Authenticity Manual vs. Cadillac Master Parts List

[Bob Kielar]

Hello All,
               Just wondering which one is correct. Case in point: On my 1955 Fleetwood I installed T-3 headlights. The Cadillac Master Parts List states that is the headlight, while the Authenticity Manual states it is not a T-3, but a guide sealed/no T-3 markings.

Regards,

Bob Kielar

[David King (kz78hy)]

Bob,

Here is a screen shot of the 1956 Master Parts List.  Seems the 5400 lamp is used up to '55.  T3's were available in '56 according to this list, but some laws were not allowing them...   Looks like the car came w/the 5400.

David

[Mike Josephic CLC #3877]

The original 1955 headlamps supplied from the
factory were not T-3's.  The headlamp used was
a plain glass lens with no alignment bumps and
simply had a small rectangle in the center with
"12V" in the middle.

The REPLACEMENT for these was the T-3 which did
not come from the factory until 1956.  The T-3
DID HAVE the three alignment bumps.

The original "12V" 1955 type were a one year only
lamp and are quite hard to find.  If you run across
one it will be $500 or more.

Mike

[J. Gomez]

Bob,

Just one more detail  > https://www.modifiedcadillac.org/documents/Multiple_Years/Guide%20to%20T-3%20Headlights/tn/Guide%20to%20T-3%20Headlights.jpg.html

[Brad Ipsen CLC #737]

Just another example of how the parts book is not the last work on authenticity.  The Cadillac parts department was not worried about supplying exactly what was on the car originally.  They only worried about what would fit and reducing their parts inventory.

[Jeff Wilk]

THAT IS the job of the dealer.....to establish a parts list and inventory of items that ARE AUTHORIZED to keep their cars running. If any part is listed in the Master Parts List it is absolutely correct and acceptable to use on a restoration as it is OEM. If someone is looking for an off the assembly line part for their specific car they will have to use the edition of the MPL that FIRST listed their Model/Year. BOTH approaches are correct.

Jeff W

[Bob Kielar]

Sooo what I understand from the majority of replies here is that my T-3 headlights are incorrect for my 55 and I could be deduced points when being judged. That just doesn’t seem right by me since original headlights are not reproduced and n.o.s. are non existent or if you do find some you will pay a  astronomical  price. I have checked some of the vendors for them but the headlights do not say guide or the 12v marking.

Regards,

Bob Kielar

[35-709]

Much like the problem with unavailable bias-ply tires with the correct WW design for a '68 Eldorado that another member has been having that is being discussed in another thread.

[Jeff Wilk]

There should be ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for any points deduction IF the part being used is IN an actual Cadillac issued Master Parts List as that is an official and factory OEM part. If the Club Judging Manual does mot permit this it needs to be corrected.

Jeff W

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

Although I don't get my car/s judged, I believe that in these cases, there should be no loss in points when Cadillac does not supply correct replacement parts, and the Spare Parts Departments have expired their entire stock.

Consumable items should not be embroiled in the points discussion, especially when our cars are being used what they were designed for, and that is being driven.

Bruce.

[Brad Ipsen CLC #737]

How are the rules determined?  They are determined by the people in power who are indirectly elected to manage the club.  Some of these major judging sticking points could be voted on directly but so far the club members have never demanded that.  On the other hand there is really no need to worry about these last few points one way or the other.  The way the judging is now everyone wins a prize and there is no competition against other cars that are being judged.  The competition is the elusive perfect car per the rules and no matter what they are in the end the last few rules will be arbitrary.  A case can be made on either side for all of them.   

[Mike Josephic CLC #3877]

There are many hard to find parts on all of our cars that the
factory stopped reproducing decades ago.

If we follow the logic that later production parts are OK, even
though they are not "as the car was delivered to the original
buyer" then where does this lead us?

What happens if we have two potential 100 point 1955 Caddies
that are tied for "Best of Show" for example -- with one having
the correct headlamps and the other wearing T-3's?

The award should go to the person who went to the time, effort
and expense to find the correct parts.  Anything can be found
with enough time, effort and yes $$$.  That's one of the
fundamental basic tenets of points judging.  If you don't agree
with that then enter your car "display only".

Mike

[J. Gomez]

The 1955 MPL dated March 1 1955 (green background) shows the ’55 headlights with three different parts # type 4400, type 5400 and type T3. The 1956 supplemental MPL dated October 1 1955 also shows the same T3 part # as the one under the 1955 MPL for the 1956 models.

As the MPL shows the T3 were available in early 1955 for the 1955 models and standard for the 1956 models.
The logical question is, did ALL 1955 Cadillacs came from the factory with non-T3 headlights. Even though these were made available as early as March 1955?

There is a General Service Letter 884 dated August 17, 1955 with a subject line “New improved seal beam units” starting with engine 122777. Now there is no mention if the new seal beam are the T3 style, it could well be as it address a new regulation. 

So if that is the case that both type of headlights were available from the factory referring the MPL and the Service Letter having either the early or late type should be acceptable from the Authenticity point of view.

[Jeff Wilk]

Mike, I find your comments troubling, bordering on elitist, and just plain wrong in my opinion. Points judging is about authenticity and condition, and not the size of your financial portfolio as you assert. Simply put, if a part is listed in an OFFICIAL CADILLAC Master Parts List, or Service Update, even if it is a replacement part, it IS a correct and authentic part for the vehicle and should NOT result in a point deduction at all. If two vehicles were tied and one had the correct earlier part and the other had the later correct part they would BOTH be correct and should remain tied assuming conditions were the same.

Curious what you’d propose for points tallying for those with $$$$ who have an old broken part and choose to have a brand new one fabricated by 3-d printing?  Clearly a fake right?  Cant be original so must have points deducted correct?  Same for things like chrome or interior fabrics, and the list goes on.  Wouldn’t perfect originals be more valued than reproduced parts?  What about all those parts originally polished stainless that owners with $$$$ choose to have flash chromed?  How about cars that have had authentic options ADDED during a restoration including creating new window stickers and stampings on the Body Tag to make it appear that the car rolled off the assembly line that way?  Points deductions warranted right?  To restate your question....where does it end?

Jeff W

[Mike Josephic CLC #3877]

Jeff:

I believe you're over thinking my comments.

I have no problem with CORRECT reproduction parts that
are exact duplicates of the originals.  They do exist.  For
example, T-3's are reproduced and that's great for those
who need them. 

I think everyone who is in this hobby knows it's expensive.
The person who goes the "extra mile" to put the period correct
parts on their restoration should get the benefit of having done
so.  I'm not speaking of just the expense, but the legwork.

I had to look for YEARS to find some of the parts I needed.
I went annually to Carlisle and Hershey and yes, I found
most all of what I needed.  That included two perfect 1955
headlamps (plus a spare).

There is room for everyone in this hobby and many people
don't have the time, money or desire to restore a rare car
to the Senior Crown level. That's OK -- to each his / her own.

But I'll digress to a short story here.  A young man, friend
of mine from the local Pittsburgh region, found a 1971 CDV
from an estate with just 30k miles on the clock.  The family
just wanted to find it a new home.  He bought it for just
$3,500.  He called me and asked my help to look over the
car as he was thinking of bringing it to the GN.

Since I judged at GN's for about 20 years, I agreed to help
him.  I was astounded -- it was a time capsule and I spent
several hours going through the car.  I actually filled out a
judging sheet and explained in detail for him what he needed
to work on before the show.  I judged it 97 points.

Long story short -- he won a first in Primary and also a
Preservation Award.  Not bad for a first time out.  This
was in Louisville.

Still think I'm an elitist?

By the way, attached is a page from the November 1955
"Cadillac Serviceman" talking about the new T-3 headlamps
equipped with aiming points.  They were not used originally
in 1955.

Mike

[Jeff Wilk]

Mike, we are more on the same page than not. I didn’t say YOU were elitist just that your earlier commentary regarding giving the benefit to those with the $$$ was bordering on that kind of thinking which has grown all too prevalent in this hobby as restoration prices have skyrocketed.

Having been active in this hobby since I bought my first 1958 Cadillac and 1933 Chevrolet in 1980 I too know the thrill of the chase and legwork required to find a part that nobody reproduces and you don't even have. Anybody out there have a small folded steel wing-nut used only on the 1932 and 1933 Chevrolet optional accessory extension Trunk Rack??? Just an example of a hens tooth.

My point was and remains that ANY PART listed in an OFFICIAL CADILLAC MPL or Service Bulletin is an OEM part and should not be looked at as incorrect resulting in points deductions. Anybody who states that these parts are incorrect is just wrong.

Thats the same kind of thinking that flat out used to disqualify cars in Touring Class for being too nice despite being driven regularly and to a GN. (See my prior posts). Glad those rules were changed.

Jeff W

[Mike Josephic CLC #3877]

Jeff:

I don't want to beat this to death, but you are missing the point.

I don't make the Rules of judging, the Chief Judge does.

Quote from the 2019 Judging Manual:

"The primary purpose of the CLC Judging Program is to educate
owners and members regarding the exact condition and configuration
of the various models of Cadillacs and LaSalles as they
were delivered new to the first owner."

"The standard against which all automobiles in the Primary Division
and the Specialty and Unique Division will be judged is that condition,
appearance, and equipment as the car was originally delivered to the
first owner considering authenticity, condition, operability, and cleanliness
of all components. Any accessory approved by Cadillac, either installed
at the factory or by a dealer, is acceptable. "

That means, substitution of a later GM part, even though it's the
replacement found in the Parts Manual is not considered correct.

Mike

[J. Gomez]

Mike,

How about the GSL 884 posted below? The letter shows “new sealed beam headlamps were used after engine 122777”, again there is no mention on the specific type used.

Something is awry just by looking at the release date for these documents; the MPL on March 1, 1955, the GSL on August 17, 1955 and the Serviceman on November 1955.   

So could the GSL be referring to the changes made after engine 122777 be related to the older type 4400 to the 5400?   Unknown   

Could the changes per the GSL be referring to the T3s from the 5400, since the T3 were available as of March 1, 1955 per the MPL? Unknown   

The Serviceman you posted does indicate the T3s were standard for the 1956 models which again it is reflected under the 1956 Supplemental dated October 1 1955. It also shows these were available as replacement for past and present models.

So although the 1955 may or not had the T3 fitted directly at the factory, these were available as approved replacement from Cadillac per the Serviceman.

I’m in agreement with Bruce statement above, that a T3 headlights on a 1955 should not be a consideration from an authenticity prospective a cause of lost points when judge under any of the classes.

Just my personal views..!

[Mike Josephic CLC #3877]

If I interpret that document correctly, the "improved" sealed
beam introduced in August, 1955 could NOT have been the T-3.

The doc states that "the adjustment / aiming proceedure is the
same as with the previous model".  That means, the 3 aiming tabs
that were the biggest change on the T-3 were NOT on these bulbs.
This appears to be an interim change prior to the T-3 and the
adjustment tool using the aiming device in December, 1955.

The big change on this model was in the hooded filiment design that
changed the aiming point of the beam.

That's my take on the info you provided.

Mike

[J. Gomez]

If I interpret that document correctly, the "improved" sealed
beam introduced in August, 1955 could NOT have been the T-3.

The doc states that "the adjustment / aiming proceedure is the
same as with the previous model".  That means, the 3 aiming tabs
that were the biggest change on the T-3 were NOT on these bulbs.
This appears to be an interim change prior to the T-3 and the
adjustment tool using the aiming device in December, 1955.

The big change on this model was in the hooded filiment design that
changed the aiming point of the beam.

That's my take on the info you provided.

Mike

Mike,

Well that makes sense  strange that there was no mentioning on what part # was change  too late to go back the Mr. Phillips as asked him for clarification