Tweet
Happy Holidays fellow members. All the best to you and your families over the Holidays and in 2012! Just one thought on our current judging system. This thought is not at all intended to point fingers or criticize our system or any one that is a part of it. I actually judge quite a bit so just meant as a thought. Also I don't intend to stir up any of the controversies of the past. We are where we are.
As you all know we have a requirement that machines need to be "Seen Ran" before they can be judged. To my knowledge, there is no exception to this rule and if there is I apologize for this post. The question is whether there should be an exception from a preservation and encouragement perspective for original non-restored machines. For example, there are well over 100 American motorcycle manufacturers pre-1916. As a collector of these machines, I can tell you there is virtually no parts made other than for the leading brands- Henderson, Indian, Harley etc. and other than one off refabrications that generally are very expensive as custom tools and dies are needed. Moreover, after the refabrication you still end up with a part that was not original to the machine. With the judging requirement of "running", the reality is many "untouched original machines" never make it to the judging floor. Moreover, the "running" requirement, from a pure judging perspective, actually encourages that otherwise untouched original examples are monkeyed with to put them in running condition. Is that really promoting preservation? New head gaskets, disturbing patina to clean carbs that have sat for over 100 years, removing and soldering tanks, refabricating parts, adding new mag wires and in many instances adding new tires so bikes can be "started" without sitting on an otherwise bare rim, etc. etc.? I know of course people can just display non running original machines and not elect to have them judged under the current rules. But I'm not sure that is what the AMCA is all about from a learning, education and preservation perspective and I do think the rule may actually discourage some fellow members from bringing these machines out because they can't be judged.
I can also see the counter argument well hey if its original and running the owners of the running machine "worked harder" to put it in running order or maybe even the "running original machine" is a "better example". I think the answer here would simply be applying a deduct for non-running original machines; not outright ineligibility for judging. But let's remember, there are risks associated with putting some of the early machines in running order- like winding the spring for the last time on that antique toy.
Maybe a system that allowed for non-running original machines that otherwise are consistent with the judging standards should be adopted, with potentially a deduct for "non-running." The exception might even relate to certain years- say pre- 1916, where parts availiability is challenged and rarity is an issue.
The overall goal of such changes would be to better faciliatate one of the AMCA's stated goals- preservation, while at the same time promoting the enjoyment and learning associated with displaying and judging these original machines. Again all the best to you and your families over the Holidays and in 2012. Anthony.
As you all know we have a requirement that machines need to be "Seen Ran" before they can be judged. To my knowledge, there is no exception to this rule and if there is I apologize for this post. The question is whether there should be an exception from a preservation and encouragement perspective for original non-restored machines. For example, there are well over 100 American motorcycle manufacturers pre-1916. As a collector of these machines, I can tell you there is virtually no parts made other than for the leading brands- Henderson, Indian, Harley etc. and other than one off refabrications that generally are very expensive as custom tools and dies are needed. Moreover, after the refabrication you still end up with a part that was not original to the machine. With the judging requirement of "running", the reality is many "untouched original machines" never make it to the judging floor. Moreover, the "running" requirement, from a pure judging perspective, actually encourages that otherwise untouched original examples are monkeyed with to put them in running condition. Is that really promoting preservation? New head gaskets, disturbing patina to clean carbs that have sat for over 100 years, removing and soldering tanks, refabricating parts, adding new mag wires and in many instances adding new tires so bikes can be "started" without sitting on an otherwise bare rim, etc. etc.? I know of course people can just display non running original machines and not elect to have them judged under the current rules. But I'm not sure that is what the AMCA is all about from a learning, education and preservation perspective and I do think the rule may actually discourage some fellow members from bringing these machines out because they can't be judged.
I can also see the counter argument well hey if its original and running the owners of the running machine "worked harder" to put it in running order or maybe even the "running original machine" is a "better example". I think the answer here would simply be applying a deduct for non-running original machines; not outright ineligibility for judging. But let's remember, there are risks associated with putting some of the early machines in running order- like winding the spring for the last time on that antique toy.
Maybe a system that allowed for non-running original machines that otherwise are consistent with the judging standards should be adopted, with potentially a deduct for "non-running." The exception might even relate to certain years- say pre- 1916, where parts availiability is challenged and rarity is an issue.
The overall goal of such changes would be to better faciliatate one of the AMCA's stated goals- preservation, while at the same time promoting the enjoyment and learning associated with displaying and judging these original machines. Again all the best to you and your families over the Holidays and in 2012. Anthony.
).
Comment