How would this be judged in Blue Ribbon?

[Gary Karr]

I got my NOS early '28 fan shroud down from the attic yesterday to strip and paint it and noticed a run plus a glob of something in the original paint. I have also seen runs in paint on NOS fenders and wheels. How would these be judged in high point blue ribbon judging? I hope to finish the car with no runs in my paint but it made me think about over restored restorations. Any thoughts?

 

[Jim Mason]

I've only judged undercarriage so take this for what it's worth. If there weren't any other defects (rub thru spots, scratched etc) and it was obvious NOS I wouldn't take off any points for runs. I would take off for the schmutz in the paint, scratches, and rub thru. If it were me, I'd re-finish and be as defect free as possible with going overboard. The shroud was dipped and dried, not buffed and polished. I have NOS fenders that I'm going to hate to strip, but I'm in the same boat...fwiw,jm

 

[Steve Ciccalone]

Gary, likewise I have two of these shrouds, NOS, as well as fenders, shields, wheels, etc that have the runs made after being dipped and hung. IMHO, I don't think they should be docked but unfortunately they will be. Obviously it doesn't affect original cars in fine point but a restored car would lose in the "workmanship" section of the scoring sheets.

Frankly, if a new Model A could be brought through a time machine and showed today, it probably wouldn't get 500 points in Touring, much less fine point, as there wouldn't be any "patina."

 

[john charlton]

You got me thinking so I looked at a shroud I have and it too has runs where it had " drip dried" It is surprising how very thin the paint is and no undercoat .It has no wire clips and a channel across the bottom.

John in warm cloudy evening England

 

[Roger V]

I wouldn't dock any points if it looked like it was at a drip point from being dipped and hung on a conveyor. If it was from spraying too heavy and not at a drip point, than I would deduct.

 

[Jerry Parr WI]

Although I agree with not deducting for a run in NOS dipped parts you must also consider that it is possible to have one with no run. Since it was not the factory intention to create runs one without them could easily exist and should reasonably score better. Shelf wear will almost always necessitate refinishing so it's probably not a big issue.

 

[John LaVoy]

It is interesting how the appearance of the parts as the were produced doesn't play into what we want in restoration, but in other judging like 60s cars it does. They duplicate the overspray etc to make it as it came out of the factory. Maybe we should start deducting points for over restoration if the fenders etc are not dipped in paint and hung up to dry!

 

[Roger V]

This point has been on my mind for some time as I'm doing a 1930 Pickup for fine-point judging. I would like to paint the underside of the bed concentrating on the sheetmetal BUT with overspray going on the treated wood adjacent to the edge of the sheetmetal. Everyone I've seen has the wood masked off as if the wood was installed after painting. Ford would not have done that on an underside and yet some/most judges may/will deduct either out of tradition or lack of knowing.

 

[Jim Mason]

. Maybe we should start deducting points for over restoration if the fenders etc are not dipped in paint and hung up to dry!

I would have no trouble with this suggestion. Currently the standards read in the sheet metal section "Do not judge the paint finish" and "All sheet metal character lines, such as edges, mouldings,draw marks, and creases, shall be evident and identical to the original." In the paint and stripe section reads "The paint surfaces must be smooth, free of runs, ripples, blisters, body filler work, orange peel and other blemishes. Paint finishes should simulate the original color, texture and sheen"
So as it stands now, runs aren't allowed but the spot welds on the fender tails should show through the pain. If this were changed to allow or require the runs on the undersides of the fenders, on the wheels etc. it would be 'more correct' imo...fwiw,jm

 

[Steve Ciccalone]

I judged undercarriage at French Lick this year. Some vehicles had deductions for over restoration of the body pans, they were as shiny as the body. The latest revision of the Paint Guide states something to the effect that little or no effort was made to paint the underside of the body but it may be done so in the interests of preservation. If for example a base/clear paint is used, the clear on the underside should be mixed so as to reduce the gloss, same as internal body panels that were not rubbed out.

I've actually been thinking about doing an all black car for fine point with enamel fenders and a nitrocellulose body. Obviously, the two blacks would be different but this is the way an original car would have looked. I'm wondering how well that would play.

 

[Jim Mason]

I do know that the gloss on the undercarriage wasn't judged for several MARC meets. We did deduct for lack of draw marks, etc. IMO there should be at least three levels of sheen (gloss, whatever) on the under carriage and manufacturing process marks should show. I like a more flat finish than most on the frame. I've always felt bad when a well restored undercarriage gets covered up with a body.
Steve, since the undercarriage is judged separate from the body/fenders you should do very good with the paint idea you have.

 

[Marco Tahtaras]

So as it stands now, runs aren't allowed but the spot welds on the fender tails should show through the paint. If this were changed to allow or require the runs on the undersides of the fenders, on the wheels etc. it would be 'more correct' imo...fwiw,jm

Talk about opening a can of worms! With the newer crop of judges added to the roles over the last 15-20 years we have a tough enough time teaching them to be able to identify repro from original in many cases (even simple stuff). Can you imagine trying to educate both judges and restorers alike the difference between a factory type paint run pattern from a random sag? Not a chance!!!

With that said, I think I could include several such details and present it in such a manner that I would receive no deductions 85% of the time.

Frankly, if a new Model A could be brought through a time machine and showed today, it probably wouldn't get 500 points in Touring, much less fine point, as there wouldn't be any "patina."

I've heard that many times over the years and totally disagree with the tenor of the statement. True, the judging would need to be highly focused and it may actually fare better in blue ribbon. There would undoubtedly be errors in judging that would likely preclude it from receiving a perfect score. In any case just look at the scores you've received with your unrestored cars. I believe most folks totally underestimate the impact a truly new Model A would make.

 

[Jim Mason]

"This point has been on my mind for some time as I'm doing a 1930 Pickup for fine-point judging. I would like to paint the underside of the bed concentrating on the sheetmetal BUT with overspray going on the treated wood adjacent to the edge of the sheetmetal. Everyone I've seen has the wood masked off as if the wood was installed after painting. Ford would not have done that on an underside and yet some/most judges may/will deduct either out of tradition or lack of knowing."


Ive always taken the paint/assembly process as dull black preservative finish on the wood. Paint the bed. install the wood. Paint the inside of the bed to make the wood body color. At least how I interpret the paint and finish guide. could be wrong...fwiw,jm

 

[Jim Mason]

Talk about opening a can of worms! With the newer crop of judges added to the roles over the last 15-20 years we have a tough enough time teaching them to be able to identify repro from original in many cases (even simple stuff). Can you imagine trying to educate both judges and restorers alike the difference between a factory type paint run pattern from a random sag? Not a chance!!!

I would certainly agree with that. Pointing out modern v original hardware is a hard enough. "I" wouldn't have a problem with it being in the standards...judging it that would be different. BTW, have you looked at the new 21" goodyears? Is this the late tread pattern? Also am I remembering the the tread pattern changed in late 29?

 

[J Franklin]

Goodyear had many different tread patterns in the 20's & 30's, just as they do today. The tread seen on the modern Insa-Premier tire, as odd as it is, was an actual tire brand pattern in the 30's.

 

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

I judged undercarriage at French Lick this year. Some vehicles had deductions for over restoration of the body pans, they were as shiny as the body. The latest revision of the Paint Guide states something to the effect that little or no effort was made to paint the underside of the body but it may be done so in the interests of preservation. If for example a base/clear paint is used, the clear on the underside should be mixed so as to reduce the gloss, same as internal body panels that were not rubbed out.

I've actually been thinking about doing an all black car for fine point with enamel fenders and a nitrocellulose body. Obviously, the two blacks would be different but this is the way an original car would have looked. I'm wondering how well that would play.

WOW, let me muddy up the waters even more!!

Steve, adding to your thoughts, ....this year one of the vehicles I had in fine-point was incorrectly scored as having a powdercoated frame --which it did not (see images below!). Ironically when I quizzed my son (who also judged in that same class) about what the team was looking for, his comment was that the concensus of the team was "ya'll could just tell if it was powdercoat or not." Naturally when the team judged this particular vehicle, Blake had stepped aside & abstained from judging so he could not advise the team at that moment that the call being made was in error. It's not a problem but what this DOES do, is bring up a point regarding actual materials used and this ties in to what Gary & others are asking above.

If we are to rely on what the Standards say, then in the last paragraph of page 14, the frame paint used was a Japan Black with a high percentage of asphalt & mineral spirits which dried in a dense (i.e.: thick, textured) manner. Factory photos seem to confirm this. Then on page 16 under Assembly, it indicates again that varying degrees of paint thickness were used during assembly and these all had a satin to dull appearance depending on whether it was spot painted with pyroxilyn.

So this begs the questions, if a matte or satin enamel paint, --OR matte or satin urethane paint is used in lieu of the original Japan Black, ...why should there be a 50% point deduction for using a matte or satin Powder Paint? According to my son and one other individual, full credit was given to enamel or urethane type paints yet not for powder paints which have a very similar composition as what urethane paint does.

Then after inquiring about that, I asked Blake what else the team was looking for on the frame. He said y'all were looking for stamping draw marks and no pitting. Naturally we all understand why there should be no pitting found, ...but when I asked him about the draw marks, I understand the concensus was that if they were not found in the frame, then a deduction was made for over restoration of that component. Again, if we are to believe what is written in the P&R Manual, it specifies that heavy amounts of the asphaltum-based paint could have been applied to the frames which I think many would deduce would indeed cover most, --if not all stamping draw marks.

Now please understand that I am NOT being critical whatsoever of the Area 4 team but isn't the issue regarding the deduction for using powder paint a "double-standard" if the same deduction is not mandatory for use of synthetic enamels or urethanes? Carrying that one step further, if someone were to show up at San Diego or in Wisconsin with the frame of their fine-point car painted with asphalt & Japan Black paint (and some pyroxilyn spot-sprayed for detail), how should they be scored in Area 4, ...and would they receive more or less points than someone else that has used urethane paint?


.

 

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

"This point has been on my mind for some time as I'm doing a 1930 Pickup for fine-point judging. I would like to paint the underside of the bed concentrating on the sheetmetal BUT with overspray going on the treated wood adjacent to the edge of the sheetmetal. Everyone I've seen has the wood masked off as if the wood was installed after painting. Ford would not have done that on an underside and yet some/most judges may/will deduct either out of tradition or lack of knowing."


Ive always taken the paint/assembly process as dull black preservative finish on the wood. Paint the bed. install the wood. Paint the inside of the bed to make the wood body color. At least how I interpret the paint and finish guide. could be wrong...fwiw,jm

Jim, I had a '28 pick-up in fine-point this year and the way I interpretted the bed portion was that we first painted the wood with flat-black epoxy as the preservative, then installed it in the bodyworked (--but unpainted) bed, and then painted it allowing overspray to fall onto bottom side of the wood (no taping of the wood when applying the topcoat finish). We received full credit for this method.


.

 

[Steve Ciccalone]

Marco, I probably didn't make my point well enough. As most judges are used to the top cars being flawless, not over restored but flawless, a new production Model A would exhibit things that would make it appear to be a poor quality restoration. An original car today is easily identifiable and I think are given a break by the judges. I haven't seen the sheets yet but I think most of the deductions on that coupe will be on "condition" just like a think a "new" original would be downgraded on workmanship. I'm not saying the car wouldn't do well, just that it wouldn't receive a top score, even though it would be as originally built.

 

[d.j. moordigian]

This whole thread has me really PO. Why should I bust my *** to make my car correct
and have some arrogant jerk tell me it's wrong.....or did I misread something? Too
fargen political.

I'm not happy on this Monday, Dudley

 

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

This whole thread has me really PO. Why should I bust my *** to make my car correct
and have some arrogant jerk tell me it's wrong.....or did I misread something? Too
fargen political.

I'm not happy on this Monday, Dudley

WOW ...I hope it wasn't me who is the arrogant one as I sure did not mean to act that way towards anyone!!

If you are referring to "missed calls" during the recent fine-point judging at French Lick, myself nor my customer is really P.O.-ed about it. Just as in the Soccer Finals, --or as in a recent baseball game, there are missed calls that do happen. It is the nature of the beast when humans are making judgment calls based on what they see. I might also add that the JS do not always give all the details, ...some of that is just an "expected to know" type of thing. My advise to you is probably the same that Marco usually tells folks, build your car to suit yourself first.


.