JAGUAR CLUBS OF North America | Jaguar Clubs of North America



|by Randy Prine, Chairman  JCNA Protest Committee | |

|Protest Committee Report - 2007 |

|There were two protests filed in 2007, both from the JCNA Challenge Championship, Indianapolis, Indiana, August 3, 2007. The |

|official JCNA Concours d'Elegance season will end December 26, 2007. |

|Protest No. 1: Class CO2, 1950 XK120 OTS - colors |

|Entrants received 2-point deduction for black boot license plate welding, and a 1-point deduction for black door jam welding. A |

|majority of the Protest Committee ruled that the Boot License Plate Welding could be either body color or black, and the 2-point |

|deduction was returned. The Door Jam Welding, however, should be body color, and the 1-point deduction stands. |

|Protest No. 2: Class C10, 1972 XJ6 - engine compartment insulation |

|Entrants received a 4-point deduction for an aluminum covering over the insulation in the engine compartment. A majority of the |

|Protest Committee agreed that Firewall Insulation is foam with a thin aluminum covering over it. The 4-point deduction was |

|returned. |

|Protest Committee Report - 2006  |

|  |

|Protest No. 1: 1953 XK-120 FHC - Carpet Cutouts for the Clutch and Brake Stems. |

|Concours d'Elegance at Jaguar Club of Ohio, Ursuline College, August 5, 2006 - |

|A contestant was penalized 0.5 points for non-authentic carpet openings for the clutch and brake stems on the firewall. The |

|openings on the carpet were slits from the stems to the floor. The contestant was advised that the carpet openings for the stems |

|should have been holes, not slits. |

|The contestant had no documentation to prove that slits for clutch and brake stems on the XK-120 were correct. |

|A majority of the Protest Committee ruled to deny the protest, and the deduction of 0.5 points stands. |

|We further checked with numerous restorers, and they were unanimous that the carpet openings for the XK-120 should be holes and not|

|slits. |

|Protest Committee Report - 2005  |

|Of the six protests received and considered for concours season of 2005, four were resolved at the local level and two were ruled |

|upon by the committee. |

|Protest No. 1 - 2005, 1951 MKV |

|At the Jaguar Drivers' Club of Long Island Concours d'Elegance, June 26, 2005, a 1951 MKV DHC was penalized 1.0 point for Turn |

|Signals, Front, Rear and Sides. There were no initials by the entrant and the Non-Authentic Items were not identified or described.|

|The entrant was not offered "courtesy repair time". The Chief Judge returned the 1.0 point. |

|Protest No. 2 - 2005, 1986 XJS |

|At the Virginia Jaguar Club of Richmond, September 18, 2005, a 1986 XJ6 was penalized 1.0 point for Missing or Non-Authentic Items.|

|The score sheet was improperly filled out. The Chief Judge returned the 1.0 point to entrant's score. |

|Protest No. 3 - 2005, 1989 XJS |

|At the Nation's Capital Owners' Club, September 11, 2005, a 1989 XJS was penalized 2.0 for Pin Stripes and Initials and 0.3 point |

|for touch-u and chip repair. A majority of the committee ruled that initials are not allowed, but pin stripes are allowed. A NEWS |

|Announcement from Jaguar (and a black and white photograph of an '89 XJS showing pin stripes) with a quote as follows: "Jaguar |

|announces 1989 XJS V12 Coupe with a number of styling and equipment improvements….and distinctive new coach stripes in colors |

|complementing the car color". The committee ruled that 1.0 point be returned to entrant's score for the pin stripes. The 0.3 point |

|deduction was minimal and appropriate for a well-done touch-up. The total deduction from entrant's score was 1.3 points. |

|Protest No. 4 - 2005, 1970 E-type |

|A 1970 E-Type was penalized 4.0 points for a missing tool kit. Discussed Chapter VI, page 9, and Chapter V, page 9, of the Rules |

|Book which specify that tool kits were optional on post-1968 Jaguars, with the Concours Chief Judge and JCNA Chief Judge. Concours |

|Chief Judge returned entrant's points. |

|Protest No. 5 - 2005, 1964 MKII |

|A 1964 MKII at the JOC Southwest Regional Concours at San Luis Opisbo on October 9, 2005, was penalized 1.5 point for Missing or |

|Non-Authentic Items (Air conditioner and spare tire) and 1.0 for O.V. Non-Authentic Items, which could not be identified, as it was|

|illegible. Initials were also missing. Concours Chief Judge returned the 2.5 points. |

|Protest No. 6 - 2005, 1995 XJR |

|A 1995 XJR at the Inland Empire Jaguar Club concours on October 31, 2005, was penalized a total of 4.8 points. Entrant contended |

|score sheet was improperly filled out because none of the deductions or locations was described. He referenced Rule Book, Edition |

|8.2, Chapter III, page 12, and requested his points be returned. The committee ruled that the Rule Book specifies notation and |

|description of major cleanliness and/or condition discrepancies, and since none of the deductions exceeded 0.3 point for any one |

|item, the deductions were minimal and did not warrant further explanation. The deduction of 4.8 points stands. |

|  |

|Protest Committee Report - 2004 |

|There have been five protests to date. Four have been ruled upon and the fifth is in the works. Here are the decisions on the first|

|four protests: |

|Protest No. 1 - 2004: 1962 3.8 E-Type Radiator |

|Concours Jaguar Society of SC Lowcountry Classic Jaguar Concours, May 1, 2004: A contestant received a 2.40 point deduction for a |

|non-authentic radiator. He agrees that his car does not have an authentic radiator, however, even though several vendors offer a |

|close replica, he contends that they are not truly authentic, and that there are no authentic radiators available for his 1962 3.8 |

|E-Type. He also argues that in the same C5 Class, 1965 - 1967 4.2
Series 1 E-Types do not possess this handicap. Authentic |

|replacement radiators are readily available for the 4.2. |

|The contestant¹s argument is that an original 3.8 aluminum radiator cannot be repaired to a reasonably usable condition, and is |

|requesting that his 2.40 points be returned. |

|The protest was denied, the 2.40 point deduction stands. Some comments from the committee: |

|1. Radiators have not been considered an expendable item, and there are many cars competing with original radiators. |

|2. An ³absolutely original² radiator could be accomplished by repairing the original at a considerable cost. |

|3. Poor availability or high cost of quality parts has never been a reason for defining what is original. It actually separates the|

|good cars from the excellent ones. |

|Protest No. 2-2004: 1963 E OTS, Class C-5, Mechanical Judging Procedures. |

|A contestant filed a protest regarding the judging procedures at the subject concours. He stated that a mechanical judge in Class |

|C-5 judged his own car entered in that class. He requested the disqualification of the entire class C-5 in the subject concours. |

|Because of the complicated circumstances surrounding this protest, I took it upon myself to present it to the Executive Board of |

|JCNA for their review. Taking into consideration their comments and recommendations, and the decision of a majority of the Protest |

|Committee members, the following rulings have been made: |

|1. The score of the judge who was a member of the mechanical judging team, and whose car was entered in Class C-5, will not be |

|allowed. The points he received for this concours will not be considered for local or national recognition. |

|2. The remainder of Class C-5 scores will remain in effect. |

|3. The Executive Board of JCNA has taken the appropriate steps with the club in question to assure that this oversight does not |

|happen in the future. |

|Protest No. 3-2004: 1991 XJS, Class C-15, Unreasonable Deductions on Chrome Rocker Panels/Covers. |

|A contestant was penalized 12.0 points for non-authentic two-tone pattern or color on the Rocker Panels. The Chief Judge reduced |

|the deduction to 3.0 points per side, or 6.0 points total. The contestant protested this deduction and requested his penalty be |

|changed to 0.6 points per side, for a total of 1.2 points. A majority of the Protest Committee voted to deny the protest and accept|

|the decision of the Chief Judge. The deduction of 6.0 points stands. |

|Protest No. 4-2004: 1969 Series II E 2+2, Class C-6: Exhaust Manifolds Finish. |

|A contestant was marked down 6.0 points for wrong finish on the exhaust manifolds of his car. His finish is black enamel, and the |

|judges contended they should be porcelainized. The contestant believed the manifold finish is correct and requested the return of |

|the 6.0 point deduction. A majority of the Protest Committee voted to deny the protest. At the last AGM, the JCNA Series II E-Type |

|Judge¹s Guide was approved by the membership, and by approving, it¹s use is mandatory. (See page 13 of the Judge¹s Guide). The |

|committee members based their decisions on this guide. The deduction of 6.0 stands. |

| |

|Protest Committee Report - 2003 |

|Seven protests were considered by the Protest Committee during the 2003 Concours d¹Elegance year. Following is a synopsis of the |

|protests and the committee¹s ruling on each: |

|Protest No. 1: Air Rail Piping Finish on 1974 XKE Series III, JCNA Challenge Championship, May 4, 2003, Phoenix, AZ. |

|A contestant received a 2.4 penalty on the finish of the air rail piping on his 1974 Series III at the JCNA Challenge Championship |

|in Phoenix on May 4, 2003. He sought the committee¹s opinion on the di-chromate plating and finish and the return of 2.4 points to |

|his score. |

|A majority of the Protest Committee ruled that the protest be denied. The 2.4 point deduction stands. Those in the majority were of|

|the opinion that the finish on the rails, brackets and bolts were beautiful, but too highly polished and ultra shiny to be the |

|proper original finish. |

|Protest No. 2: Exterior Judging on 1952 XK 120 FHC at Jaguar Club of Tulsa Concour d¹Elegance 09-13-03 - Class C-16. |

|A contestant received 0.9 penalty on the exterior of his Jaguar. The contestant believed that there was insufficient lighting, and |

|he was judged unfairly on the following: |

|Body, Doors & Bonnet - Dents/ Ripple 0.2
Paint Finish - Cleanliness 0.2
Chromework - Dents/Ripples 0.1
Pits/Rust 0.2
Cleanliness |

|0.2
Total 0.9 |

|The Protest Committee was unanimous in their decision that the protest be denied, and the 0.9 penalty stands. Some comments from |

|the committee were: All cars in the class were judged under the same conditions, and although the judging process is not ideal, no |

|rule was broken. The judge was reporting what he saw. The Concour Chairman and the Chief Judge verified that these deductions were |

|justified. |

|  |

|Protest No. 3 1962 MK II: |

|Deduction for Non-Authentic Items, ³Beauty Rings² (Rimbellishers) , Class D-5, Concours d¹Elegance on 09-02-03 at Sun Coast Jaguar |

|Club, Memorial Jag Fest, International Mall, Tampa, Florida. The judge contended that the Rimbellishers were installed at the |

|factory and deducted 0.8 for ³Non-Authentic². The contestant stated that Rimbellishers are optional equipment. The Protest |

|Committee was unanimous in their decision that Rimbellishers are optional, and the 0.8 deduction be returned to the score. |

|  |

|Protest No. 4: Non-Authentic Carpet in 1969 E-Type FHC, Concours d¹Elegance held 08-30-03 at Portland, Oregon. The contestant was |

|penalized 16.8 points for Non-Authentic Carpet. The contestant had British Wilton Wool instead of Flocked Carpet. A majority (5 out|

|of 7) of the Protest Committee ruled that the protest be denied. The deduction of 16.8 points stands. Those in the majority were of|

|the opinion that as the rules are now written, Flocked Carpet is correct, and carpet is not an expendable item. Therefore Wilton |

|Wool carpet is non-authentic. |

|  |

|Protest No. 5: Tire Size on 1972 Series III E-Type, Jaguar Club of Central Arizona Concours d¹Elegance, November 15, 2003, Class |

|18. A contestant received a 6.8 point deduction for 5 Dunlop Elite P215/70R15 tires. The contestant believed the ER70VR15 tires |

|were no longer available and requested the points be returned. A majority of the Protest Committee ruled that the protest be |

|denied, agreeing that the tires were the wrong size, and the correct size tire is available. |

|  |

|Protest No. 6: 1967 XKE OTS, Jaguar Touring Club¹s 20th Annual Concours d¹Elegance, October 4, 2003, Championship Class 05. |

|Contestants protest they were marked down on Exterior, Body, Doors and Bonnet (including jams, sills, shut/hinge faces) for Rust |

|0.1, and marked down for Cleanliness 0.1 for Hardware, Steering Wheel and Instruments. A majority of the Protest Committee ruled |

|that the protest be denied, and the 0.2 point deduction stands. Once again the committee is being asked to second-guess a judge |

|after the fact. The judge reported what he observed, and his decision is final. |

|  |

|Protest No. 7: 1973 E-Type, Jaguar Club of Central Arizona Concours d¹Elegance, November 15, 2003. A contestant believed the |

|deductions
received at this event were excessive: |

|1. No initial for non-authentic deduction for wrong size tires: 5.0
2. Deduct for having one horn. Contestant states both were |

|working, they were same tone. 5.0
3. Poor fit on passenger door: 2.0
4. Paint Over-spray 3.0
5. Dent in Right Hubcap 2.0
6. |

|Headlight Bezel, pits and poor chrome: 2.0
7. Poor Rubber Components: 2.0 |

|There were 14.8 other deducts that weren¹t challenged. |

|The Protest Committee ruled that 5.0 points for wrong size tires be returned to contestant¹s score due to mistake by judge. |

|Deduction for horns should have been 1.0, therefore 4.0 points to be returned. (Chapter VI, page 6-8, of the Official JCNA Concours|

|d¹Elegance Rules shows the proper deduct for this item). The deduction for paint over-spray is reduced to 1.5, and 1.5 points |

|returned to the score. A total of 10.5 points were returned to the contestant¹s score. The committee ruled that the remainder of |

|the deductions were reasonable. |

| |

|  |

|Protest Committee Report - 2002 |

|As of this date there have been five protests filed and ruled upon in the year 2002. One protest was not considered because it was |

|filed beyond the 45-day limit. |

|Protest No. 1 - 1970 XKE : |

|Entrant said he was entered in Class 6 and should have been entered in Class 15 His tool kit was displayed and judged as is proper |

|in Class 6. He asked for points back, because in Class 15 the tool kit is optional. The President, Concours Chairman and Chief |

|Judge records show he paid for and was entered in Class 6. |

|Protest denied Deduction remains 6.5 points. |

|  |

|Protest No. 2 1991 XJS D-8: |

|Entrant believed he was treated harshly on his with excessive point deductions for non-authenticity, Steering heel: 23 points, |

|Chrome Wheel arch trim 22: points, Body Side Moldings 24: points. In the non-authentic box there was only one initial that could be|

|identified. The Committee adjusted the deduction to: Steering Wheel 6.0 points and no deduction for Chrome arch trim, and body side|

|moldings. |

|  |

|Protest No. 3 - 1976 XJ12C C11: |

|Entrant was marked down for having a NARDI Steering Wheel. Requested points returned because he had never been penalized in the |

|past. Protest denied. Deduction remains 6.0 points |

|. |

|Protest No. 4 -For a 1954 XK-120 Class -18 : |

|Entrant ask for points to be returned that were marked ³non-authentic² and initialed: New Seats, Door Panels and Carpets. The |

|Concours Chairman and a judge verified the materials were new. While checking on this, it was determined that only 2 judges were |

|used to judge this class. Protest denied, the scores in this concours for this class cannot be used for Regional or National |

|competition. |

|The Protest Committee was unanimous in their decisions on No. 1, 2, 3 and 4. |

|  |

|Protest No. 5 - 1974 XKE Series III: |

|Entrant was marked down for a grayish-green fuel tank color. The judge said it should be black. A majority of the Protest Committee|

|ruled that some of the gas tanks could have been grayish- green in color. His 2.0 points were returned. |

|6(a) - Under ³Interior²: Woodwork, Vinyl & Leather - 0.5 points for fading, peeling, worn finish on the left rear door. Seats, |

|Squabs & Belts: 0.2
points for poor fit/wrinkled rear seat. The entrant contended there was no cause for the deduction. The |

|concours chairman and judge involved said there was indeed a problem. |

|Under ³Interior²: Door Panels & Arm Rests: The judge identified ³Tools in the door - rust, corrosion, pits, dents² and deducted 0.2|

|points. The
entrant contended the tool kit should have been judged under ³Tool Kit² on page 3 of the score sheet. No deductions |

|were taken under ³Tool Kit² category, and it was clearly marked ³Tools in the door² under the ³Interior² category. |

|A majority of the Protest Committee ruled the Protest be denied and the deductions stand. |

|6(b) - Under ³Interior²: Door Panels & Arm Rests: 0.2 points were deducted for dried polish/wax residue in hinge area of right |

|front door. The entrant contended this should have been judged under ³Paint Finish² on page 2 of the score sheet. The concour |

|chairman said they designate which judge (³Exterior² or ³Interior²) shall judge the hinge area. Again, they were not judged twice. |

|The Committee was unanimous in their decision that the Protest be denied and deductions stand. |

|This entrant filed one other protest which exceeded the 45-day limit which is stated in the Official JCNA Concours d¹Elegance |

|Rules. |

|Protest No. 7- 1955 XK-140 MC OTS: |

|Entrant protested two items: |

|1. A deduction of 2.0 on color of mounting plate (body color or black) for the bonnet catch. A majority of the Protest Committee |

|ruled the plate
should be body color as described in the 34th AGM JCNA XK-140 Bulletin, 1992. Deduction remains. |

|2. A 1.0 deduction was made for the color of the engine head between the cam covers and the exhaust manifold. A majority of the |

|Committee ruled that the color should be engine head color. Point returned. |

|Protest No. 8: Entrant protested 1.0 on fading of the interior on his 1989 XJS Class D-8. The entrant believed that this was |

|incorrect, since his
interior was only three years old. The Committee was unanimous in their decision that the score cannot be |

|changed if a rule was not broken. The judge¹s decision is final. The deduction stands. |

| |

|  |

|  |

|  |

|Protest Committee Report - 2001 |

|A total of nine protests were ruled upon in the year 2001: |

|Protest No. 1:  Entrant protested three items for which his 1954 XK120 was penalized: |

|    A.  Horn 5.0 deduction:  One horn doesn't work.  It was determined that both horns were high note ( not one high note and one |

|low note).  The entrant submits that there should be no deduction for not having a low note horn, or at the very most, the |

|deduction should not exceed one point. (Reference Chapter VI page 6-8 - Horns - wrong, missing - 1.0 each. |

|    Decision:  The Committee agreed and returned four points. |

|    B.  Inner Front Bumper Supports - 0.2 deduction:  Slightly curved on end where they attach to the bumper. |

|    Decision:  Majority of Committee ruled the deduction stands.  (JCNASeminar Bulletin, ³Jaguar XK 120 Third Edition², 42nd Annual|

|General Meeting, Vancouver, B.C., Canada) |

|    C.  Window Side Curtains - 0.6 deductions:  Screws were stripped in the frame assembly and longer screws were installed with |

|nuts to hold the fabric to the frame assembly. |

|    Decision:  Committee ruled deduction stands.  Recommended repair:  fill, drill and retap holes to proper size, install proper |

|length screws. |

|Protest No. 2:  Entrant believed that his 1985 XJS was judged too harshly at a concours event, even though he scored 99.75. |

|    Decision:  Protest denied, deductions stand.  (Reference Chapter 11, B-6, states, ³The Protest Committee cannot change the |

|judges¹ scores if a rule was not broken. |

|Protest No. 3:  Entrant in Class 16 filed a protest to invalidate the judging of Class 16 in this concours  due to irregularities |

|and judging procedures. |

|    Decision:  Protest denied.  The majority of the Committee ruled that no specific rule was broken nor was any deduction |

|unreasonable. |

|Protest No. 4:  Entrant filed a protest for deductions taken on his 1950 MK V Saloon: |

|    A.  Condition and cleanliness of items on the interior - 1.0.  Exterior deductions - 2.0.  Engine compartment  deductions - |

|26.5. |

|    Decision:  Protest denied on the condition and cleanliness items. |

|    B.   Two-tone paint scheme of metallic champagne and wine - deduction: 25. |

|    Decision:  Protest denied. The metallic color of Champagne and Wine is not standard and without proof of how the car was |

|delivered, it is ruled non authentic .  |

|
Protest No. 5:  Entrant filed a protest for deductions taken on his 1966 XKE for cleanliness items. |

|Decision:  Protest denied.  The Committee ruled that no specific rule was broken or deductions unreasonable. |

|Protest No. 6:  Entrant who filed  Protest No. 4 for deductions taken on his 1950 MK V Saloon also filed this protest: |

|A.  Two-tone paint scheme of metallic champagne and wine - deduction: 25 points. |

|B.  Carpet cleanliness - deduction:  2 points. |

|Decision:  Protest denied. |

|This is the same entrant and the same Jaguar mentioned in Protest No. 4 - 2001, and although this was a different location with |

|different judges, in both concours the color was judged as incorrect.  We requested the entrant to provide a Build Record |

|Certificate from Jaguar Car Archives on the color of the car as it was applied by the factory.  To this date, we have not received |

|one.  |

|Regarding carpet cleanliness, the decision of the judge is final.  The entrant is free, however, to appeal to the Chief Judge of |

|the concours on this matter. |

|Protest No. 7:  Entrant filed a protest over the inconsistency of judging in different concours within a two-month time period.  In|

|one concours 0.5 points were deducted for a cracked dash on a Œ77 XJ12L.  Two months later, 2 points were deducted for the same |

|item. |

|Decision:  Protest denied.  The Committee ruled that no specific rulewas broken and deductions stand. |

|Protest No. 8:  Entrant filed a protest on procedures that took place at the concours site.  In Class IX, two cars were entered.  |

|There was some confusion on the judging teams, and two separate teams ended up judging this class. |

|Decision:  The Committee ruled that scores from this concours will not count in Regional or National JCNA standings.  Chapter III |

|D-12, pg. 4, of the Official JCNA Concours d'Elegance Rules states:  The judging teams must remain intact throughout the judging |

|procedure.  No substitutions of judges is permitted once the judging has begun. |

|Protest No. 9:  Entrant stated, and the score sheets verified, that he was unaware of non-authentic deductions and filed a |

|protest.  The Non-Authentic Section was blank, and the owner's initials were missing. |

|Decision:  17 points were returned to entrant's score.  Chapter IV D-9, pg. 4, of the Official JCNA Concours d'elegance Rules |

|states:  The failure to inform the entrant of a deduction and to secure the entrant's initials will result in the deduction being |

|invalidated. 
  |

|  |

| |

|Protest Committee Report - 2000 |

|There were five protests ruled on in the year 2000.  One protest was not considered because it was filed beyond the 45-day limit |

|(77 days). |

|Protest No. 1:  Entrant was not asked to initial score sheet for non-authentic deduction.  |

|Points returned. |

|Protest No. 2:  Entrant installed a coolant recovery system in the engine compartment of his MK IX.  This was judged as |

|non-authentic at the concours. |

|Protest denied.  Deduction remains. |

|Protest No. 3:  Excessive point deduction on heat shield finish on 1986 VDP of 3.0.  Entrant felt this was excessive.  |

|Committee agreed.  2.0 points returned. |

|Protest No. 4:  Entrant in Class 16 was marked down for missing items; namely, wipers, horns, headlights, parking lights and turn |

|signal. |

|A majority of the Committee ruled that points be returned. |

|Protest No. 5:  Entrant was marked down one point on 1994 XJS on body side moldings.  He felt they were dealer installed, as it |

|would be impossible to remove them without repainting the car.  |

|The Committee agreed, and point was restored. |

|  |

|Protest Committee Report - 1999 |

|The Authenticity Committee and the Protest Committee only had to rule on two items in 1999, and they were more for clarification. |

|1.  A contestant was penalized on his 1967 E for cylinder head color being silver. The judge contended it should be gold. |

|Ruling: This was a transitional and either Silver or Gold Color is Appropriate. |

|2.  A contestant in Canada requested clarification on tire replacement sizes on his OE70 XJ6. His belief was that the originally |

|fitted tires (ER70R15 and 205/70R15) were no longer available. He had a ten-year old letter from Dunlop to back his claim. |

|Ruling: That these tire sizes are available and must be used. I referred him to the Official Concours d¹Elegance Rules and Judges |

|Instruction Manual to help answer any other questions he may have. |

|The Authenticity Committee and the Protest Committee were unanimous in their opinions on these two inquires. |

|  |

|  |

| |

|Protest Committee Report 1998 |

|1. The first protest exceeded the 45 day limit. |

|2. There will be no deductions for modifications made for handicapped entrants. |

|3. Dayton chrome wire wheels on a 1987 Series III XJ6 are they a Factory option. 
    No they are a dealer option |

|    Mud Flaps? 
    Wire wheels are addressed on page 6-6 section F-1, Mud flaps page 6-5-1. |

|4. 1972 V12 E. Front side light to body rubber. The original front side light to fender wing rubber was wedged- shaped, |

|approximately 0.420" in the front and 0. 120" at the rear.The rubber was shaped to keep the sidelight parallel with the side of the|

|car in an area where the fender wing was turning inward. The wedge-shaped rubbers are no longer aviable and the XJ6 rubbers (thin |

|in the center and thicker at both ends) have so widely been used that most judges believe this correct.  
Points returned, the |

|wedged-shaped wing rubber is correct. |

|Same car: marked down for having a yellow di-chromate finish over cadmium plated air rail. 
Some original cars show this type of |

|finish. The bright finish seen on a number of these cars is a result of engine heat and light buffing and it soon disappears |

|leaving the bright finish. Points returned. 
  |

|5. 1955 XK140. Seat back pivot screws painted rather than chromed. Judge thought they should be chromed.  
Points returned should |

|be painted a gray green color. |

|6. 1962 MK II. On the aluminum air intake, from the air cleaner to the carburetors, there were several small foundry flaws (pits or|

|air holes). This was judged as being corroded.  
Points returned. |

|7. 1955 XK140. The color of the tie bar between the front wings should bepainted black. The Judge said body color.  
Points |

|returned. |

|1964 XKE OTS. Tail light lens color. J-30 Spare Parts Catalogue published August 1961, reprint June 1963, page 231, and publication|

|J-37 Spare Parts Catalogue published Nov. 1965, reprint 1965, page 263, both state cars shipped to U.S.A. STOP/ TAIL/ FLASHER |

|LAMP--RED/ RED. 
If a car is shown in a different configuration, the burden of proof is onthe owner to validate. |

|  |

|  |

|  |

|Protest Committee Report 1997 |

|Protest  No. 1:  Mr. Stew Jones, Jaguar Club of Southern New England, June 15 - Missing boot emblem prong caps.  |

|Deduction remains. |

|Protest No. 2:  Mr. Stew Jones, same concours, front marker plate missing, |

|deduct 1.5 points as requested. |

|Protest No. 3:  Mr. and Mrs. Kslazek, JACO Concours, Steubenville, Ohio, June 28: |

|a.  1956 XK140 OTS Bonnet prop rod is grey - deduction remains. 
b.  Dirt in wheel well - return 0.1 points. |

|Protest No. 4:  Mr. Alan Wiedie, J.A.N.E., Biennial Meet, Stratton, VT, August 9 - Front license carrier plate should be installed.|

|
The original deduction of 3.0 is for complete bonnet.  |

|Return 1.5 points to his score. |

|Protest No. 5:  Mr. Jeoff Pickard, Concours, Portland, OR, August 30 Battery disconnect switch is o.k.  |

|Return 1.0 point. |

|Protest No. 6:  Mr. Barry Greenstein, Concours, JAGSL, August 23 - Cleanliness of tool kit. |

|Return 0.1 point. |

|Protest No. 7:  Mr. Don Dornan, JOCLA, September 14: |

|a.  Coker tire P195/75R15 is a suitable replacement.  Return 5.0 points. 
b.  Routing of spark plug wires - return 0.2 points. |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download