Topic: '65 Day/Night Mirror

[suskeenwiske]

I have just seen, for the first time, an original 1965 Day/Night Mirror; reproductions aren't even close.

Ray

[Richard P.]

I'm just curios what are the major differences in the original day/night mirror versus the reproduction?

[67gtasanjose]

reproductions aren't even close.

Are they EVER? I also just bought one for a 67-8. I consider it a "base hit" maybe a "double" in baseball terms. Certainly not a homerun. I keep asking WHY they cannot seem to ever even get close on almost ANYTHING!

Richard

[5F08KGT]

Because the makers of reproduction stuff don't want to pay royalties by making an EXACT part they alter it just a bit and get by with it flooding the market with crap.

[CharlesTurner]

It would be easier to point out what is the same, which is they are kind of the same shape.  Everything else is crap.  This is one of those items you want nice original or NOS.

[Toploader]

There was a similar thread here a while ago.

http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=5707

[suskeenwiske]

The biggest difference that caught my eye immediately was the Day/Night Rocker Switch. On the original Mirror you see mostly whether it's on Day or Night, where as on the reproduction, you see both.

I don't have any photos but found some on-line that shows what I mean.

Ray

[Brant]

The biggest difference that caught my eye immediately was the Day/Night Rocker Switch. On the original Mirror you see mostly whether it's on Day or Night, where as on the reproduction, you see both.

I don't have any photos but found some on-line that shows what I mean.

Ray

I'm not saying they are perfect, but there are now more than one reproduction '65 Day/Night mirror now which does not have the rockers as shown in the above repro.

[suskeenwiske]

I found the Mirror you mentioned and the Rocker Switch is much better than previous reproductions; nice to see and thanks for the heads up. Some suppliers however, claim it to be an Exact Reproduction needed for Concourse Restorations but you're not saying they're perfect.

In Concourse Judging, is there some leeway in how close a Reproduction Part must be to the original to be accepted as Concourse?

Thanks

Ray

[Brant]

I found the Mirror you mentioned and the Rocker Switch is much better than previous reproductions; nice to see and thanks for the heads up. Some suppliers however, claim it to be an Exact Reproduction needed for Concourse Restorations but you're not saying they're perfect.

In Concourse Judging, is there some leeway in how close a Reproduction Part must be to the original to be accepted as Concourse?

Thanks

Ray

I am just being careful here in saying it's not "perfect".  I think everyone's expectations are different.  I'm sure if you closely compared it to an original, there are slight differences that could probably be noticed...but maybe only if they were side by side.  That's probably the case with any part...even many Ford service (NOS) parts depending on when they were produced.

Every part is different.  Every person's expectations are different.  Everyone's budget and/or goals are different.

[J_Speegle]

In Concourse Judging, is there some leeway in how close a Reproduction Part must be to the original to be accepted as Concourse?

Depends on the judge and the team but many MCA judges have attended seminars and classes back when Charles was head judge and have been instructed that the best and fairest way is to reward for features and details that are correct (like original) and deduct for those that are not.  Its referred to as weighted scoring, leaves room for owners that have found more correct parts and is not effected by changes in what is available either to the good or to the bad.

Bottom line - if the reproduction is not 100% like an original visually once installed on a car the judge should attempt to deduct some to represent how far it is from 100% within the points allowed in that section