James Espey wrote: <SNIP> > Actually, the bulk of disagreement lies because people do not > understand the definition of "concours". Rather than repeat myself, > see my posting here: > > http://www.egroups.com/message/dmcnews/10997 I just re-read this message, and do not see a definition of "Concours", but I do see you talk about your experience with Corvette shows. I hardly think that because that is the way Covette shows are run that it need to be the way DeLorean shows are run. Mike made a good point earlier in this thread that a Porche concours expects that the owner has made improvements on the car, and that a perfectly original car would not be a winning car... So who is correct? I do agree that most "concours" shows are run in a similar way, but that does not make it right... Especially in the case of the DeLorean. <SNIP> > >Of course, if the concourse judging was not set up this way, there > >would be less > >of these "correct", but unsafe and unreliable parts sold. > > I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I *know* that the bulk > of Ducellier alternators we sell are to people who would prefer to > save money over buying a Motorola, not because they're concours > people. I don't think we've EVER sold an original clutch line to > anyone, and there are no "new" overflow bottles in existence. > I think it is clear, that there is a obvious business motivation to design the judging as it currently stands. I hope you and Stephen dont take this as a personal attack, I just thought it was obvious to everyone. From a business stand point, it is a good idea. You seem to agree with this in your reference to the post above (http://www.egroups.com/message/dmcnews/10997) where you write: > Because people will spend literally hundreds of thousands of > dollars preparing their cars for Bloomington, the greatest of all > Corvette shows. I do not find fault with this, I was just stating what I thought was obvious. That is there is a business motivation (as small as it may be, based on your comment above) behind the design of the judging. > > Always in search of a good debate, > I am glad you see it that way... After I wrote that last message I was worried that it may be considered a flame, but it was not intended to be.