[concours] JCNA Protests

Dick Cavicke:

Appologies to any on the list who are not involved with
JCNA concours. This is a bit long, but I was trying to
get a couple of points across, sorry.

I was reading through the latest Jaguar Journal over the
weekend, having just recieved it, and I have a few comments/
questions about a couple of the JCNA concours protests
in the issue, (January/February 1998).

Firstly, I saw where your request for info on the black covers
for the “pronges” of the boot lid badges came from,
specifically from Stew Jones and one of his E-types. Stew
raises an interesting point on where the information for
“authentic” parts should come from. Stew says “Under
JCAN rules, the parts book or a Protest Comittee clarification
of the parts book are the only criteria used to judge
JCNA councours.” If this is truely the case, then we
have a real problem with 3.8L E-types. Most of us
know that there were three types of centre console/centre
dash coverings, “dot” aluminum. “cross-hatch” aluminum,
and interior coloured leather/black vinyl. The 1961
edition of the parts book lists only the (dot) aluminum,
the 1963 edition lists the dot up to cars 850609, 878301,
860912 and 887131, and the “cross-hatch” for all subsequent
cars, “subs.” The 1965 edition of the parts book only list
the parts for 4.2L E-types. No mention of the last
year, or year and a half, of the 3.8L production is made, hence
there is no mention in any of the parts books about the
interior coloured leather/black vinyl centre console/centre
dash for 3.8L E-types. Therefore, according to Stew Jones’
assertion, all these cars should be judged as non-authentic.
This is silly at best. So I conducted a search through
the Offical JCNA Concours d’Elegance Rules and Judges’
Instruction Manual (6th Reordered Edition) and I could only
find two references to information sources. They are:

Authentic Options

Authentic options are those items listed in Jaguar parts books or
offical Jaguar sales litrerature. Only written proof from those
sources or from Jaguar Cars is acceptable. Factory items offered
as standard must be correct for the year and model presented.
(Chap. 3 K-2, Chap. 4 D-2, Chap. 6 B-2)

Non_Authenticity Definition

A part, component, finish, color or materail is considered to be
non-authentic if it is not a genuine Jaguar item for the particular
year and model of the Jaguar being presented. THE ITEM MUST BE AS
IT WAS SPECIFIED AND INTENDED TO LEAVE THE FACTORY BY JAGUAR CARS.

I have not found any indication of what source/sources of information
can/cannot be used to define “authentic”, other than those implied
by the judges’ manual: official Jaguar documents, authoritive
works on Jaguar cars, but they can sometimes be wrong, and personal
experience/knowledge. If there is a more definitive source, then
it should be stated in the Judges’ Manual. If I have missed it
somewhere, please point it out to me.

Secondly, there was a protest about which hood (top) was correct
for which XK 120, and the committee stated that "I am enclosing
the Supplement to JCNA Seminar #2 which relates to XK 120 hoods.
Para. B gives the page number in the XK 120 Parts Catalogue relating
to the chassis numbers for the hood assembly, complete with the
backlight.

Your chassis number (that of the protestor) 671555 falls outside
of the numbers listed in para. 1-f. It falls within the numbers
listed in 1-g(2) (Complete with Back Curtain and Zip Fastener).
Therefore the three-point penalty stands."

I take exception to this finding, as we all know that Jaguar Cars
often “made do” with parts and assemblies in order to push cars
out the front door. Just because the parts book says something,
it should not be the absolute law on what is allowed and what is not.
Note: I do not know the full history of this protest, nor of the car
in question.

Case in point:

An original 3.8L E-type owned by original owner, purchased from a
Jaguar dealer in 1964 with serial number 888765. This car has the
dot patterned aluminum panels on the dash, gauntlet face panel and
gearbox top face panel. According to the parts manual, the change
over from the dot to the cross-hatch pattern was at car number
887132, for lhd coupes, or 433 cars previous. Note that the fourth
aluminum panel, that covering the front of the radio panel, is missing
completely, but the radio console face is covered with the same vinyl
that is covering the radio console sides. If we use the same logic
that the protest committee used above for the XK 120 hood, then this
100% original, unrestored car would be deducted points for having
three “wrong” panels and one “missing” panel. This is surely not
correct.

Okay, I’ll get down off my soap box now.

Dick and others, I would like your views on this, and any possible
suggestions of what to do about these observations, such that I
can go to my judges for our concours this spring with a good
explanation for possible solutions for conflicts.

Cheers, Mark Roberts, Chief Judge, Ottawa Jaguar Club

Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA Fax: (613) 763-3970
1988 VDP - SIII V12 email: @Mark_Roberts
1963 3.8L E-Type Coupe - 17 years into a 3 year project

Further to the words of my compatriate, Mark Roberts… At a JCNA concours
last year my 1982 xj6 was judged. Although it was entered in the D6
classification, the judge told me that I had the wrong pinstripe (that is,
my car has a single pinstripe, while he maintained that it should be
a double) and it was the wrong colour (copper) while it should have been
gold. On both counts the judge was wrong, because up to and including
1982 cars, the pinstrip for the xj6 was a single one in EITHER copper or
gold. The combinations listed by Nigel Thorley in his excellent XJ Companion,
are not entirely correct. My car is white and came originally with a
single, copper stripe, and a small portion of that original stripe has
been purposely left inside one door. It took some hunting after my repaint to
get the proper colour and width of copper stripe! Nigel Thorley does not
allow for the white/copper combination, but there it is on my car! The
Parts Manual does list single and copper as possibilities, but
without specifying colour combinations. In the end, of course there was not
deduction in this class for a non authentic stripe, but I wonder if I had
been in the championship class what might have happened (?).

                                            Gregory Andrachuk
                                            Victoria, Canada

Mark and Greg:

I fully understand your frustration with the judging system and the
problems associated with validating certain features and equippage.

I teach that the only documents which may be used for authentication are
official Jaguar Cars Inc. publications (ie. Service Manual, Parts
Manual, Owner’s Manual, Service Bulletins, Sales Brochures, etc.) and
Official JCNA publications including Seminar Bulletins and Revisions
thereto.

Efforts have been made to have other detailed books included as valid
references (Skilleter’s and others) but to date none have been
authorized. There is a strong push to improve the quality and
completeness of the JCNA Seminar bulletins in order to make up for the
large gaps in the information available using the above references.

You’re absolutely correct as to what the origin of the E-type Series III
Script/Emblem prongs debate was. I am not overly confident that we’ll
get a conclusive answer. I do think asking the E-type List is still our
best hope.

Regarding the E-type center console, the JCNA March 1994, E-type Seminar
Bulletin, page 35, does address the basic changes in console patterns
but not the specific finish you mention. I’m sure there are many other
features which aren’t described in detail.

While the Parts Books do leave out a lot of detail, they are pretty well
accepted as the “bible” for the major assemblies. The protest regarding
the XK120 hood configuration is well known to me because I have a '52
OTS which falls in the same block of cars as the protestor’s. I did some
personal research into this one and all indications are that Jaguar did
as the Parts Book says. There were variances in many lesser XK hardware
items, which workers may have grabbed from bins or shelves for
expediency, the move from non-zippered to zippered hood
backlights/curtains was a major change and his car (671555) is more than
400 chassis numbers higher than the car on which the first
zippered-style hood was installed.

The case of the 3.8L E-type you mention is obviously an exception.
Unless the owner can show pictures of the car at the time of delivery or
show some other documentation to validate his unique console
configuration as “factory”, he’ll have trouble with judges who have
never seen one like it before. There’s no way JCNA would ever be able to
cover cars which had similar “one-off” features. If the variation can be
shown to have appeared on a number of cars, the information could be
proposed for inclusion in a Seminar Bulletin Revision/update. In the
meantime he’ll have to be very persuasive or take the hit.

A major problem continues to be with judges whose experience (usually
limited) leads them to believe certain nit-pick features can only be
one-way or else they have a “pet discrepancy” recalled from a car they
owned 20 years ago. The longer I’m around the older models, the more I
appreciate just how many variances there were; my list of what’s
acceptable grows and grows.

Greg, you should probably try and find some original sales brochures
which show the single copper pinstripes. I, too, have run into some
pinstripe “experts” in the Champion Classes but you can never tell when
they’re going to show up. I am not one.

I welcome discussion on these and ther judging matters. The system needs
every bit of improvement and standardization it can get. I hope the
March AGM helps.

Dick Cavicke

For Dick: thanks for your very frank answer about judging problems. The same ju
dge who questioned my single, copper pinstripe also took issue with the
driver’s side mat, which was in fact original, but unlike the later Series
III xj sedan mats (rather plain) it has a deeply cut grid pattern with
the Jaguar cat. He said it must be an aftermarket item! This mat was used
up to 83, I believe. What is the JCNA position on optional equipment offered
in Europe, but not on the North American xj cars? I am thinking of rear
headrests and reading lamps which in Britain were standard on some models, but
offered as options on all. (Headlamp wash/wipe was another, and passenger
side electric seat mechanism is another). Have fitted most of these to my
car (the mounting brackets for the headrests, for example,were already
in place, and the headrests, xj6 style, not VDP, were purchased from Jaguar
in England), and so far they have passed without comment, as I would expect. I
have the Official Parts Book pages which list VINs for these items,
but my question really concerns European spec. vs. North American. The
7 inch headlamps are another item to be included in this list. Response?

                             Gregory Andrachuk

Greg:
Here’s what I think about optional equipment:
As before, if you can show that an item was offered as an “official
Jaguar Inc. option” for your year and model, and it is legal in your
country, you will have gone a long way toward winning your case, whether
or not the item was common on cars delivered in the U.S., Canada, or
Europe.

A key here is the appropriateness for the year and model. For example, I
don’t believe that the rear headrests were offered until 1986 or '87 in
the U.S. If that’s the case, then putting them on an earlier model could
be considered wrong.

Removing items can also bring deductions. You may have seen that this
year a lot of E-type owners were taken to task for not having their
front license plate holders in place. The car should have all of the
fixtures required by the country to which it was delivered.

Judging a car which was configured with many accessories, normally found
only in Europe, would make me inquire as to whether it had been
delivered overseas. If it hadn’t been, then I would ask the owner to
validate the authenticity of the extras.

That’s about as specific as I can get. We’re having a club business
meeting tonight and I’ll ask if anyone can shed a different light on
your question.

I hope other judges on this list might speak up if they’ve had a
different experience or have a differing opinion.

Regards, Dick