[concours] authenticity and front license plates

Dick DCavicke:

Well, I can’t stand it any longer since I was the guy to protest the
deduction for a missing front license plate bracket at the 1997 Biennial and
I just have to get my two cents worth in.

My protest had two, no three points to make. First, in the twenty years I’ve
been showing in JCNA events, no car that I was aware of had been dinged for a
missing bracket so why start now without some discussion on the subject.
Second, entrants found out about the planned deduction when they picked up
their meet packs at the show - a little too late to run down to the local
TruValue and pick one up. (the deduction was originally going to be 6
points, later reduced to 3). Third, and this is where I felt the most
comfortable about not having the bracket, my car had the rubber plug in the
bonnet hole as listed in the parts book if the front number plate carrier is
not fitted.

With regard to point one and two, the protest committee said past performance
is no guarantee of future results and entrants shouldn’t need to be told to
have "all of the parts attached " to their cars. I thought that comment was
a little cheeky. With regard to the third point, the committee said a couple
of conflicting things. Since Connecticut requires a front license, my car
should have one, they said. “If the State did not require a front plate then
the listed plug would be acceptable”. Actually, my car was first registered
in Ohio. Should I have followed Ohio or CT regulations? The committee went
on to say that “Jaguar Cars clearly delivered Series 1 & 2 E types to the US
equipped with front license plate carriers” and “Unless the owner can show
proof that his car was originally delivered to a country which does not
require front license carriers, it is proper to deduct for one that is
missing.” and “If his car was originally registed in the US, the deduction
should stand”.

I have never been able to understand how the committee gets to this position
from what is written in the Non-Authentic section of the Rules which says “A
part, component, finish color or material is considered to be non-autnentic
if it is not a genuine Jaguar item for the particular year and model of the
Jaguar presented. The item must be as it was specified and intended to leave
the factory by Jaguar Cars”. Also, “The concept is that the Jaguar must be
as close as possible to the configuration that existed at the time of
manufacture”. It doesn’t appear that the writers were concerned to which
country and/or state a car would eventually be delivered, only that it was a
Jaguar, authentically outfitted and ready for delivery.

Bruce MacCormack said that he deducts for a missing license plate if
required. Is that dictated by the State of original registration, present
registration or where the car is being shown?

Anyway, I finally broke down and put the darn bracket and plate on the car.
I may be dumb but I’m not stupid. At least it covers up some of the stone
chips.

Alan Wiedie

Alan, this will really tick you off…

Using that quote from the rule book, there is absolutely no justification
for a bonnet leaper on any Jaguar made from, what, the last 420G? until the
X300s. Yet, so many dealers and owners installed leapers (from the sixties
Jaguars) on the seventies and eighties XJs, that I guess the number of holes
needing patching would have exhausted the national supply of body filler.
But clearly that runs totally counter to the intent of the authenticity as
expressed in the authenticity section. How many dealers in non-front-plate
states removed the bracket before selling the car because it ruined the
lines? I’ll bet there were a lot. So why is a dealer’s addition of a leaper
not a deduction and the dealer’s removal of a front license plate bracket
not?

“Mark 1” Mark Stephenson
1952 XK120 Rdstr (w/ XK140 C head) S673129
1958 Mark 1 / 1984 XJ6 / 1985 VDP / 1986 VDP
Jaguar Club of Central Arizona (www.cableone.net/jcca)

I have never been able to understand how the committee gets to this position
from what is written in the Non-Authentic section of the Rules which says “A
part, component, finish color or material is considered to be non-autnentic
if it is not a genuine Jaguar item for the particular year and model of the
Jaguar presented. The item must be as it was specified and intended to
leave
the factory by Jaguar Cars”. Also, “The concept is that the Jaguar must be
as close as possible to the configuration that existed at the time of
manufacture”. It doesn’t appear that the writers were concerned to which
country and/or state a car would eventually be delivered, only that it was a
Jaguar, authentically outfitted and ready for delivery.

Bruce MacCormack said that he deducts for a missing license plate if
required. Is that dictated by the State of original registration, present
registration or where the car is being shown?

Anyway, I finally broke down and put the darn bracket and plate on the car.
I may be dumb but I’m not stupid. At least it covers up some of the stone
chips.

Alan Wiedie

Hi, Mark -

How about if the questionable item were covered by the dealer’s and/or
manufacturer’s warranty (as a definition of authenticity, for judging
purposes)? Wouldn’t that encompass the dealer-fitted period aftermarket
items and optional items? Wake up, guys! The purpose of the Jaguar was
to enrichen Sir William - for us, the eventual owners, it’s DRIVING them,
not dusting them! (So, how many of those fantastic tin-knockers can dance
on the head of a pin, anyway?)

Remember, it’s “Grace, Space, PACE!”

Larry Schear
Twin Cam, Inc.

At 09:27 PM 8/3/01 -0700, you wrote:>Alan, this will really tick you off…

Using that quote from the rule book, there is absolutely no justification
for a bonnet leaper on any Jaguar made from, what, the last 420G? until the
X300s. Yet, so many dealers and owners installed leapers (from the sixties
Jaguars) on the seventies and eighties XJs, that I guess the number of holes
needing patching would have exhausted the national supply of body filler.
But clearly that runs totally counter to the intent of the authenticity as
expressed in the authenticity section. How many dealers in non-front-plate
states removed the bracket before selling the car because it ruined the
lines? I’ll bet there were a lot. So why is a dealer’s addition of a leaper
not a deduction and the dealer’s removal of a front license plate bracket
not?

“Mark 1” Mark Stephenson
1952 XK120 Rdstr (w/ XK140 C head) S673129
1958 Mark 1 / 1984 XJ6 / 1985 VDP / 1986 VDP
Jaguar Club of Central Arizona (Internet Service Provider, TV & Phone | Sparklight)

I have never been able to understand how the committee gets to this position
from what is written in the Non-Authentic section of the Rules which says “A
part, component, finish color or material is considered to be non-autnentic
if it is not a genuine Jaguar item for the particular year and model of the
Jaguar presented. The item must be as it was specified and intended to
leave
the factory by Jaguar Cars”. Also, “The concept is that the Jaguar must be
as close as possible to the configuration that existed at the time of
manufacture”. It doesn’t appear that the writers were concerned to which
country and/or state a car would eventually be delivered, only that it was a
Jaguar, authentically outfitted and ready for delivery.

Bruce MacCormack said that he deducts for a missing license plate if
required. Is that dictated by the State of original registration, present
registration or where the car is being shown?

Anyway, I finally broke down and put the darn bracket and plate on the car.
I may be dumb but I’m not stupid. At least it covers up some of the stone
chips.

Alan Wiedie

I really don’t mind what rule they apply as long as it’s applied
consistently. If dealers added items to cars and that is permitted, then
dealers removing unnecessary items before cars were sold should also be
permitted. Since most cosmetic modifications done by dealers could just as
easily have been done by owners, there is no way to determine who did it,
and they should all be permitted: leapers, starfish wheels on an XJ6, no
license plate bracket on early Es. In short, if you are going to allow some
Jaguar-listed parts on (or off) the car because they could have been bought
that way by the original owner, then any Jaguar part that could have been
installed (or legally removed) by the dealer should be permitted. Otherwise
we should use the “as left the factory” standard across the board.

So, how have you been? I haven’t chatted with you in ages. Glad to see you
back on the lists. Send me your address off list and I’ll return that MG
jack I’ve had for a year and a half now. I can also send you the lead hammer
if you want it, but it was in pretty sorry shape from the start.

“Mark 1” Mark Stephenson
1952 XK120 Rdstr (w/ XK140 C head) S673129
1958 Mark 1 / 1984 XJ6 / 1985 VDP / 1986 VDP
Jaguar Club of Central Arizona (Internet Service Provider, TV & Phone | Sparklight)-----Original Message-----
From: owner-concours@jag-lovers.org
[mailto:owner-concours@jag-lovers.org]On Behalf Of Larry Schear
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 10:04 PM
To: concours@jag-lovers.org
Subject: RE: [concours] authenticity and front license plates

Hi, Mark -

How about if the questionable item were covered by the dealer’s and/or
manufacturer’s warranty (as a definition of authenticity, for judging
purposes)? Wouldn’t that encompass the dealer-fitted period aftermarket
items and optional items? Wake up, guys! The purpose of the Jaguar was
to enrichen Sir William - for us, the eventual owners, it’s DRIVING them,
not dusting them! (So, how many of those fantastic tin-knockers can dance
on the head of a pin, anyway?)

Remember, it’s “Grace, Space, PACE!”

Larry Schear
Twin Cam, Inc.

At 09:27 PM 8/3/01 -0700, you wrote:

Alan, this will really tick you off…

Using that quote from the rule book, there is absolutely no justification
for a bonnet leaper on any Jaguar made from, what, the last 420G? until the
X300s. Yet, so many dealers and owners installed leapers (from the sixties
Jaguars) on the seventies and eighties XJs, that I guess the number of
holes
needing patching would have exhausted the national supply of body filler.
But clearly that runs totally counter to the intent of the authenticity as
expressed in the authenticity section. How many dealers in non-front-plate
states removed the bracket before selling the car because it ruined the
lines? I’ll bet there were a lot. So why is a dealer’s addition of a leaper
not a deduction and the dealer’s removal of a front license plate bracket
not?

“Mark 1” Mark Stephenson
1952 XK120 Rdstr (w/ XK140 C head) S673129
1958 Mark 1 / 1984 XJ6 / 1985 VDP / 1986 VDP
Jaguar Club of Central Arizona (Internet Service Provider, TV & Phone | Sparklight)

I have never been able to understand how the committee gets to this
position
from what is written in the Non-Authentic section of the Rules which says
“A
part, component, finish color or material is considered to be non-autnentic
if it is not a genuine Jaguar item for the particular year and model of the
Jaguar presented. The item must be as it was specified and intended to
leave
the factory by Jaguar Cars”. Also, “The concept is that the Jaguar must be
as close as possible to the configuration that existed at the time of
manufacture”. It doesn’t appear that the writers were concerned to which
country and/or state a car would eventually be delivered, only that it was
a
Jaguar, authentically outfitted and ready for delivery.

Bruce MacCormack said that he deducts for a missing license plate if
required. Is that dictated by the State of original registration, present
registration or where the car is being shown?

Anyway, I finally broke down and put the darn bracket and plate on the car.
I may be dumb but I’m not stupid. At least it covers up some of the stone
chips.

Alan Wiedie