not the sharpest tool
 

Well, for those who know me can attest, I am not the sharpest tool in the shed. As a matter of fact I was challenged by a Model A tire iron to a game of Jeopardy and lost.

It is with this background that I must confess that I thought that the two Model A clubs, MARC and MAFCA, were working together on the Judging Standards. I thought that I brought a set of acceptable variances to the MAFCA meet in Puyallup but I left the variances that I used at the French Lick meet at my house.

When I realized that I did not have them with me I panicked. I texted, e-mailed and called Rob Mills, the MARC JSC chairman. Finally he called back from his 3rd shift job and said that he could send a copy. After I called to say that I received them he said something to the effect 'I don't know if they will accept them'. This was very curious I thought.

Color me stupid but I thought that the JSC was a committee of members from MARC and MAFCA. I come to find out that though they are working together on a revision of the Judging Standards, they have separate committees.

In Puyallup, I called the head judge and he said that I should put them on the windshield. My problem was solved or so I thought. Yes, I did put them on the windshield not knowing that they were MARC variances at a MAFCA meet. I come to find that this was like putting up a Blood poster in a Crypt neighborhood??

A day after judging I was informed that my variances from MARC meant nothing at a MAFCA meet. Though the clubs work on the Judging Standards together they do not acknowledge each others variances.

As in a war of competing factions, I feel like collateral damage. I thought that I was doing things right but in the eyes of others, I wasn't. Perhaps I should know better. I belong to three MAFCA local clubs and both national clubs. However, I don't know about the ins and outs of the politics that is being played.

The tire iron laid there and said, 'These clubs should work together and accept each other a bit more. It would certainly benefit our hobby.' Though as previously proven I am not as smart as this tire iron, I just sat there and nodded in total agreement.

Re: not the sharpest tool
 

As you said Bloods and Crypts both have the same goal.

Re: not the sharpest tool
 

Very well said Thank you

Re: not the sharpest tool
 

Re: not the sharpest tool
 

And how sad that two national clubs can't seem to agree on things as simple and straightforward as this. We all talk about both clubs joining some day. That won't happen in my lifetime.

Re: not the sharpest tool
 

Please note that I am not blaming anyone for anything. I take total responsibility for my actions or lack thereof. As a former teacher I realize that it would have been better if I had done more homework. However, this Puyallup trip was a bonus and one put together by me in the last two months.

Also please note that the intent of my original post was merely to suggest that the two clubs should accept each other's variances. Period.

Re: not the sharpest tool
 

THAT is the same thought I had when I first read Dean's post. My second thought was Dean only gets to wait another 2 years to try again.

Yes, if folks only knew the true inter-relation workings between these two clubs..... ;). :o

Re: not the sharpest tool
 

Hey Gary,
Hm, only one..would that be monopoly then :) !

There are three main things that DOGS fight over, that being...territoriality , food and sex ! Just substitute $ for food and ...what is the difference main goals between clubs and dogs :confused:

Re: not the sharpest tool
 

1. There are two very seperate clubs. The only joint venture I am aware of is the RG&JS. Under 'judging the model a' in the standards several differences are delineated.
2. Page 2 under variances it states 'variances shall be submitted in writing to the respective national club judging Standards Committee at least 6 months prior to a national meet.' Note respective.

I have not heard of a requsest to allow variances to be allowed across clubs. Perhaps a request with solid backing could be sent to both clubs to allow this?

Re: not the sharpest tool
 

I pretty much disagree with this entire thread! The relations between the two clubs has never been better than it is now. We exchange a lot of data and each clubs recognizes and accepts the other clubs Judge qualifications - a Master judge in one club is therefore a Master Judge in the other. However, as Chairman of the MAFCA JSC, we are responsible for how a meet is conducted for our clubs. Since there are some differences in how each club conducts a meet, I believe it appropriate to review and approve any variance for the meet - both for judging the vehicle and following club policy in the processes used.
In this particular case, I read the variances granted by MARC when Dean taped them to his windshield. Frankly, I don't believe a variance was necessary for the items listed on the letter. The is no material in the Guidelines that conflicted with the items installed on the vehicle. Consequently, there was no change to the Guidelines needed or listed on the variance. The information listed was in reality an addition to the Guidelines. By not using the MARC variance letter, the Team Captains were left to use their judgment. Since, the vehicle did not conflict with the language in the guidelines, no deductions would have been made. Until we see the actual score sheets to indicate otherwise, I believe the impact of this event was zero.

Re: not the sharpest tool
 

If we read Dean's post carefully, he says:
"A day after judging I was informed that my variances from MARC meant nothing"

anyone remember the Jets and the Sharks from West Side Story....

go have fun with your cars, gents, life is shorter than you think....

Re: not the sharpest tool
 

The focus of my post is to have the clubs accept each other's variances. Share the information that they were based on but accept each other's variances.

tbirdtbird, you ae so right. Life is short so enjoy it. I am having fun. I just want the clubs to accept each other's variances.

WardAZ, the score was great (483 poins). The focus here was on process not score.

Doug, the relationship between the clubs may be getting better so working on a way to share variances should be doable.

Jim, I should have prepared better for Puyallup (this is obvious in hindsight). After A495 did will in French Lick (MARC), I thought 'Heck, why not go to Puyallup'. This choice was solidified when someone on Fordbarn (can't remember who it was) said that folks on the West coast would like to see it too.

hardtimes, yes dogs compete and humans do compete. After that your comparison is lost. Using your equation, getting the best of show from both clubs would get me territory, money and sex. As it stands I have not received any of the above. One of these in particular my wife would disapprove of.

Brent, interactions between the clubs seem to be improving. Accepting each other's variances would be another step in the right direction.

Gary, I don't know if the clubs will ever merge or even if I ever really want them to merge. Varying opinions are good, very good in a democracy. The "my way or the highway" philosophy undermines democracy. Varied opinions with respect and cooperation is great in a democracy and with our clubs.

Mike V., having dealt with gangs in my childhood neighborhood I realize that they look for conflict to keep their members loyal. I believe that our clubs are above that and are doing things to work with the other club. Accepting each other's variances is another step in the right direction.

C26Pinelake and Pinstripe thanks for your encouragement.

Overall it is easy to bash. My post was to express frustration and to find a way to eliminate the cause.

I move that MARC and MAFCA continue to work together and work on a plan to accept the variances of the other club.

Thanks to all for the rational exchange of ideas.

Dean

Re: not the sharpest tool
 

Yes the bashing can be unfair since some have never been involved in F/P judging or shown a vehicle in MARC/MAFCA yet voice an opinion based on hearsay. With that said, Dean your view on the two JSC entitiy's interactions is different than mine, for sure! My personal observation however is one side appears to be more jealous of the other group however I will stop there.

Re: not the sharpest tool
 

I believe that the folks, who worry about such itsy bitsy, tiny things, are really not enjoying their "A" Model.
Get it out and drive it. Don't worry about little nicks, etc.
MIKE :) (mikeburch)

Re: not the sharpest tool
 

to each his own. i know what i enjoy..you don't....

Re: not the sharpest tool
 

Dean,

Well,...after reading your opening statement, you left me thinking real hard
about your car. After seeing the chassis in San Diego, I was sure the remainder,
with the same effort, would be an excellent Fine Point winner.

So my question is,....what were the variances?

I like to think I know early cars and I can only think of one or two places
were you would need, in a stretch, a variance.

Thanks

Re: not the sharpest tool
 

As one of the judges at the MAFCA meet I would like to thank Dean for entering his car in the judging. It was a pleasure to see such a great example of an early car.

Bob Johnson

Re: not the sharpest tool
 

Yes , i want to thank Dean for making it to the French Lick MARC MEET! [ i believe with 3 hours to spare]nothing like cutting it close ! ... no one on the outside of Fine point restoration knows the pain , hours , money , traveling from French Lick to Washington and going over the car again and again for that LONG , LONG TRIP...[One i wish i could of afford and make] but 4 National meets in 1 month in 3 states ,,, ruined me..l.o.l. A outstanding restoration DEAN ! And a great pit crew too...I would not worry about the judges ,,,they know on hand the work that went into that car.... if not give them the moon ! l.o.l.