[JayJay]

I can see both sides of this discussion. On the one hand, a rebuilt 28-31 engine, perhaps with number restamped, is certainly period but is not "original" to the car. So by extension practically every engine on the road is not "original". On the other hand, dave in australia has a good point. We cannot practically dip fenders in black enamel any more, so is any spray repainted fender automatically not "original"? (You won't find the dribbles that dipped parts had - somewhere.) Or replacement fabric. Would a reupholstered interior automatically not be "original"?

I will admit I'm not tuned to the fine points (pun intended) of fine points judging. I'm much more likely to enter a vehicle into "Restorers Class" evaluation. But I'd hate to see us get to the point where the only vehicles that have a chance at fine points judging are original survivors that have been locked away for 90+ years, and are never driven except into their trailers. I think we need to provide incentive for restorers to make every effort to have their cars look as "original" as possible, focusing on appearance, not the actual provenance of the part. So to that end, if you can make a Burtz block look identical to a 1930 block, I say "great". I agree with rotorwrench that you would not want to represent that this is an "original" part, but I have no problem with presenting it as a part that has been replaced but is by all appearances the same as would have been on the car originally. But I'm not a judge, so maybe I'm just blowing smoke out my tailpipe.

And I really would hate if the judging process took this to having a declaration that all parts are "original". Again, I say focus on whether the vehicle presented looks like what would have been in a showroom at the time.

And thanks, P.S., for chiming in with your comments.