Rhinebeck???

[exeric]

Cotten, I respect your stand but I must confess that I have never understood where you're comming from. I think you should try to define what you mean by presevation and restoration.

My application of preservation as it applies to antique motorcycles is: Slow down the aging process of paint and plated or bare metal with chemicals and good strorage. Replace missing pieces with correct year parts and hope to match patina. Unfortunately, I have never come close to owning an unrestored motorcycle. They are extreamly rare and have always been very expensive.

Restoration is what I know because the bikes I come across are very rusty, have been "restored" by one or more previous owners, and missing 50% or more parts. There is never anything left to preserve. Unfortunately, I think this is the scenario for most of us. I think your argument would have held water in 1970 when there were 700 AMCA members, little or no demand for antique motorcycles, and a member philosophy that thought restoring an original paint bike was progressive. By the mid-80s the antique motorcycle hobby was very different and has been refined since. I have never seen or been exposed to the type of revisionism you claim is rampant in the AMCA judging system. I think you need to define and site example of what you mean.

[T. Cotten]

There's an old saying:

"You can lead a horse to water,
but you better drink before it pees in it."

Don't address me directly, and I shall post to this discussion no more.

(That should make many of you more secure for a minute.
After all, a restored to 'as it came from the factory' machine only represents a mythical ideal of a minute of History. The rest of genuine History went out in the wash, because an 'expert' said so.)

....Cotten

[kval]

Cotten, you seem to have a misperception that there's some "marque bias" built into the judging system. Not so. We'll disqualify anything with the same mis-attributes. "Who owns it," likewise, doesn't matter in the least. Chris understand it: hist Post #8, above, sums it up.
If Prez Halter entered a bike in judging with funny numbers, it would be disqualified. I don't know where a self-titled "outsider" gets your information to develop these prejudices. Second hand, perhaps,. from malcontents? To be on this forum you have to be a paid-up AMCA member. Most of your business seems to come from members, for your first class Linkert floats. Perhaps if you came to meets and experienced judging, even participated in it, your eyes would be opened.
In the recent past there have been some incidents of improper restamps being overlooked: note the '46 Harley "Senior First" going for "Winner's Circle" that was caught up and disqualified at Eustis. It had been shown through Junior, then Senior, to get as far as it did.
It wouldn't matter to me, or to the other marque judges, if it was an Indian or a '60s Bridgestone 2-stroke. It's just a matter of what's valuable, and what shows up on the judging field, like Eric brought up.

Gerry
you say there are misperceptions about marque bias: when all this was discussed by the judging committee, the only makes that were brought up were HD and Indian. I tried to remind everyone that the rules MUST consider all makes that we judge. but it fell on deaf ears and a chart was shown with only HD numbers on it.
you suggest that Cotton should stay for judging and maybe even participate. where have you been since 1992??
the records show that since 1992 you NEVER had a bike judged and you only judged in 2009 at the Sunshine meet where you judged 4 bikes.
I guess this makes you an "apprentice" judge.

[exeric]

Cotten, I guess I'll have to remain in the dark, so perhaps we can agree to disagree. It's not really that big of a deal to me anyway. I love to noodle around with old bikes and that will be my fate till I die. I have always found it funny how people that have so much in common (hobbies, politics, sex, music, etc.) have so much to disagree about. We humans are the weirdest things on earth.

Kevin, you should not be using privledged information in an effort to demean someone who has a different opinion.

[kval]

Kevin, you should not be using privledged information in an effort to demean someone who has a different opinion.

Eric
that is not "privileged information" it is part of the judging file which is "public information" I did not demean him I just wanted to know how he can give advice when he just started judging himself.

[Sargehere]

So you are defending the concept of marque bias being endemic in the AMCA judging system even today, Kevin? If you are, you're just crying sour grapes, in my humble opinion.
I've been a member of the club since 1972. I'm responsible, in varying degrees, but I at least got the ball rolling, for 'historical vehicle' license plates being issued by the states of New Jersey, Maryland, Kentucky, New York and Connecticut of appropriate size for our antique motorcycles. The New Jersey plate fight I managed, 1974-76, is the reason Seaboard Chapter voted me Honorary Membership. I wrote letters to the BoD in the 1970s that helped lead to the end of the "1942" cut-off of what was then called the "Post-Antique" class.
I have been a judge since being appointed by Doc Patt at the Yankee Chapter meet at Moosup, Connecticut in 1982, and judged dozens of meets since then: Davenport, Wauseon, Colonial mainly. You'll find my number on judging forms (#43 for at least one of those years, back when they were different every year), then #601 for years in the 'Nineteen Eighties (Davenport, Wauseon, New Jersey) and the Nineteen Nineties at Eustis, since you still have access to the judging records. I dropped out of the entire show for a few years in protest of "good ol' boy" practices I experienced at Eustis, 2003 (you weren't there), when trophies were presented to basically, junk bikes only because of who owned them. I came back a year or two ago and got #607.
In 1992 or three, when Peter was casting about for a new Deputy Chief, I was one of the people he contacted. I declined. I was glad when you took the job, and you and Robin did a good job.
The dumbest thing I ever heard of you doing was getting up and walking out in protest of the BoD meeting in Eustis this year. By that act you effectively resigned as Chief Judge, Kevin, no matter what they label it, or what subsequently transpired. In real life, if you indicate you don't want to be somewhere, you'll be accommodated.
The AMCA has moved on. The judging system is much improved, in my humble opinion. Steve Dawdy is pursuing a higher level of organization of the judging system than has ever been applied before, and all this electronic forum back-biting, second-guessing and undermining is just sour grapes.
"Apprentice judge" my a$$! Where were you in '82?

[bmh]

Lonnie hit it on the head. If your bike has bad numbers, then don't bother to enter it.
The minutes of the Eustis BoD meeting lay it out as clearly as I needed (I got my Summer, 2010, The Antique Motorcycle the other day), and this is what it said:

The minutes of the meeting of the AMCA BoD held at Eustis, FL, on February 26, 2010 are printed in the Summer issue of The Antique Motorcycle, official magazine of the Antique Motorcycle Club of America.
The ten topics (for Topic #9 it says "Not Applicable," and Topic #10 was divided into "10A," and "10B") are described, and the votes on each reported in detail.
All but one Topic of the proposal appears to have, "passed, 9 in favor, 1 No."
It's bare bones, but the appearance of the word "obvious," in matters concerning reproduction frames and engines is likely to start some more discussion:

#6: "Obvious reproduction frame--6 point deduction." "passed, 9 in favor, 1 No."

#7: "Obvious reproduction top end--6 point deduction." "passed, 9 in favor, 1 No."

#8: "Obvious reproduction engine cases--Disqualified." "passed, 9 in favor, 1 No."

#10-A: "OEM cases must have 'good' numbers," meaning right font for year and model and correct engine box." "passed, 9 in favor, 1 Abstained." and,

#10B: "Restored motorcycles must have good numbers, meaning right font for year and model and correct engine box. If the numbers are "bad," the bike is Disqualified."
On #10B, the vote was 7 in favor, 1 No and 2 Abstained. Motion approved."

You will be receiving your own copy of The Antique Motorcycle over the next few weeks, if distribution proceeds as it usually does, around this interconnected world.

It wasn't unanimous, and we all know to whom the "1 No" vote was attributed on all ten motions.

So what was the big secret??????????? Why did it take so long to see this in writing??????????? When will there be a new judging handbook that includes this info so folks don't need to try extrapolate the rules of judging from board meeting minutes?????? And you guessed it......What does obvious mean? Obvious from where? How far away? Taiwan Tedd's frames look right till ya get close enough to start looking for all those nasty little hallmarks on the forgings. I have seen very few reproduction parts that will stand that type of up close scrutiny from a knowledgeable person. What about the guy who de-chopped his old knuck? The new steering head may not be an exact copy of what it should be......How do you determine repaired from reproduction? How much of a frame can you replace before it would be called a reproduction and no longer original? And Cotten has a very valid point on the British marques. I know enough about triumphs to know that certain frames never saw more than a full years production if even that. The frames on most Japanese machines changed just as often, yet motors will often interchange. I bet those brands are not scrutinized for these infractions as heavily as the classic American machines. And we haven't even gotten into VIN's and the like yet.

If we are going to start spelling out point deductions at board meetings, it takes away from the judging simply by bypassing the expertise of the judges on the field whose job it is(or was) to "judge" the machine based on their knowledge and their impression of the machine in question. If the board wishes to make the judging decisions from the meeting table then they need to complete the job and publish a complete list of all possible infractions with the associated deductions. The judging form could be a 4 page checklist and a single person could go about and check the appropriate boxes and calculate final scores.

I personally find the show and the judging a fascinating and enjoyable part of every meet I attend. It appears that this new scheme is keeping a lot of folks from entering their machines, thereby decreasing the enjoyability factor for everyone. That is the truly sad part.

[Sargehere]

Brian, I think I answered all the questions you raised here in my post back to you in the "Completely Original '69 XLCH" thread.
Things like, "the guy who de-chopped his old Knuck:" well, I think that the basic thing you're missing is that no one promised you that anything you "restore" is going to qualify for the Winners' Circle of Excellence. That's what we're talking about in all of this. The Winner's Circle is going to mean more, because it is harder to achieve. There are certain bikes that deserve to be recognized as the best, the ones subsequent restorers will be able to study with confidence for how to finish their own examples of the same model, because they exhibit all the details of a factory-door machine.
The vast majority, not so much. Even a bike with an obvious repop frame can still be restored to 94 points. That makes a Junior First award not just a stepping stone to higher recognition, but a goal to be achieved in itself, for a bike with insurmountable defects, whether a replacement frame or different-year neck.

I personally find the show and the judging a fascinating and enjoyable part of every meet I attend. It appears that this new scheme is keeping a lot of folks from entering their machines, thereby decreasing the enjoyability factor for everyone. That is the truly sad part.

Ain't happenin', Brian. National Meet attendence is up, and plenty of bikes are being entered, to find out how they fare under the new, stiffer, judging rules. All this buzz is just making the new judging rules of more interest to almost everyone.

[bmh]

Ain't happenin', Brian. National Meet attendence is up, and plenty of bikes are being entered, to find out how they fare under the new, stiffer, judging rules. All this buzz is just making the new judging rules of more interest to almost everyone.

Attendance may be up, at least if your talking about vendors. That's the only thing you could have an actual count on, actual people milling about at most meets is an unknown. No one counts who comes in, except at a meet like Rhinebeck where you must pay for the privilege to look at greasy old MC parts. All that aside, bikes entered at Oley was way down this year. And please don't give me some shine about bad weather and rain. It was a lot wetter in 2008 and there were lots more bikes. They had to put the winners circle machines in the little pavilion by the concession stand as they could barely fit all the other classes in under the large pavilion where Clete sets up. Please don't misunderstand my point, I actually agree with most of the changes. It is the way that they were done and the fact that any type of a written set of guidelines was unavailable for so long.

I do however still have a big problem with the wording "obvious". By that definition this machine should qualify for the winners circle, please note that now engine cases must also be "obvious" reproductions, not merely reproductions as in the past. I don't think anyone could amass enough period photographic evidence to show any part on this machine to be an "obvious" reproduction. And it definitely fits the new description of Competition class as it is displayed as when it was new, not after race modifications. So I would reason if Jurassic can make an accurate enough 8 valve top it too can be in the winners circle, as long as it's not "obvious". That's the way I read it anyway.

[Sargehere]

You don't need photographic evidence to show an STD case isn't 1940 Knucklehead, or that a long-ribbed post-WWII Knucklehead case shouldn't be wearing a 1939 VIN. That's what's being regulated by the new rules. Or that an original engine, say, a "23JDCA," didn't originate as an "8-valve factory racer," or that a reproduction generic Panhead wishbone frame shouldn't be wrapped around a 47FL engine, so what's the problem?

Please don't misunderstand my point, I actually agree with most of the changes. It is the way that they were done and the fact that any type of a written set of guidelines was unavailable for so long.

The way they were done is what's known as a moot point. They were done, it's over, and let's move on. Kevin and Robin are not going to be apologized to by the leadership and reinstated and all made nice at this point, no matter how you feel about it.
So, like another poster said, over on the "Completely ORIGINAL '69 XLCH" thread, to the effect of, why does every thread here have to devolve into an argument over the judging (either personnel or rule) changes?
Sniping and criticizing the judging changes and club leadership enter into most threads here, sooner or later, (You can see uncalled-for, unrelated sarcasm raise its ugly head in post #7 of the "Completely ORIGINAL '69 XLCH" thread, and we're off to the races). That's cheap, easy to do, and only ruins the mood for everyone. And you can see where it comes in just by re-reading the threads to find the point it occured. A couple of easily-identifiable mal-contents who feel the need repeatedly to sarcastically open mouth, insert foot. Maybe they'll get some idea of the futility of it all, better (for all) sooner, than later.
Set of guidelines? Look, it only took five months for everyone to see in the Summer magazine that the rule criteria hinges on the word "obvious," so don't rush the process!
Seriously, guidance on the definition of "obvious" will come when the judging shakes out a little bit, I'm sure. I wasn't there at the Eustis BoD meeting, but I think everyone was unprepared for the aftermath when the decisions to change judging were made, and unexpected changes occurred. I agree that it should have been all laid out before now, but I also think a bit of a "try-out" period is being allowed to play out, right now, perhaps for this judging season, while everyone accumulates experience with the new system, and civil discourse is carried out before it is chiseled in stone, you know?
I look at it this way: If the heart of that Excelsior OHV racer you posted is an original Ex racing motor, the cases, anyway, it's a restoration. The frame could be completely from scratch, AFAIC, if it's faithful to the original. Every other part of the bike could be a faithful reproduction part, made in the restorer's workshop. "Faithful" being the important word.
But if it's a replacement, a repro, or an ordinary Ex road engine dressed up to look like something it never was, it's a "REPLICA." That's the common sense in all of this. No one's asking for mental gymnastics.

[bmh]

I look at it this way: If the heart of that Excelsior OHV racer you posted is an original Ex racing motor, the cases, anyway, it's a restoration. The frame could be completely from scratch, AFAIC, if it's faithful to the original. Every other part of the bike could be a faithful reproduction part, made in the restorer's workshop. "Faithful" being the important word.
But if it's a replacement, a repro, or an ordinary Ex road engine dressed up to look like something it never was, it's a "REPLICA." That's the common sense in all of this. No one's asking for mental gymnastics.

The rules used to read the way you have put it, but they have been changed. It used to be that reproduction cases were an automatic DQ. Now I read that OBVIOUS reproduction cases will be a DQ. So in essence we are now saying that reproduction cases are allowed as long as they are not obvious and the same guidelines you gave out in regards to frames would apply to cases or top ends for that matter. In trying to keep out the forgers, the folks at the top seem to have thrown the doors wide open to let them in. And no, no part of that machine I posted ever saw the inside of the Excelsior factory that I am aware of, that's my point. By my reading of the changes this machine is now eligible for judging. There is nothing on it that can be called an "obvious reproduction" not even the cases.

One thing that is obvious from some of the changes is that no one actually put much thought into most of this. Would it not have been enough to simply add that " All serial numbers must be genuine, re-stamps will be disqualified" and left it at that? If a new 6 point rule was then deemed necessary for frames, it could have been added, although you will find that matter is not nearly as cut a dry as the one in place for paint. The rules already stated that frame and engine must be a match. Didn't that already cover it? Also now that I think of it, I didn't know we were deducting for incorrect hallmarks, does this apply to frames only, or all parts of the machine? Where can one even find a published reference on such matters? Are we also checking date codes?

[Chris Haynes]

Are we also checking date codes?

Not all makes have date codes. H-D didn't start date coding until 1938. Many date codes can't be seen without a tear down.