Original Markings Options

[AvalonFal]

Don't think this has been asked before but what's proper with the original manufacturing/assembly markings when doing a restoration. For example, the engine tin and rear control arms painted number markings. Should they be painted over and then somehow replicated new?? Or masked out and painted around them??

[pin31]

Here's what I think:

If you restore a part (i.e. paint) the QA marking should be missing (after all you re-painted and Fritz was not there to stamp it).

Original always trumps restore.

[Pat Garvey]

Here's what I think:

If you restore a part (i.e. paint) the QA marking should be missing (after all you re-painted and Fritz was not there to stamp it).

Original always trumps restore.

Wrong (no slam intended).

You've apparently never judged, or paticipated in a national concours event (& I don't mean anything negative - just a learning experience). Because, restored will always trump original, even if it isn't perfect. Why, because it's clean & not cluttered with peeling paint & rust. These cars are "old". Someone please show me a pristine engine bay that hasn't been redone! Please! And when I say redone, I mean ORIGINAL, un-messed with, as it came from the Factory. No spot painting. etc - as it came from the Factory. Someone show me one (in concours condition of course)! Bet I can pick it apart, because I don't believe there are ANY original 914 engine bays left - prove me wrong!

Now, as to the QA markings - they can be replicated. But we need proof that they are original AND what te meaning/purpose is. I have no problem with replicating them, if it's documented as to its purpose.

Since there appears to be NO documentation as to the engine tin markings, et al, what proof can we supply to a decent concours judge that they are appropriate?
Pat