275GTB’s Original Headlights and 1 Point Deduction Across the Board?

The judge at Cavalino 2024 gave a 1 point deduction for headlights that were not 07.485.700 Carello, according to his opinion. Conversely, Dustin is working on headlight research and his opinion is that the very early cars would have had the Marchal 109 and all others would have been 07.585.700. But I find that difficult to understand given my factory body book states that two different type headlights, US and Euro, existed in production. Then what about cars that US DOT mandated converted to sealed beam headlights etc etc? Once again, Enzo era cars thrown out of platinum and off the field with this one point deduction system. Any input on this would be appreciated.

 

Greg: I can make is even worse for the history researcher. New cars destined for the US were mandated to have sealed beam headlights and all red rear taillight lenses. I believe "most" were so equipped this way from the factory. However, if you look at the "new" 275 GTS in the Car and Driver test in 1965, it has clearly has Marchal headlights, and it is NOT an early car. So my position is that all versions are acceptable as documentation exists to confirm both Carello and Marchal in Euro cars, as well as Sealed Beams in "some" US spec cars.

 

Greg,

I believe that when applicable to a Euro car, the proper Carello headlight number for the 275GTB is 07.585.700, not the 07.485. Note however, that the 07.480 and 07.485 have near identical lens patterns on the glass to the 07.585; you need to stare at them side-by-side to find the subtle differences. You also have to check the mounts on the back if buying them, as mounts often varied for the same lens number depending on application - perhaps there was yet another behind the scenes catalog sub-number or reflector number for the mount. Reproductions of the 480 and 485 are advertised, but not yet the 585 that I am aware of. 06449 at the Paris Salon in 1964 had Marchal headlights, another example of Marchal. I would think that the 07.480, 07.485, 07.585 should be accepted by the judges, as original headlights become more scarce, if viewed as maintenance replacement items if lost or damaged. US sealed beam regulation is interesting, I was not aware of that. To complicate further, I think later 4-cams MAY have had CARELLO in block lettering (not script) on the headlight; I do not know the light number. I have seen this a few times, but do not know if original. As for the Pininfarina side badge discussion, totally reasonable that either configuration should be accepted in judging, absent clear individual case proof to the contrary. It unsettles judging confidence if judges generalize that "all" or "most" 275GTB only had one side badge, as this is easily demonstrated inaccurate all day long with period photos. In an arena full of multiplicity of detail, no wonder owners get upended at the concours by rigid declarations.

 

thank you for your input


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat

 

if I would’ve known that, we were two points down before registering the Cars for Cavallino I would’ve saved a lot of money aggravation all the way around with both of the Gtb s I brought



Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat

 

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Who were the 3 judges?

 

Greg, with your experience in restorations and judging, including as a judge yourself, along with presumably easy access to individuals accredited to creating guidelines for Ferrari judging, I'm little surprised of your reaction to this and the PF badge issue.

While I probably don't have your experience, I have studied those guidelines, both in FCA organized seminars and judges meetings on the day of shows I've been invited to judge, even have had a pleasure sharing a field with you (both of us as judges) on few occasion, as far as I know there are, at least in FCA organized judged events, ways* to counter or defend against any and all point deductions one believes or feels unjustified, but I wouldn't think airing grievances about them here is best.

Also, while I admittedly have never attended, displayed, presented or judged at Cavallino, my understanding, although based only on second hand information, is that recent ownership change to the event has lead to a new class(?) or type of judges, many whom supposedly may not have much, if any, experience about cars, i.e. Ferraris, they're judging or judging in general.
If this is true, I personally wouldn't put much stock on point scores or results from that event in the first place.

* Does Cavallino offer any recourse to counter judges decisions ?

 

EDIT:

 

Dwight, was that GTS a car owned and loaned to the mag or was it a factory provided car? The reason I ask is manufacturers, Ferrari included often have a base version model brought over specifically for press use and wondering if that is the case here.
I mentioned to some of the "Experts" that any US version car or any car operated on US roads has been required to have sealed beam lights since 1934. There were many surprised people. It seems many of those experts think US regulations started in the late 60's with smog control.

 

Greg, was this a US version car or an EU version?

 

Here's a quick recap below of my experience with the chief judge of the FCA, which is still in command for Cavallino and Pebble Beach. As of the Sebring National Leslie Blynn is now the chief judge for the FCA of all other FCA related events, perhaps there is hope of improvement. Like Ed Gilbertson commented, these rogue judges should be removed when necessary, but none of them have and nothing has been done.

We went to the National Event in Sebring 2021 where Clete Gardenhour misjudged the Scardina 275 GTB/4 and ignored all protocol. Reverse light half point deduction based on his observation of an early shortnose previously judged. Amp meter improperly evaluated, half point deduction. I later demonstrated it functioned properly (they all function differently depending on battery condition, load, rpm etc). Breather hoses were green, said they should be clear, half point deduction. 5mm Copiglia clamps, he says should be 9mm, not according to the factory parts book. Then the main discrepancy was no feedback and no 15-20 minutes, being that it was lunchtime and the last in line to be judged.

Next outing was Cavalino 2022 with Olimpi vs Scardina 275. Half point deduction for improper texture and black paint under hood. He said should be only on the center flat part of the hood. Underside of trunk was black without texture, half point deduction. That varies from car to car. We were asked to demonstrate 3 times blasting the horn, then a half point deduction was made, he felt they weren’t tuned properly (never heard of such a request). Both door strikers on interior panels had marks of use, half point deduction. He says several items in the tool roll were not presentable for judging. What does this mean? Once again not one question was asked during the process. The small fuel filter regulator top screws were zinc, he said they should be black. I brought a whole box of originals and showed them to you as well, and photographs in my briefcase demonstrating that is incorrect. No feedback. Fuel line banjo bolts are painted, and should be brass, he says. One banjo bolt was replaced in steel and painted gold, half point deduction. Fuel leak at center of portion of fuel rail visible when engine is running and not running, half point. Once again, not one word spoken, just walked away which could have led to someone burning to death and possibly taking the field of cars out due to fire. Dried brake fluid present on clutch master cylinder creating some corrosion of aluminum housing of clutch housing, half point. Carburetor vent hose is not consistent in color with other vent hoses he says. The small dark green Cavis hose leads into a lighter looking green Cavis hose, half point deduction. Once again apparently has no idea or experience with engine compartment hoses depending on age, temperature, exposure to oil or fuel or vapor, different diameters and gauge, different batches. also 275’s commonly used a mixture of Cavis and Pirelli which varied greatly in color. No feedback, again. No 15 to 20 minutes given because we were the last in line again.

Next is the Eric vs Jones/Settembrino 275. He says the headlamps should be part number 07.485.700, one point deduction. He says the left side badge on the fender was missing, one point deduction (most 275’s did not come with driver side badges, eventually people added them because they liked to have two). Back to the headlights, the body parts book I presented, but they declined to look at it, shows two possible headlights as they left the factory. Bolts holding the added safety belt was a modern zinc 8.8 grade bolt. Should not have been a deduction for safety items. Clock not functioning, half a point he says. Once again not given the opportunity to demonstrate. Sometimes after turning the battery back on these clocks sometimes need vibration, running of the engine or tapping on the dashboard to excite them. I would rather a finicky original clock than a modern aftermarket clock that does not tick in increments but sweeps. Screws and fasteners inside fender wells were cad/zinc, he said they should be black oxide. Choke cable had protective copper coating, he said it should be bare and rusty, half point deduction. Also during judging of this car Eric found it appropriate to stop on my time and talk to someone about putting a late entry into his judging chores, and then he needed to take notes after being ordered to do so, even though he said he was running late and overwhelmed. Whoever it was proceeded to instruct him of where the car was located, chassis number and color. And of course he found no time to give me one word of feedback or my 15 to 20 minutes.

Next is the Eric vs Newman 275. Driver’s side circlip missing, half point deduction. Rear bumper said to be wavy plating, clearly does not know what an original bumper looks like, half point deduction. Once again headlamps should be part number 07.485.700, one point deduction. Passenger rocker trim fit to body, half point. Once again does not know 275 characteristics where the fenders aft of the door flare out so rocker molding does not fit tight all the way along. Half point deduction was made for some type of residue on the back of the passenger seat. Keep in mind we picked the car up in the dark and drove it in the rain with our detail bag and supplies in the car behind the seat in the package area. I apologize that someone did not crawl behind the seat to make sure there was not a smudge. The smudge wiped off after brought to my attention but it was already too late, the judges were gone and so on. Once again after this rogue judging experience we were not given one word of feedback or 15 to 20 minutes to address any of these items that would have put us in platinum.

Also he recommended to Mark that he should look at other cars on the field, which was a good suggestion. The Pebble Beach preservation winning 275 next to him of course had the correct hood finish, hardware on the pressure regulator, Cavis and Pirelli hoses of many different colors, and original 5mm Copiglia clamps. That car in question had its original exhaust prior to Dustin removing it and putting an aftermarket system on it to match his platinum car just to the right of Mark. His hood was improperly finished, smooth around the outside, battery terminals from Napa/Newco, aftermarket, totally incorrect exhaust and that is only what I could see from a photograph taken from 20 feet away, but somehow that's platinum. Dustin also said his car should have headlights part number 07.585.700, which conflicts with the one point deduction Eric gives across the board. So let me know what you think of that. And where do we go from here?

Just for the record Chris, I started corresponding with you and the group, since the Sebring National in 2021 trying to get some type of consistent view on hardware, hoses, 15-20 minute issue, presentation of documentation actually being looked at and acknowledged etc etc. But all I got was a run around, bounced over to David Eichenbaum, then back to you, and then I was told I need to speak to Dustin, who is your new self-proclaimed expert. I don’t claim to be an expert, just a distinguished judge with approximately 48 years of hands on 12 cylinder era car experience and usually a half a dozen 275’s in my garage at any one time. We spoke when I came to your seminar on Friday before the Peterson disaster. You put on a good speech and then nothing, once again, was followed.

As chief class judge it is your duty and responsibility to mitigate the damages made by these judges, who still have not yet been removed from future events. Some attempt at restitution and we can put this behind us and hopefully make the FCA great again.


Cavis Color Documentation

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1CRe6ilEqBA6ucjZFstpaIB3wriFCwmBQ?usp=drive_link

Hood Undercoating

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1j1p00mX7UT0qwIV5RuHVj6AbGnKcmU5I?usp=drive_link

Fuel Pressure Regulator Screws

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Mxji4dwRHRK0DsB70-clJE98Le2qBXgd?usp=drive_link

Copiglia Clamps

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1GIKecleC3SuwhER1YQLXY4-7cCFkio9x?usp=drive_link

Rocker Trim Fitment

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1noNymt6ZsM0WSLrdR_LXBbOEk65wNH3c?usp=drive_link

Side Badges

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15dWlIrto5z7dBGxfVMof_gBXCK_4Sm1a?usp=drive_link

 

1 brand new, 1 pretty new and one quite qualified but not really a vintage car guy.

Fall out from the general shortage of judges and pressing people into service.

FCA and Cavallino have nothing to do with each other. Chris is no longer Chief Judge FCA. You have been told that many times and many of your claims have been shown to be incorrect but you never listened then either.

 

Brian: Magazines are usually pretty good about thanking owners who lend cars for testing (usually to stroke their egos) and nothing is stated in the article, which has always led me to believe the car came directly from Chinetti since the testing and photography was done in New York. I also did wonder if Chinetti removed the sealed beams and installed the Marchal's as a "prior to delivery" add-on. However, if that was the case, then the whole can of worms just gets worse. Do you judge a car as it was built, as it was delivered to the dealer or as it was sold to the first customer??

My Daytona has 100% original paint as it was sold new (I am the third owner and have confirmed with the two previous owners that no paint work has ever been done to the car). Yet, the driver's door has obviously had paint work done. We all know the factory or Chinetti/Garthwaite repaired some manufacturing or shipping damage before the car was sold. How would the expert judges deal with this??

 

Greg: I fully understand your frustration and am truly sorry it took you so long to get where I ended up thirty years ago. I have a much calmer life now and learned I don't need a bunch of dickheads to tell me I work with and own cool cars.

 

That is part of the issue Ed G was trying to address when he developed the system in use now. One of our issues is there are still many zealots involved. The headlights are a classic example. In my opinion and by my interpretation of the intent of the system a matched set of the correctly sized period lights of any manufacturer should be fine. We still have some zealots that want to deduct for anything but a Fram oil filter.

It is supposed to be as built but too much of that especially in the early days was a moving target and absolute certainty is just not possible.
Paint is a great topic. I am old enough to remember pretty well the original paint quality of the early 70's. Some are shocked when I tell them we can strip the car to metal and it is max 3 point deduction. Its still a platinum car. I tell them if you are deducting 1 1/2 points for paint it better be a blue car with red doors and hood. Also we are trying very hard to putting a higher value on imperfect originality than perfection. Perfection was never Ferraris goal so it sure shouldn't be ours.
The fact of the matter is too little training has taken place, too little recruitment has taken place and there are too many zealot judges or product knowledge deficient judges who need to be weeded out.
There is a new Chief Judge for FCA and since that happened I have done more training and she has done more recruitment to fix that than has been done in the prior 10 years. And then there is the IAC/PFA board. Too many have been put on it that have no business being there. It has also been under dictatorial control for a while. It was a complete waste of time and why I quit.

Cavallino is a lost cause for those and other reasons. FCA is getting better and pretty quickly.

 

I appreciate all your efforts but somehow I'm not understanding the difference from when i go to the Nationals, FCA meets, Cavallino for 30 something years, its all the same group, the same format, so please help me understand the difference besides the names. And I do hope your and Leslie's efforts, as well as others make the club great again.

 

Its not the same. It has a lot of overlap but rules have some differences and John tailored Cavallino to his needs. They are run by different people and many FCA judges don't go to Cavallino and why some of the judging issues there. Many of the Cavallino judges are not used at FCA.
In my opinion one is a cluster f##k and the other is being made better every year.
There were judges used at Cavallino that should not have been on the field and certainly not Chief Class Judges.


Was the car with a headlight deduction a US version?

 

We know and understand that a federal mandate relative to headlamps in the United States existed. This legislation predates Ferrari's founding as a constructor. The core concept being any car on U.S. roadways was required to run sealed beam type headlamps. What I am personally ignorant to is if these conversions actually took place. If they did, who performed the work? Secondly, and hell maybe more importantly, who paid for the parts and labor?! I've spoken with Dick Fritz about the practice of replacing headlamps at the dealer level. He informed me that this work did not occur at Chinetti Motors. Can we conclude the same for Modern Classic Motors on the west coast? It's reasonable to conclude that the dealers are out of the equation.

With respect to vehicles originally sold to the U.S. market; would Boano, Drogo, Ellena, Pinin Farina (Pininfarina), Scaglietti, Touring, Vignale, Zagato, Et. al. have paid for two distinct parts allotments plus labor for the swaps? This would have been done in order to satisfy what percentage of total sales at the time? To me, without evidence, the idea that headlamps were purchased and shipped to various parts of Italy (or, I suppose just Maranello) for replacement on a small number of units per year is difficult to believe.

I've examined as many photos from the factory as I have at my disposal. I'm only seeing Marchal and Carello lamps. The product of this examination has bolstered my lack of belief that any lamp conversions were carried out in Italy by the constructor.

Legal or not, this leaves the end user responsible for the conversion.

So far, I have images depicting seven examples of Ferrari cars (250, 330 GT, 275 GTB & S as well as 246) wearing U.S. plates and running Marchal or Carello lamps. Super impressive, I know .

My long term goal is to establish a range of chassis numbers where the change from Marchal to Carello took place. A "VIN split" is an absurd goal for Ferrari cars this early. The spread-sheet I'm building is being organized by approximate date of production as opposed to chassis numbers in sequence.

The Scaglietti parts book for the GTB series has helped. I've entered a line into the chart, "Ferrari/ Scaglietti Parts Catalog - Issue Date of June, 1965 "Foglio" 18/1 - Listing an "asymeteric headlamp" from Carello. For better or worse, it's an objective data point. I suspect that as I fill in examples above and below this line, I'll start to see a fuzzy theme. Ultimately, in period images of the example in question should be the determining factor.

I think I can narrow the list of "acceptable" non-sealed lamps down to two, maybe three different types: 1) Marchal 109 & 2) Carello 07.585.700. The Carello 03.490.700 would be a late alternative which could ultimately be acceptable since it seems to have been available around 1968. Please understand, this is the part number of the lens, not the entire lamp as an assembly.

For concours judging, our baseline rule has been, "as the car left the factory". What's to be determined as we move forward, is the inclusion of sealed beams.

I'd like to believe we want to avoid a scene where we see cars with lamps manufactured by companies which have no verifiable affiliation with Ferrari. Just imagine for a second; a comp. car with KCs on a light bar.

 

Seriously? Does that mean the different tail light lenses, brake and turn signal operation and all the different instruments were end user responsibilities too? Ferrari did none of that prior to shipping to the USA? Sorry to say but that would have been a violation of federal law and it wasn't allowed then anymore than it is now.

Federal requirements for motor vehicles did not start with smog control.

 

Dustin: Please continue your research. Numerous factory Body Parts Catalogs specifically list "Tipo America" headlights as well as the "normal" European headlights. The factory certainly knew they had to install them in cars bound for the US.

 

Thanks for expanding, but with all due respect, none of the above really addresses my curiosity about whether judgments at Cavallino are refutable or not.

OTOH, while I recently accepted an invitation to judge at an upcoming local event, all this confirms my decision to stop judging few years ago was a right one.
Just way too much unnecessary drama.

 

it will be interesting to see how the classiche dept will restore and resolve these issues as more and more of the factory restored cars hit the circuit. will they be setting the standard?

 

Brian,

I completely understand your questions and to an extent, agree with you. Logically speaking, it makes precious little sense why the headlamps would be skipped over while the remaining compliance parts were installed. Could the region these parts would be coming from have anything to do with this dynamic? Marchal, Carello, Altissimo, Veglia-Borletti; all European based companies if I'm not mistaken. Shipping departments at Westinghouse or G.E. on the other hand are a little further away and the cost of overseas freight would have to be just as big a contributor to income then as they are today.

Be that as it may, logic doesn't always win out in the end. This is a weak justification, but; just because there's a law on the books, doesn't necessarily mean it was obeyed without exception.

Maybe it was technically the dealer's responsibility to exchange the headlamps with sealed beams and hell, maybe it happened from time to time. Is it possible that these dealers simply didn't spend much time worrying about what type of headlights the car had and focused on getting the cars sold?

In any case, I'll keep digging.

 

… or enforced.