New AMCA Judging Criteria Introduced at Eustis

[Sargehere]

Well, I was there this morning. Don't take this as the official report of the new Chief Judge, or anything, but I just experienced what I'm about to report, and it is to the best of my knowledge, having been there and spoken to Steve Dawdy and Steve Slocumbe at length about it.

The new Chief Judge of the AMCA is Steve Dawdy, of Iowa. There is a new judging regime in place in the Antique Motorcycle Club of America. I have no other information about what led to this change, but it's done.
Steve himself was not informed by the AMCA Board of Directors that it was all final until late on Saturday afternoon, explaining why it wasn't mentioned to those of us who sat in the Judge's meeting at the Eustis Fairgrounds yesterday.
There are some new, stricter rules in place, which were first placed in effect at Eustis, the first meet of the 2010 meet season, and I expect they will improve the products of our judging system. We used the new system this morning, and a couple of surprises resulted. More about them later.

The AMCA judging sheet has listed 25 logical categories for years, since the 1990s, to be judged for each bike, counting up to 4 points each, things like: "engine," "front end," "hardware and fasteners," and "Instruments and Speedometer." They are still the break down in the same 25 categories, but three of those categories may now be deducted up to six points: "Paint," "Engine" and "Frame." The concept is based on "High Visibility Parts," which can have up to six points deducted as "Incorrect Parts."
The explanation for this is the recent influx of major reproduction items, "repops," and to limit antique motorcycles built around major repops from rising to the "Winner's Circle" (and therefore being toutable as exemplary representatives of their year and type: certifying them, in a way, that they are "as manufactured").
This means that a bike built around, for instance, an accurate, but repopped Harley frame (think: those near-accurate repop frames from Australia) that does not bear the correct casting numbers and hallmarks will have a six point deduction for "incorrect frame." Forever after, the maximum number of points that bike, with that frame, can ever score is 94 points, even if the rest of the bike is 'perfect.'
To make Senior First, a restoration must win a Junior Award, a Junior Second (at least 85 points), or a Junior First (90 points) to be considered for an AMCA Senior Award (needs to earn only one Junior, then a Senior, of 95 or more points) before being brought to one more meet, where it must score at least 95 points "again," to win the prestigious (read: "$$$") "example of the breed" award: "AMCA Winner's Circle of Excellence." That amounts to a certification of near-perfection as an example of that year and model motorcycle.
The reasoning behind this is simply to prevent someone who acquires, for instance, a 1910 Harley motor, or less, or a whole repop bike (yes, they are just now coming available: to the last nut and bolt) for about $10-grand, from doing a couple of cosmetic changes to the bike and presenting it as a "real" 1910 Harley. The only thing missing from the 100% repop 1910, reportedly, is the name "Harley-Davidson" cast on the crankcase. A "real" 1910 Harley trades in the $90-100,000 range. So you can see the dilemma faced by the AMCA, which accepts reproduction parts, as a necessity to complete our old bikes, but declines to certify a completely fake bike as "exemplary of the year and model."
There's more to come. Let me collect my thoughts.

__________________

[Sargehere]

Okay, I explained the reasoning behind the six points' deduction for incorrect frame. The other two categories that alone can prevent a bike from ever entering the "Winner's Circle of Excellence" are "Engine" and "Paint."
With paint, up until now, "Paint" was only a four point category, meaning, theoretically, that an otherwise perfect motorcycle with pearlescent or metalflake custom paint, with murals like a custom van on each side of the tanks, could still aspire to the Winners' Circle. No more. Paint is to look like the appropriate paint scheme of colors available on the model in question in the year it was manufactured. Also, for a saner example, a complete 1936 paint job, colors, decals and striping, would not go on a 1934 bike. Under the old judging scheme, the judges could take no more than four points for "paint," and move on to another category. Now, the judging team can take 6 points for "incorrect paint."
Engine cases and cylinder heads, just like frames, are being repopped. We've discussed them here on the forum. From now on, detectable (and that's still the key to all of this, whether it can be detected by eyesight. Judges still are not allowed to touch the bike they are examining) reproductions of major engine components (cases & heads were mentioned) will also be liable to suffer the 6 point deduction for "incorrect parts."
One recent repop offering that raised awareness of being a problem is a (multi-thousand-dollar) "8-valve heads" kit, that will, basically, bolt on to any Harley JD lower end, lending itself to the creation of a 19-teens or 1920's Harley factory racing machine that never was.
Along with that, and this is going to be controversial, until people learn to understand it, replacement engine cases, even if replaced by the Harley factory, for instance, with full documentation, are a disqualification for Winner's Circle, 6-points.
What people are going to have to learn to accept, is that every pretty bike, even one researched and laboriously rebuilt in exhausting detail, is not Winners' Circle material. More.

__________________

[Sargehere]

The criteria for "restoration" long being, "how it came out of the factory," (allowing period accessories of like quality) is being appended, slightly, to mean, in effect, "How it came out of the factory the first time."
Replacement engine cases or other major components even if provided by the factory, won't fly. (including factory refurbished replacement frames-which are identifiable on Harleys by a factory number stamped at the top of the seatpost on old ones)
We had an example of this just this morning. A member was showing, for the first time, his 1975 Harley Superglide. It was a beautiful machine, but he wanted to explain why the 1975 VIN was stamped, no, lasered in a non-stock position on the left engine case. He explained that it was done by the Harley factory, through the local Harley dealership, which sent the damaged original left case back to the factory for destruction. And he had all of the paperwork. The factory provided another 1975-style Shovelhead case, but lasered the 1975 engine number in a different position from stock on the left case. That's now another way to get a 6-point deduction, disqualifying that engine from any Winners' Circle consideration. The criteria will be "as it left the factory the first time."
The new criteria will also affect all of the 1960s British and Japanese bikes just now becoming eligible for judging. There are club members researching manufacturers' records on at least three continents: Europe, USA and Asia, to expand the knowledge base concerning what constitutes good VIN numbers on these newly-eligible bikes. Many of the British manufacturers, reportedly, continued "their" string of sequential numbers year-after-year, leading the AMCA to try to research the beginning and end numbers to match to model years.
The other area of concentration for the judges is going to be "good numbers," as in, detecting restamps and otherwise "bogus" VINs. This is already leading to heartache for some members who put their hearts and sweat and tears into their prides-and-joys, only to bring them to the judging this morning and be told their bike was disqualified, for bearing "incorrect VIN numbers."
One was a really pretty late-30s 45 WL Harley, that was obviously the recipient of a great deal of attention and a loving restoration. This was the first showing of the bike, and the owners obviously had great hopes.
The first thing the judges look at is to match the VIN on the motor to the number on the judging sheet. Someone should have told the owner long ago that Harley never used a "round top 3" in the 1930s. The Chief Judge was consulted, the number examined, photographed and compared to a club chart of Harley number examples, and the bike left the judging field, unjudged.
The other example was maybe more telling, and wrenching. It was certainly more of a surprise. A post-WWII Harley EL 61 was presented that already had collected three previous judging sheets; a Junior Second, a Junior First, and on the right side of the fork by the headlight already was an AMCA Senior Award emblem.
Examining the old judging sheets, you could see that the bike had been steadily improved, the owner correcting many, then fewer, and fewer, discrepencies found by three judging teams, starting with the Junior Second, Junior First, through the Senior, and now the owner, I imagine, was fully expecting admittance to the Winners' Circle of Excellence.
First look at the VIN was a shocker. It was a a provably bogus number-stamping. The initial "4" of the year was not like anything the Harley factory ever used. There was no horizontal "foot" across the bottom, and the vertical was not full-height, as the "open-topped" number four adopted in 1943. All of the numbers were stamped with a hardware store stamp set.
It has won Senior First, meaning that three AMCA judging teams either ignored, or passed on, or just failed to recognize the fact that it was a number job. It just didn't fool the fourth team, today, to the owner's chagrin. He took it pretty well, in public, at least. We had no shouting matches or threats of violence all day.
Respectfully submitted,
--"Sarge," Gerry Lyons, AMCA #607, field judge since 1982.
__________________

[felthamw]

Positive feedback

I am just back from Eustis. Good size field. Hard working staff. Kudos to all.
Judges were obviously looking at bikes differently - after reading Sarge's posts I now understand why.
I saw something today I hadn't seen before....the bikes HAD to run to be placed on the judging field! Imagine that?
Good on ya - that is the way it should be.
PS: I don't know what to think about all this "political" crap. Don't know enough about it and maybe I don't want to. Kinda like our present national government situation.......
Cheers,
Wayne #4329

[fillibuster]

reply

Night and day diff to nat'l politics, imo. Our judges aren't campaigning, so they're usually out of sight and out of mind. But ever since things got so commercial in such high volume the judges' determinations have become more critical than I want to know. I'm sure they know that this is much more than just a sport to some of those whose work they have to judge.

I found Pete Heintz more like-able on road runs than at meets as a judge.

I'm sure you haven't seen the last of the adjustments in judging.

[fillibuster]

btw, Mr Haynes, if you want to divide this club in half all you have to do is post more of the same with the truck. Politics is a very ugly subject, and I request that we keep it absent, .. please? respectfully, please?

[sludge]

I saw something today I hadn't seen before....the bikes HAD to run to be placed on the judging field! Imagine that?
Good on ya - that is the way it should be.

Amen to that!

[flat-happy]

yeah there are plenty of OTHER forums for all that crap. i think from what i've read so far all the new rules are a step in the right direction. just because i don't want to sell my knuckleheads yet should not be a reason for someone with more money than to bring down the value of my bikes by building a "pretty" repop bike and passing it off for a junior second first and senior first when i can't afford to show mine right now

[Paps]

I applaud the numbers decision. I have problems with the factory recondition issues though. Repairs must be made and what better way to have had them made ??? But by the original manufacturer ?? Lord willing....the hobby and the organization will be around another 1000 years. The bikes will have long rotted away by that time though. I don't care how well you store a perfect example of a bike whcih was anounted the category of how it would have left the factory. Nothing lasts forever. Steel tubing will continue to disappear as the elements of nature eat away at it. Same goes with the rest of the machine. Thus my feelings on the recondition issues. Paps

[Barry Brown]

I applaud the numbers decision. I have problems with the factory recondition issues though. Repairs must be made and what better way to have had them made ??? But by the original manufacturer ?? Lord willing....the hobby and the organization will be around another 1000 years. The bikes will have long rotted away by that time though. I don't care how well you store a perfect example of a bike whcih was anounted the category of how it would have left the factory. Nothing lasts forever. Steel tubing will continue to disappear as the elements of nature eat away at it. Same goes with the rest of the machine. Thus my feelings on the recondition issues. Paps

I know of one museum curator that insisted the bike's frame tubes be filled with linseed oil as the museum's mandate dictated that each restored artifact must last 100 years with no deterioration.

[AFJ]

I know of one museum curator that insisted the bike's frame tubes be filled with linseed oil as the museum's mandate dictated that each restored artifact must last 100 years with no deterioration.

And I can remember the Brough Superior owner who protected his bike with a custom-made cover which had side pockets to contain packets of camphor. I thought at the time that this might have had some relationship to the preservation practices visited upon the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs.

My only other observation is that I guess I hold the quaint and seemingly obsolete idea that motorcycles were made to be ridden. Judging - and the resulting genuflection to an idol - is a pale and often divisive substitute for using old motorcycles as their makers intended.

AFJ

[rbc]

New judging criteria

Sarge,
Thanks for your well-thought-out and clearly stated explanation of the new judging rules and the reasoning behind them. It obviously took a fair amount of time and effort to think it through and write it down and I, for one, appreciate it.
Bob Culp

[Ohio-Rider]

Will those with Winner Circle bikes from the old rules have to have them re judged under the new rules? Or will there be a grand father clause for them?

I like the new rules, but imagine a few of the older Winner Circle bikes will not measure up to the new standard any more.

[HarleyCreation]

Yes, thanks to Sarge for this important update. Altho you can't please everyone, these changes seem to be logical and reasonable. Certainly they will help boost the club's credibility. No fantasy bikes in the winner's circle!

[rwm]

i wonder if someone felt there was liability issues with a 98 point bike brining big money on ebay then the new owner finding out half was repop and then going after the club that gave high marks?