The NJ Region of the AACA holds its biggest event of the year, the Spring Meet, every year on the first Sunday in May. This is a judged car show which at times has seen up to 250 vehicles in attendance. The cars are put into classes, and volunteer members of the Region perform the judging. Judges are arranged in teams of two, and with a dozen and a half classes to judge, the Region would ideally have 30 or more volunteers. As someone who has judged our Spring Meet for the last few years, I’ve seen how woefully short of that number we usually are.

In years past, our chief judge, Ed G., would hold a judging seminar a week or two before the Spring Meet. While well attended, the club still lacked the requisite number of volunteers. Several club members, including our new chief judge Anthony C., decided last year to expand the number of judging seminars. As covered in this recent blog post, the first such seminar was held at Dick B.’s house in late January. This month, your humble blogger agreed to play host. We started with a 9 a.m. breakfast (assembled by my most gracious wife, who allowed a dozen NJ Region members into her dining room), followed by a 10 a.m. start in the garage.

The seminar was again ably led by our “pro tem” chief judge Craig K, with my two cars, the ’67 Alfa Romeo and the ’93 Mazda Miata, as the objects of our collective scrutiny. The focus of the training exercise was “class judging”, with cars evaluated for correctness and condition in 4 areas (exterior, interior, engine compartment, and chassis). However, both of my cars are HPOF, “Historical Preservation of Original Features” and would not normally be subject to a point-by-point evaluation. Still, it was good practice for the Region members to analyze the cars on a 40-point scale (10 points for each of the 4 areas). I kept my lips zipped as horrors such as faded paint, door dings, a dirty bellhousing, a semi-opaque convertible window, worn upholstery, window decals (!) and other atrocities were critiqued. Still, on a 40-point scale, the group reached a consensus that each car earned a total point score in the low-to-mid 30s. Similar to what we learned last time, each “defect” would result in only a ½ or 1 point deduction out of 10 available points. The goal should not be to deduct as many points as possible, but to treat each deduction relative to the 10 available points. A car would need to be in very poor condition for it to earn a loss of 7 or 8 points out of 10.

We finished up around 12 noon, and Craig and I were pleased to see a number of new faces in the crowd. Attendance at a judging seminar is not a commitment to judge, but it certainly is our hope that with 2 training sessions done and a third one scheduled for April, we should see an uptick in volunteers at our May Spring Meet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All photographs copyright © 2024 Richard A. Reina. Photos may not be copied or reproduced without express written permission.