Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate your taking the time to respond. You have always been very helpful and approachable. I have learned a great deal from you. Not only do I respect you, but I value your friendship.
You indicated that I probably do not understand Thoroughbred standards. I totally understand Thoroughbred standards as defined in the MCA rules. More importantly I thoroughly understand how a fair judging process should work. This especially applies to knowledge of proper weighting of deductions. This comes from personal experience which includes earning, not winning over the years:
(3) MCA Concours Gold Trailered Awards
(1) MCA Concours Gold Driven Award
(1) SAAC Division I Concours Gold Award
8 NCRS Duntov Awards (Highest possible award available in Corvette world)
8 NCRS Performance Verification Awards
(61) NCRS Top Flight Awards
(24) Bloomington Gold Certifications
(20) Corvette Expo and MCACN Triple Crown Awards
(16) MCACN Gold Concours awards scoring at least 990 plus out of 1,000
Vintage Chevrolet Club of America Best V-8 Car shown in 2010
Amelia Island Concours Class Winner
(3) Winter Park Concours Class Winner Awards
(3) large boxes of AACA Junior, Senior, and Grand National trophies
(11) Classic Chevy Winter Nationals Platinum Awards
Best Restored GTO at GTO Nationals
(2) Gold Concours Awards – GTO Nationals
Yes there should be orange peel in the paint. I have no idea if my car has enough, but I accepted the required deduction. Given my cars past ownership and preparation I would be surprised if it did not exhibit adequate orange peel The paint deduction was the only deduction properly weighted so I did not raise paint as an issue with the judging. Yes, there is a small repair on the underside of the hood which represents less than 5% of the hood. Why would I lose 50% of available points for this? Yes, the 50 year old exhaust has some minor patina. Losing 25% of the total exhaust system for workmanship seemed really excessive to me. You did not address any of the other questionable calls.
You mentioned the standard. Mine is as delivered. Yours is as ordered. Either way the cars were poorly built and q tips were only used for ears in 1967. The standard should not be any better than what the cars were.
At the risk of being confrontational (which very few people who know me would describe me as such) you say in your opinion the car was judged correctly to Thoroughbred standards at St. Augustine. Interesting comment that is very hard to back up since not only were you not at St Augustine but you have spent very little time looking at my car. Further since you last viewed the car all items discussed at MCACN were resolved. Further Ed Myer completed a comprehensive inspection and Orlando Mustang attacked every item he raised. They show detailed every surface of the car just prior to the show. It was immediately loaded in my trailer and delivered to St. Augustine. It was locked, loaded, and ready for judging.
I had a great experience at SAAC. Judging was very tough, but it was fair and deductions were fairly weighted. The judges were friendly and took time after judging to explain any problem areas they found. What more could a participant ask. I definitely plan on going back to SAAC assuming the judging continues to be conducted in a similar manner. It is scary though with all of the changes going on at SAAC. I sure hope MCA attitudes and methods do not creep into SAAC. MCA could learn a great deal from SAAC on how judging should be done especially weighting of deductions. One thing for sure though is I will not going back to MCA events. Who needs that aggravation?