There are things wrong with Bruce's book. We all know that. Bruce was rushed on the book by the publisher. After the first printing Bruce submitted 600 corrections to the book to the publisher. The publisher changed only 200 of them and refuses to do the rest of them.
I have a lot of issues on the AMCA Judging.
Some judges are criticized for being too critical. The reason, being too critical will make people not enter their machines for judging. Yet on the other hand Chief Judge Kevin Valentine insists that there is no such thing as a 100 point machine.
This year at the Dixon, CA meet I entered an un-restored 1965 Sportster for judging. It had always been my understanding that "Unrestored" bikes could have "Service Items" that were not original parts. Things like chains, light bulbs, tires, hose clamps, spark plugs, cables, ETC. Things that wear out and are replaced in normal service. This New York judge hammered my Sportster because it was his "Opinion" that any factory hose clamps removed must be replaced with factory hose clamps. I would like to see someone replace all the hose clamps with factory clamps on an assembled motorcycle. He also complained that my brake pedal, which had be repainted, did not have any patina on it. I didn't know that a bike was required to have patina
. I had repainted the sheet metal on this bike as it had already had a custom job on it. I figured as long as I was going to get a 6 point deduction for a repaint it should at least be the correct color and scheme. So my gas and oil tank, front and rear fender were repainted. They gave me the expected 6 point hit for the repainted gas tank and fenders and an additional 2 point hit for the repainted oil tank.
I was not given a deduction for not having patina on the tank and fenders
. At any rate, Kevin backed him up on this, saying that oil tanks are not allowed to be repainted under the 6 point hit category. Although there were several other '60's Harley's in the judging with replacement hose clamps that were not gigged for it. Was this vindictive judging because I had corrected that judge on something he judged incorrectly the year before? I think so.