[concours] Condition Deductions versus Authenticity Deductions

Having been on the wrong end of such an occurrence in the past, and looking
through the JCNA Judging Manual, I have an observation that I’d like the
thoughts of others on and that might help in assigning deductions for a
really substandard component.

The JCNA Manual currently assigns minimum deductions for things like
scratches, dents, chips, cleanliness and so on, along with maximum
deductions. However, it gives precious little guidance for assigning a
deduction in the case of something that is authentic but, shall we politely
say, marginal.

For example, I was once assigned a 5 point deduction because of a hole in
my original carpeting. The hole was in a single piece. This is half of the
max deduction for carpeting and, while I considered it severe, there WAS a
hole.

Upon reflection, and rereading the authenticity portion of the manual in
preparation for a Class 18 entry, I notice that the authenticity scoring
guide inadvertently DOES provide some guidance. Here’s how:

Looking at only carpeting as an example. Presume that a piece has a fairly
significant defect. Rather than using the manual overall MAX as a guide, it
may be more helpful to use the max deduction per piece, which is 2 points.
Now we have the deduction bounded between 0.1 and 2 points for the defect
rather than between 0.1 and 10 points. Extending the logic further, the 2
point deduct would be for a missing or entirely incorrect piece. Judgment
suggests that the piece would have to be pretty terrible to warrant a
deduct of over 1 point. Such a situation could easily arise if something
like a paint spill occurred on a single piece of carpeting.

Using the guide to authenticity can help guide a judge in how to allocate a
max deduction across all the components in an area because it implies how
important to the TOTAL verious items are.

The approach can be used for all of the various componets of the car.For
example, a seat cushion individually would have a max deduct of 3.4 points.
Penalizing close to this for wear or fading or a hole on a single seat
would appear excessive, though it might not be close to the overall car max.

Am I going off into left field here?
-Steve A.
'67 E Type Coupe
'76 XJ6C
'91 XJ40

8/14/01

Hi Steve Averill & all – As “permanent” Chief Judge for the Sacramento CA
JC, I always tell my judges that JCNA extablished a minimum deduction of
.01 for a reason – exactly what you are proposing! If an item is TOTALLY
non-authentic (for example, power steering on a car not supplied that way),
the maximum deduction would apply. However, if the steering (visible) IS
authentic for the model, the minimums would apply. So – I endorse what
you say here, eh! Take care – Larry Martz*****
Having been on the wrong end of such an occurrence in the past, and looking
through the JCNA Judging Manual, I have an observation that I’d like the
thoughts of others on and that might help in assigning deductions for a
really substandard component.

The JCNA Manual currently assigns minimum deductions for things like
scratches, dents, chips, cleanliness and so on, along with maximum
deductions. However, it gives precious little guidance for assigning a
deduction in the case of something that is authentic but, shall we politely
say, marginal.

For example, I was once assigned a 5 point deduction because of a hole in
my original carpeting. The hole was in a single piece. This is half of the
max deduction for carpeting and, while I considered it severe, there WAS a
hole.

Upon reflection, and rereading the authenticity portion of the manual in
preparation for a Class 18 entry, I notice that the authenticity scoring
guide inadvertently DOES provide some guidance. Here’s how:

Looking at only carpeting as an example. Presume that a piece has a fairly
significant defect. Rather than using the manual overall MAX as a guide, it
may be more helpful to use the max deduction per piece, which is 2 points.
Now we have the deduction bounded between 0.1 and 2 points for the defect
rather than between 0.1 and 10 points. Extending the logic further, the 2
point deduct would be for a missing or entirely incorrect piece. Judgment
suggests that the piece would have to be pretty terrible to warrant a
deduct of over 1 point. Such a situation could easily arise if something
like a paint spill occurred on a single piece of carpeting.

Using the guide to authenticity can help guide a judge in how to allocate a
max deduction across all the components in an area because it implies how
important to the TOTAL verious items are.

The approach can be used for all of the various componets of the car.For
example, a seat cushion individually would have a max deduct of 3.4 points.
Penalizing close to this for wear or fading or a hole on a single seat
would appear excessive, though it might not be close to the overall car max.

Am I going off into left field here?
-Steve A.
'67 E Type Coupe
'76 XJ6C
'91 XJ40