[SCG] inspection marks and other things

[William Hubbell]

This is an interesting discussion, but I don't think we have to worry much about CORSA ever making Concours more anal when it comes to Stock classes.  CORSA has never put much emphasis on Stock research or preservation into Concours and the only reason there is anything at all about Stock in our Concours is due to the efforts of a small number of dedicated individuals such as Mark, Larry, and Dave.  The more recent trends in Concours rule changes have only been to further water down any encouragement for Stock representation in Concours, as evidenced by the silly re-naming of the Modified classes to "Improved".  Further evidence of CORSA's distain for stock is found by the fact that there was no such thing as a Stock committee or Stock research group until we formed the Stock Corvair Group some 30+ years after CORSA originated.  Finally, you need only to look at the low volume of activity on our new Interactive SCG web site to realize that the vast majority of CORSA members just aren't all that interested in the subject of Stock.  I think the motto of most CORSA members can be summed up by the phrase "Stock is a good starting point."

I have finally come to terms with the realization that researching and documenting Stock Corvairs will never amount to anything more than just an interesting hobby that I and a small number of others happen to enjoy.  I have no delusions that it will ever have much financial benefit or make much difference in the way most Corvair Owners enjoy their cars.  Corvairs were never high dollar cars to begin with, and they will never be high dollar collector cars (with possible rare exceptions), no matter how original or well-documented they may be.  They are fun and interesting cars, however, and I think we can all agree on that.


Bill Hubbell

On Jun 9, 2011, at 12:37 AM, "Kent Sullivan" <kentsu at corvairkid.com> wrote:

> As Dave and Mark have said, we in the SCG are doing this because we love the
> challenge and yes, it's fun to have an obsession. But we specifically stated
> in our "formation papers" that we were not doing this to make concours more
> strict. There might come a time were some of the things we learn in the SCG
> make sense to add to concours, but only after much consideration and
> deliberation, and only if we are very confident about the broad
> applicability.
> 
> --Kent
> -----Original Message-----
> From: scg-list-bounces at tiger.skiblack.com
> [mailto:scg-list-bounces at tiger.skiblack.com] On Behalf Of Mark Corbin
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9:04 PM
> To: Dave Newell; jtreinhart at omnitelcom.com
> Cc: corsabod at corvair.org; scg-list at tiger.skiblack.com
> Subject: Re: [SCG] Fw: Re: [Corsabod] inspection marks and other things
> (FixingTy pos)
> 
> All,
> 
> I'm with Dave on this 100%. And I'm glad to see the discussion take the
> right path so far. But after talking to my friend, I just had to start the
> thread to get it all off my chest. Dave is absolutely correct about our
> possibility of obtaining "Bloomington Gold" levels of documentation. I don't
> see it ever happening, and for reasons he cited, in addition to the lapse of
> time. Nor should we expect or even want such levels. A middle of the road
> approach is best for us and our chosen hobby car. 
> 
> But we SHOULD make every attempt to document what we can, and as soon as we
> can, as we will never have more stock cars than we do right this minute.
> Their numbers are always decreasing, and if we're not careful, such "living
> documents" will fade away out of existance and be lost forever. That is why
> the SCG and SCGE are so important. It's why CORSA should emphasise the SCG's
> efforts even more than it does now.
> 
> Above this though, a warning. Concours should not try to incorporate such
> documentation into any strict standards for classification, or even try to
> drive further towards a "Bloomington Gold" type of class for Corvairs. Of
> course, the SCG efforts weren't meant to do that. They are meant to be
> purely historical, for the fun and self-satisfaction of it all.  But IF
> someone takes their car to that level, more power to them. If anything,
> Corvair owners are mostly guilty of "over-restoring" their cars, so maybe
> the SCG documentation efforts will eventually temper the concours people
> into more realistic restorations. But let it take place naturally, not by
> changing concours standards.
> 
> My big warning in all this is to the board. Be careful, be VERY careful, in
> anything concerning concours. We have in the past made changes in the
> concours rules, changes which I am not particularly happy with, and changes
> that have taken us in directions I don't like. But most participants seem
> happy with the changes, unaware of what I see happening. Concours is deadly
> serious business, and its effects ripple far beyond what most people see.
> It affects the value of cars, it affects the restoration of cars, it affects
> us all, and in ways many don't realize. So changes should not be taken
> lightly, nor hastily. And certainly they should NOT be made or left in the
> hands of those who are not thoroughly qualified and experienced in all
> aspects of concours. THAT is what worried me back when I wrote the original
> rules, and it STILL worries me today. I personally feel that the board
> should divest themselves of ALL concours rules-making duties and decisions,
> and leave them solely in the hands of a select COMMITTEE of well-qualified
> concours experts to hash out. I could name a whole list of such people, and,
> sad to say, with ONE possible exception, none are on the current board, nor
> have precious few ever been. THAT to me is scary.
> 
> -Mark Corbin
> 
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Dave Newell <chevrobilia at juno.com>
>> Subject: [SCG] Fw: Re: [Corsabod] inspection marks and other things
> (FixingTy    pos)
>> 
>> Spell check still doesn't catch the dumb mistakes...fixed below :o)
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
>> From: "Dave Newell" <chevrobilia at juno.com>
>> Subject: Re: [SCG] [Corsabod]  inspection marks and other things
>> 
>> Thanks Jamie...
>> I definitely think the research and documentation is necessary from a
> historical standpoint. That is, we should preserve what a stock Corvair was,
> to the best of our knowledge, for posterity. Whether we should apply those
> definitions to judging is another issue. If we do, I personally don't think
> our standards should be nearly as rigid as the Corvette folks. The more you
> study how our cars were built, the more you realize that Chevrolet had no
> definition of stock...just specs and standards. In practice there were
> deviations from plant to plant, many running changes, substitutions based on
> a part's availability and many variations in materials application. Willow
> Run had a parts runner that was known to haunt local hardware stores and
> wholesalers if a suitable fastener could be found rather than stop the line.
> Also, Corvairs were more variable than Vettes because of their greater
> volume, build time and lower expectations of their owners.
>> 
>> For example, at Oakland the Fisher Plant manager had the rocker panel
> pinchweld flange painted black for a while, absorbing the cost because he
> thought the job looked better that way than with the normal body color
> flange. Should we try to document the affected range of cars? Absolutely, if
> it's possible. But should we penalize cars that don't conform? I think not.
> Documenting from a historical viewpoint is fun. Getting too stressed out in
> concours over details that Chevrolet felt were inconsequential is not.
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
>> ---------- Original Message ----------
>> From: "Jamie & Tanya Reinhart" <jtreinhart at omnitelcom.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Corsabod] [SCG] inspection marks and other things
>> 
>> All, I for one appreciate bone stock classic cars, but here is what I
> question. At this late date, 41 years after the last corvair was produced,
> will starting this difficult process of detailed inspection and
> documentation have the same effects on the values or notoriety of corvairs
> as say a Z-16 Chevelle, or a ZL-1 Camaro, or a X-11 427 Impala, or a Black
> Widow 57 and so on? I just don&#65533;t see it. I&#65533;m not saying it
> wouldn&#65533;t be interesting to research, just wondering if the outcome
> is worth the effort. Jamie ReinhartCORSA President   From: Dave NewellSent:
> Wednesday, June 08, 2011 4:51 PMTo: modquad at juno.comCc:
> airvair at earthlink.net ; corsabod at corvair.org ;
> scg-list at tiger.skiblack.comSubject: Re: [Corsabod] [SCG] inspection marks
> and other things Hi,
>> I think you guys aren't giving the Corvair hobby enough credit in the
> stock department. Larry Claypool, you (Mark Corbin), myself and others were
> stock-conscious even in the 1970s and I think CORSA certainly pioneered
> stock judging classes among all of the Chevy car line clubs with the
> exception of Corvette. Vette stock interest pretty much paralleled our own,
> and Corvette folks were lucky to have the similarly stock-brained,
> Claypool-class expert Noland Adams and his books to begin their process of
> focusing on originality details. 
>> 
>> The dubious Corvette "Bloomington Gold" concours status that developed 
>> in
> the '80s was a mixed bag though. Cars that achieve the Bloomington Gold
> status are anally adherent to what they define as "stock"
>> and cars that make the grade increase substantially in value. True, 
>> more
> "stock" Corvettes result from the process but it's largely a money thing.
> For example, if a Vette owner has the correct edition warranty booklet in
> the glovebox, properly filled out for his car (which usually requires owners
> to search out NOS booklets for up to $1K apiece), they get more points and
> thus their car increases in value, justifying the investment. I know,
> because in my business I sell to this market. Do we really want to get that
> uptight? I deal with owners of other Chevy car lines and sell them original
> literature, documents and memorabilia. The Nova folks in general are in the
> stone age and don't think much about stock at all. The Chevelle folks are
> better, especially concerning Z-16s, but have no organized effort or pool of
> knowledge. I know a few Impala guys that are just as intense about numbers
> VINS, assembly plant details, invoices etc. as I am but again have no
> "Stock" group or any hi
>> story of cooperative research. The "stock" knowledge among those 
>> owners
> mainly rests among a few individual experts. The Camaro Research Group
> stands alone as a group effort and I highly recommend their website. Kent
> Sullivan and I have shared body tag options codes with them and they are as
> serious as we are. As to the BoD and concours, exactly the same scenario has
> existed with the CPF from the beginning. Thanks for getting the discussion
> started....
>> 
>> Dave Newell
>> ---------- Original Message ----------
>> From: "Mike" <modquad at juno.com>
>> Subject: Re: [SCG] inspection marks and other things
>> 
>> Seems like cars that were built in the same year on the same assembly
> lines might have a lot of common build processes - at least in the Fisher
> body area.  Perhaps one could start building a database for Corvairs based
> on information already in existance around Novas for example that came down
> the Willow Run line.  Of course we would want to verify somehow that the
> Corvair operation was done the same way. Undercoating, overspray, inspection
> marks, fastener types, suspension finishes, etc might be partially
> documented this way. Mike
>> 
>> ---------- Original Message ----------
>> Subject: [SCG] inspection marks and other things
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> I got into a discussion today with a friend who's quite the history buff.
> He asked about such things as inspection marks, paint overspray, and so
> forth, things that are well documented in other clubs from the Corvette club
> to a lot of the muscle and pony car clubs.  My response was that those folks
> are high rollers, and got into that degree of documentation early on.
> We are just now getting into just the documentation of what exactly
> constitutes stock, and any variations that may have occurred during the
> model years.
>> 
>> With the coming convention and our annual Stock Corvair Event coming 
>> up
> in mind, maybe we should add such items to our list of things to look for.
> Of course, I'd expect that it's going to be difficult, if not impossible, to
> reach the degree of documentation that certain other clubs have achieved. We
> are 40 years late to the game.
>> 
>> But as I told my friend, one of the reasons their cars have 
>> appreciated
> to the degree that is well beyond what their contemporary, the Corvair, has
> is because of such documentation efforts. High rollers LIVE for such things,
> and one of the reasons they will and probably do shun the Corvair is just
> for that reason.
>> 
>> I always knew that concours was the first, biggest step in promoting 
>> the
> preservation of a marque. It's why, early on, I plunged into the job of
> writing CORSA's first set of concours rules (which are in modified form,
> still being used today). BUT I also had to fight off a large and vocal
> contingent of the board that desperately wanted a watered-down definition of
> "stock". They wanted to call "stock" is what we today call "Street Stock",
> with such things as mud flaps and aftermarket radios allowed in the class.
> It was a battle royal, but I succeeded in preserving the sanctity of stock.
>> 
>> A side note here. One of the CORSA board's historic failures has been 
>> the
> insistence for micromanaging everything. In this case, they have always
> insisted on having the final say on, first, what form the Concours rules
> took, and then insisting on having the final say on any modifications to
> those rules. And since few qualified concours people are ever elected onto
> the board, I feel that it's like having blind men pilot the ship. Concours
> is SERIOUS business, and only the truly qualified should EVER be allowed to
> hold sway on any judgements pertaining to it. No disrespect meant, but most
> board members historically simply are not so qualified, and should remove
> themselves from making such decisions.
>> 
>> I just wish that we as a club had been smart enough to take historical
> documentation, early on, to the level that other clubs have. What we are
> just now finding out is that the value of our cars is tied directly in such
> efforts, and that we as a club have shot ourselves in the foot for being so
> negligent of our history for so long.
>> 
>> -Mark Corbin
>> 
> 
> This message was sent by the SCG-list mailing list, all copyrights are the
> property of the writer, please attribute properly. For help,
> mailto:scg-list-help at corvair.org This list sponsored by the Corvair Society
> of America, http://www.corvair.org/ Post messages to:
> SCG-list at tiger.skiblack.com Change your options:
> http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/options/scg-list
> 
> 
> This message was sent by the SCG-list mailing list, all copyrights are the property
> of the writer, please attribute properly. For help, mailto:scg-list-help at corvair.org
> This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America, http://www.corvair.org/
> Post messages to: SCG-list at tiger.skiblack.com
> Change your options: http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/options/scg-list