to polish or not to polish....that is the questiion

There is a simple answer to the semantics conundrum. It's to add the word to the glossary which is part of the rule book. All we need is "(See glossary)" after the word and no changes to the guide are necessary. Dick Cavicke did an admirable job revising the Judging Guide a few years ago, so the current author is still among us and knows what "smooth" really means.

Not that with everything in life, there is an occasional political angle to the rules. The political side has to do with the preponderance of the authenticity item. For example, Leapers on 68-94 XJ bonnets were never a factory authorized option. They made them, featured them in ads (albeit not on actual bonnets) and they sold them to dealers, but they never specified that they should be used on XJ bonnets. In fact, it was illegal for them to install them at the factory because of safety regulations. However, so many dealers installed them that probably 80% of these models have them. Most of these installations predated the modern JCNA rules, so it's difficult to tell 80% of XJ owners that they need to remove the Leaper and repair the holes in their hood. That's one of the rare concessions to reality.

Another one is polishing things under the bonnet. Cam covers, carb tops, and other aluminum bits look so darned good polished that all the restorers and owners do it. It's to the point that if someone took their S1 E in for restoration and it came back with something approximating the original finish of those parts, the owner would probably refuse to pay for it until the job was "done." Honestly, I don't know if I've ever seen what the parts would have looked like. Either the car's like mine, unrestored with discolored cam covers, or overrestored to the point that you could comb your hair in the reflection. OTOH, the aluminum wheels on my '86 XJ6 were polished and clearcoated at the dealer before the sale. I'm pretty sure in Champion Division that's a deduction for incorrect finish. It's not in Driven.

I think the solution for polishing is rather than issuing that blanket permission to polish, be specific about what can be polished and not extend the exception beyond that. As I don't have anything anywhere near a concours queen, I'm not sure where that line should be drawn, but I think it would be a good start to tightening up that loophole and eliminating some of the contradictions.

Edited on 2011-12-23 2:27:12

There is a simple answer to the semantics conundrum. It's to add the word to the glossary which is part of the rule book. All we need is "(See glossary)" after the word and no changes to the guide are necessary. Dick Cavicke did an admirable job revising the Judging Guide a few years ago, so the current author is still among us and knows what "smooth" really means.

As with everything in life, there is an occasional political angle to the rules. The political side has to do with the preponderance of the authenticity item. For example, Leapers on 68-94 XJ bonnets were never a factory authorized option. They made them, featured them in ads (albeit not on actual bonnets) and they sold them to dealers, but they never specified that they should be used on XJ bonnets. In fact, it was illegal for them to install them at the factory because of safety regulations. However, so many dealers installed them that probably 80% of these models have them. Most of these installations predated the modern JCNA rules, so it's difficult to tell 80% of XJ owners that they need to remove the Leaper and repair the holes in their hood. That's one of the rare concessions to reality.

Another one is polishing things under the bonnet. Cam covers, carb tops, and other aluminum bits look so darned good polished that all the restorers and owners do it. It's to the point that if someone took their S1 E in for restoration and it came back with something approximating the original finish of those parts, the owner would probably refuse to pay for it until the job was "done." Honestly, I don't know if I've ever seen what the parts would have looked like. Either the car's like mine, unrestored with discolored cam covers, or overrestored to the point that you could comb your hair in the reflection. OTOH, the aluminum wheels on my '86 XJ6 were polished and clearcoated at the dealer before the sale. I'm pretty sure in Champion Division that's a deduction for incorrect finish. It's not in Driven.

I think the solution for polishing is rather than issuing that blanket permission to polish, be specific about what can be polished and not extend the exception beyond that. As I don't have anything anywhere near a concours queen, I'm not sure where that line should be drawn, but I think it would be a good start to tightening up that loophole and eliminating some of the contradictions.

The JCNA Judge's Concours Rules Committee (JCRC) is aware of the issue being raised.

The term "smoothing" seemed clear enough when we introduced it, however, in light of the recent attention, in the next edition of the Rule Book, we will either replace it or specify which definition applies. :-)

Dick Cavicke
Chair, JCNA, JCRC

Steve,

I appreciate the invite, but not being involved in Concures judging or restoration projects, other then noted in my original statement above, making any other suggestion to improve the rule standards, is out of my realm of knowledge.

I would like to express my opinion, however, and hope it is not received in the light that I gleen from your reply, but in the light of corrective criticism.

If there are portions of any rule instructions or books, concerning what is allowed or not allowed, then those portions should say so, or, either be struck or corrected, [if] the intent of said rules are what is expected of and by all. If a part is expected to be restored to a condition of "just as it came from the factory", the rules must say so. This eliminates individual openions.

Again--IMHO

Garfield.

Forget the dictionary. Just remove the troublesome words :-).

On this particular issue I stand by my previous suggestion that the rule be clarified by adding "Where a part orignally had a natural cast surface texture, that texture must be preserved."

I don't think we can get any clearer than that ! :-)

Cheers
DD

Garfield,
In your posting you say, "since the original publisher is no longer available". JCNA publishes the rule book annual. Both the updates only and the full rule book are available for download from the JCNA web site.

If there are changes you would like to propose, please go to the JCNA Library and download the Request for Competition Rules Change Form.

Steve Kennedy
JCNA Rule Book Editor

Though not involved in the "Concours" problems incountered during a restoration and/or judging process, I non the less enjoy reading this section of the forum.

This thread seems to point out to me, that there is a great need for a re-write of the rules book, since the original publisher is no longer available.. Just in these few short comments, it is obvious that there are a number of different views on what the word "smooth/smoothing" means and because of this fact, one honest entry may be punished by one judge, while being rewarded by another. This doesn't equate to fair and balanced judging throughout the national program. This is similar to the national dog shows--to have any hope of winning, a breeder first must know who the judges are and then prepare the animal to that judges liking--not to the required standard.

Below is a definition of the word smooth/smoothing:

smooth (sm)
adj. smooth?Àer, smooth?Àest
1. Having a surface free from irregularities, roughness, or projections; even. See Synonyms at level.
2. Having a fine texture: a smooth fabric.
3.
a. Free from hair, whiskers, or stubble: felt his smooth cheek after the close shave.
b. Having a short dense flat coat. Used of dogs.
4. Having an even consistency: a smooth pudding.
5. Having an even or gentle motion or movement: a smooth ride.
6. Having no obstructions or difficulties: a smooth operation.
7. Serene: a smooth temperament.
8. Bland: a smooth wine.
9. Ingratiatingly polite and agreeable.
10. Having no grossness or coarseness in dress or manner.

v. smoothed, smooth?Àing, smoothes
v.tr.
1. To make (something) even, level, or unwrinkled.
2. To rid of obstructions, hindrances, or difficulties.
3. To soothe or tranquilize; make calm.
4. To make less harsh or crude; refine.
v.intr.
To become smooth.
n.
1. The act of smoothing.
2. A smooth surface or part.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English smothe, from Old English smth.]
________________________________________________________________________________
When re-writing, there must be an acceptness of what dictionary to use. When this is done, all persons will have an equal chance when entering a contest---regardless of who the judge is, who will then be required to go by the new rules and dictionary meaning of a word and not by one his or her own definition.

IMHO
Garfield

Doug the comments were in fact mine--I was using Dick's sign in (El Heffe) to delete some spam and forgot to log out and back in. In anycase my comments were not facetious---it is a chore that Stew Cleve did a great job on and now Steve Kennedy does. I am more than sure that carefully constructed comments about issues would be well received as well as suggested changes--as long as they are "housekeeping" it is not an issue. As far as "task undertaken" it may not seem so but it is sort of on going all the time.

Good reminder, Dick, about the rule book being a patchwork thing.

As for the remark about editing, well, I'm not sure if you're being facetious...but I'd be glad to help if such a task was undertaken.

Cheers
DD

This is a great thread--I will pass it on to the chair of the JCRC as it seems I "read' in the above that there are at least two potential new rule book editors volunteering. Please remember that the rule book is a patchwork document that was not written at one time but over decades. It was only last year that the JCRC (which did not exist then) was given the ability to change words in the rule book without taking every change to the AGM for vote. This was a "housekeeping" rule that passed. It does not allow a change in content but will allow this sort of thing to be fixed.

I like your definition! It avoids the trap of to polish or not in this case.

Unfortunately, the rule book is full of things like this, semantics being what they are. As any linguist will tell you, there are about 100 important words in every language ( body parts, food water, etc,etc). Now you would think they would be very stable over time, but in fact 2-3 of them change completely every 100 years or so. Given this, think how many of the non-important words ( e.g."smoothing") change meaning every few years! We all know that "hooking up" used to mean getting in touch, but now it is rather more than that, just as a cougar is no longer only a mountain lion. As a consequence, we are always driven back to redefining or replacing words. When we redefine we have no other guideline than original intent. This wasn't an issue when the cars were 5 years old, but now that they are 50 we can expect to accumulate a few. :)

Heh heh. My mother used to say "Where's S.I. Hayakawa when we need him?"

I bring up the conflict of the rule book only because the original poster himself quoted that same passage. I reckon he and I are both afflicted with semantics disease :-). But in this case it's not a stretch, really, to interpret the passage as "It's OK to polish cast parts". In fact, it virtually says so outright!

If I challenged an entrant on this matter and a dispute arose, with the rule book as ammunition, I wouldn't feel that my footing was very solid. I'd allow the entrant his polished parts....and then promptly recommend a change in the rule book :-)

It seems unwise to rely on interpretation of intent (always a tricky business) when a few simple words of clarification would do the trick., such as "Where a part orignally had a natural cast surface texture, that texture must be preserved."

Cheers
DD

Doug,

Bertrand Russel was famous for saying "If we put a semantics expert on every street corner we could end war." Your point turns on your definition of the word "smoothing" . Since Bertrand isn't with us any longer, we will have to puzzle it out for ourselves. However, taking that argument to its logical conclusion, you have defilned "smoothing" as achieving a flat smooth finish on a rough cast part by grinding it down to where it needs only a final buffing to be a polished part. That leads us to conclude one could "smooth and polish" every single cast part under the hood including the engine block and never receive a deduct. I don't think this was the intent. I would rather think ( in Bertrand's absence)the author of "smoothing" meant a clean-up or the restoration of a surface which had previously been MILLED or GROUND DOWN with an angle grinder .
However , in your defense, there probably isn't a clear defnition of "smoothing" that every judge, myself included, would agree with! When the words turn out to not be adequate, then we need to go back to the intent of the rules makers, which are always to make the car look as original as possible. It is not difficult to tell the difference between polished parts (high or low sheen or even rusty) and cast parts, which are covered with little bumps....and I expect to see those little bumps!

IMHO, Bob

Dick, I agree with you in spirit but the rules are confusing. Consider the two excerpts below:

"Any part that is missing or that is the wrong style, type, model, size, configuration, shape, match, color, FINISH*, material or pattern, or is wrongly positioned, is considered non-authentic"

(*emphasis added)

"Smoothing and bright polishing of originally unplated, uncoated, or unpainted metal components (such as early aluminum cam covers and manifolds) is allowed but will be given no extra credit"

If we consider raw cast appearance versus a polished surface to be "finish" issues then polishing something that was originally un-polished would be a deduction....as one would expect.

However.....

A cast part with natual color and texture would require "smoothing" as a first step towards "bright polishing" and therefore appears to be acceptable with no deduction.

Cheers
DD

thank you everyone for the input, as someone who would like to "polish the entire world" I need help sometimes being brought back to reality. The course is clear. "put it back the way it was"

A wish you all a wonderful thanksgiving

Steve

Trying again with the picture ---- and I would agree with Dick, I would judge it a deduct. The polished parts are distinct from the rough cast parts.

Bob

Trying again with the picture ---- and I would agree with Dick, I would judge it a deduct. The polished parts are distinct from the rough cast parts.

Bob

If your intent is to restore the car to a high standard, why would you not put it back like it was originally? These components were not originally polished. Since it states in the judging guide that they were not polished, then a polished finish would be a improper finish in my opinion and if judging, I would levy a deduction and the judging guide would back me up. The gist of the rule is on the aluminum surfaces that were originally polished, they were not polished up the the standard of some of the cars today where it almost looks like chrome. No extra points for extra fine polishing.

My interpretation of the rules is that, yes, you could polish those items without fearing a deduction.

Not saying agree with the rule, mind you :-)

Cheers
DD

We decided to go with the original finish on our Series 2 pedal box, using Stew Cleave's car as a model. We did find that it was quite hard to remove all the staining from the rough aluminum after 40 years of leaks of anti-freeze, battery fumes and banjo bolts, all of which are strategically placed to drip on them. After media blasting we still didn't have a perfect even finish so we topped it off with an aluminum coating from Eastwood. See picture during assembly.

Bob Bridgeford
65 FHC E
69 OTS E