trailer/Div 2 class that the stamped number is not factored into the judging, then the car with a 3939S or one with a 3911S get the same credit/points.  We can't factor in 'reward' for the owner with the 3939S if it's not applicable to the guidelines set forth.

Agreed not suggesting extra points and rewards for owners/builders choosing to do extra things like we do in other classes.


Playing devils advocate with the engineering number part of the discussion. Where are the guidelines related to engineering numbers stated?  Don't recall a reference to engineering numbers but instead dates.

And I would guess that, trying to be consistent, as it is been posed judges would ignore a

- large C9OE-xxxxx engineering number on the top of an intake installed on a 65 if all other details (painted engine color, provisions for senders, brackets and so on being the same) on a 66
- an air cleaner service sticker calling out a different filter 
- a D2 starter solenoid in place of a C7 version
- a non Carlite window  or windshield
- a Midas stamped muffler if it matched the size, shape and material as a Fuller or original   

Would each be ok and overlooked? Since I can recall where we've deducted for most of these when we've judged together. :) Other than the intake example. Sure there are more.

I believe we are giving mixed signals unless we are all on the same page. And speaking of the same page the details need to be spelled out so entrants know what to expect.

Trying to think of an example or time when this came up or was in play when we have judged - example you wanting to ignore a C8ZZ fuel sender on a 65 for example. 

Not sure of what mixed signals your referring to?  If we go back to your original question I think we're pretty close - either they get over looked (not noticed) or they are a very very small detail when weighed against all the other details. Might be as close as you can get and us all still being humans

Almost all or all of the questions we respond to in helping out entrants normally seem to focus on what is correct for the cars not what "I" can get by with. When referring to what to expect in judging (other than the areas where there is a range of acceptable details as there were originally) its always been best IMHO to focus on how the cars were originally built, if the part is not available or is in poor condition prepare the owner/builder that if seen, there might be a deduction. This has been supported and improved (from the point of the entrant) by the teaching of the weighted point deduction practice over the older "light switch" practice when an imbalance of points were deducted or ignored. 
« Last Edit: December 09, 2017, 02:13:48 AM by J_Speegle »
Jeff Speegle

Anything worth doing is worth doing concours ;)

Offline Bob Gaines

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4406
Re: Concours judging concensious question
« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2017, 02:36:46 AM »
In the case of the flange engineering numbers our past practices would depend on what organization since there are limitations placed on us because of the structure and rules. but in either case if checked on all the cars within the class then there may or may not be a deduction. Normally a note would be made and since the "value" of that detail does not reach the 51% of a point on some sheets or 25% in that section on another set of sheets. If not it's left to be considered with other minor details that did not meet the threshold in the last section of the main section, that way consideration and benefit is given to the owner/builder/car that didn't have these less than correct parts.

We all know every car that wins the top award has shortcomings but any of them rarely, on their own, will cost a car the award. More often it is a collection of incorrect parts, processes, and choices that produce a lesser outcome. Its often an unrelated larger thing or a large group of minor things that in total cost cars an award level.

Think paying attention to details, notating them and deducting for them (though very lightly in most cases) when appropriate is the only way to be fair without ignoring a defect,  creating a slippery slop that lowers the standards and expections while still rewarding effort as well as focus on originality and celebrating the accomplishments of those that get it right.  And lastly its just fair.
In the case of the flange engineering numbers our past practices would depend on what organization since there are limitations placed on us because of the structure and rules. I am not aware of what limitations are placed on us can you elaborate? I cant remember the last time I checked a flange number in a Trailered class or given any direction to do so by the concours head. If you are talking about deduction value of something like a incorrect flange number the only limitation is to give any deduction for this particular infraction at all given there is nothing written that says it is appropriate .  We all know every car that wins the top award has shortcomings but any of them rarely, on their own, will cost a car the award. More often it is a collection of incorrect parts, processes, and choices that produce a lesser outcome. Its often an unrelated larger thing or a large group of minor things that in total cost cars an award level. The question is how the shortcomings are perceived. As long as the shape and finish are achieved isn't expecting a correct engineering number and deducting for if not present being heavy handed given there is nothing in the guidelines/rules that designates there to be ?  If engineering numbers are expected along with the other criteria there is not much separating trailered from thoroughbred it seems. I know we are all going in basically the same direction but from these comments I can see we are on slightly different paths to get to the end . I for one choose not judge wrong engineering numbers as long as all of the other criteria for the part is met. In the case of the control arm as long as the boot looks the way it is supposed to the engineering number is not considered . Same goes for other suspension parts like leaf springs as long as correct shape and finish I don't see any reason to consider the engineering number. Idler arm has distinct assemblyline look and as long as that look is achieved I don't consider the FOMOCO stamp or engineering number. Same goes for tie rods. Many times the bottom tie rod cover will have a aftermarket stamped marking which as long as the tie rod and boot look correct I overlook the mfg marking or if it has a 'B" or not as in the later 67 up models . Radiators I am more concerned that it is the correct capacity width ,finish ,side straps and if DEP or WMO radiator. The stamping or tag is secondary although something needs to be there given different marking determine plant usage IMO.  In the case of the starter if it is a late 67 (changeover is foggy) on up it should have a metal stamp instead of a Autolite or Fomoco ink stamp but I don't consider the engineering number on ether. They just have to be correct type for period. Same goes for the alternator as long as the case ,condition of case and wiring is correct and as long as it has the correct color of stamp (except metal stamped 69 alts)  I don't judge the engineering number. These are just some examples of my point of view on particular items there are many more but you get the idea. I think the engineering number and deducting if it isn't there or is incorrect is heavy handed given all other part criteria is achieved. Expecting the correct engineering numbers is a slippery slop toward less reproduction allowed and  too much like thoroughbred expectations which will discourage participation and not encourage it IMO. These are also just my opinions and I respect others opinion too even if I don't always agree.   The shape and the finish is most important to preserve historic look IMO and the engineering number is secondary IN THIS CLASS ONLY.       
Bob Gaines,Shelby enthusiast, Shelby collector , Shelby concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby