|
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
05-11-2014, 09:04 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The sticks of east Texas
Posts: 474
|
Judging Standards question
On page 4-7, in the section titled Fender Brackets, it says
Mid-1928 through late 1929, forged fender brackets had round ends ... Then later in the paragraph, it says From January 1929 through the end of production, the front and rear fender brackets were stamped steel. Seems that there is a contradiction here with one part saying my April '29 should have stamped while another implies forged. What am I missing? Last edited by BillLee/Chandler, TX; 05-11-2014 at 09:07 AM. Reason: correct formatting |
05-11-2014, 09:41 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Daytona Beach, Fl & Spencer, W. Va,
Posts: 4,442
|
Re: Judging Standards question
Through experience, I'm with the second statement.
MIKE (mikeburch) |
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|
05-11-2014, 09:55 AM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 47
|
Re: Judging Standards question
I think you are using the old Judging Standards
New (revised 2011) are on 4-14 4-16. |
05-11-2014, 01:07 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The sticks of east Texas
Posts: 474
|
Re: Judging Standards question
Quote:
Does the 2011 revision (whatever page it's on) have the same wording? |
|
05-11-2014, 01:22 PM | #5 |
BANNED
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Gothenburg Nebraska Just off I-80
Posts: 4,893
|
Re: Judging Standards question
I have seen a mix from January 1929 to April 1929. My late April built Deluxe Delivery had forged front fender braces, stamped rear fender braces and stamped runningboard braces. I have not seen many May of 1929 vehicles and all of ther June 1929 cars I have seen had all stamped braces. Rod
__________________
Do the RIGHT thing - Support the H.A.M.B. Alliance!!!! |
05-11-2014, 03:33 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Marengo. Illinois
Posts: 262
|
Re: Judging Standards question
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)
|
05-11-2014, 03:46 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 27,582
|
Re: Judging Standards question
My 2-23-29 Tudor has the same as Rowdy just mentioned for his.
|
05-11-2014, 04:52 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The sticks of east Texas
Posts: 474
|
Re: Judging Standards question
Thanks, all, for the responses. Apparently a typical Ford change, to use up all the old stock in parallel with a new version.
If that document is supposed to be the "Restoration Guidelines & Judging Standards", why isn't the information that this thread revealed a standard part of it? (Perhaps the current version has something more?) A simple sentence that said something like brito36 wrote: The stamped fender brackets came out in late 1928, and ran along with the forged brackets until XXXX. |
05-11-2014, 11:38 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Milpitas, CA
Posts: 399
|
Re: Judging Standards question
Bill
This is what the 2011 Guidelines says about the front fender bracket for the time period that you are talking about: · In April 1929, stamped (tapered channel) fender brackets were phased into production. The stamped bracket was secured with three 3/8” diameter bolts. The lower portion where the bracket attached to the frame formed a triangular shape with straight sides. Either the forged or the stamped design was used on April and May 1929 vehicles. You should purchase the 2011 updates they have a lot of additional information.
__________________
Bill Cilker, Jr Unrestored 190A Victoria 45B, 160B & 189A Victoria Association President |
05-12-2014, 08:23 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 914
|
Re: Judging Standards question
Quote:
The first sentence describes the forged brackets that were used through late 1929. The second sentence describes the stamped brackets used from 1/29 to eop. I agree it wasn't as clear as it could be and doesn't address the overlap as it should have, but does imply the overlap. English isn't the easiest language. To give an idea of what the JSC is up against writing the RG&JS try writing a paragraph explaining how to tie shoes. The new version is better, but will probably be vague in spots as well |
|
|
|
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|