Reviewing the current PCA PCR's leads me to ask this question.

What replacement items are considered valid OEM replacement items. For example the weatherstripping along the top of the windows mounted to the Targa top. The original design has been superceded with a newer design (by the factory).

Would the replacement of the earlier with the later design be considered acceptable in a Preservation Class or would you receive demerits? Taking that one step further, if a reproduction seal was utilized, what would be the assessment.

As I am reading the PCA PCR's the Preservation Class judging places first importance on originality and then condition.

If replacement of serviceable items is permited, what items would that include.

If I were judging, and I think I can speak for most informed judges, the factory replacement for the suerceded part would be a non-deduct. If the factory mandates a revised part because the original is NLA, then it's as good as original in my mind. Reproduction seals, if of good manufacture, may appear nearly exact to the original but will be obviously new & a dead giveaway that it's repro. Hence, a deduct, though pretty minor. However, a "minor" deduct can keep you from winning. I'd go with the factory part.

Any other/opposing viewpoints out there?

I understand and agree fully. Where I am still scratching my head is determining how this relates to the "Perservation" class.

One could extract that you could replace nearly everything with OEM or the OEM updated part, and remain "original". In this instance I would call it a restoration rather than preservation of the car.

Where is the tipping point that turns a replacement of "serviceable" (through normal wear) items that I might consider acceptable under the term "preservation", too a restoration project, in the eyes of a judge?

Just what would be considered acceptable "serviceable" replacement items? Any thoughts?

Well, if you search through the Garage forum for something like "rubber parts" you'll undoubtedly find threads saying how poorly the fit is on most reproduction rubber parts, especially window seals. One particular supplier, who will go nameless (but operates in Atlanta) supplies repro pieces that only fit when you trim & splices them - and then they leak profusely. I would hardly call this "serviceable".

For my part, if the factory determines that a better replacement part should supercede the original, it's as good as original. PCA generally feels the same way. Example: 911E's usually came with a hydropneumatic strut suspension. It was so prone to failure that they eventually stopped supplying replacements & recommended changing to a "normal" suspension. That is a fully accepted PCA concours change & no deducts are permitted. There are other examples, but they are similar. The factory "authorized" it.

You can "preserve" the functionality of a 914 without "restoring" it. Parts such as these can be used for both applications. Remeber also, the preservation judge will not be making a decision as to whether or not your rubber violates the intent of the class, unless it would be something very blatant.