VCCA Home Forums TECHNICAL - GENERAL Radios, Tools, Accessories Hub protectors 1931-1933

Hub protectors that look to be available as an accessory from 1931 through 1933 (not available for Standard) Originals have a bowtie emblem. Did any of the reproductions have the bowtie & who offered them? Thank you, Joe

The reproduction hub protectors from both I&I and Alfred Severyn had the Chevrolet bow tie stamped on them.

I bought a set of six hub protectors (rings) around 1995 or so... (maybe earlier). Did it on a whim. I heard that Al passed away since then.

At one time, I heard that there was a divorce and the remaining rings got locked up in the dispute. Don't know for sure.

Lately, TFS tried to have them re-manufactured but found that the partial twist in the stainless was too complicated for the manufacturer to make correctly. So, I'm pretty sure that this effort was put on-hold.

I don't know of anyone who has any for sale. It took me just over 21 years to finish my '31 Landau and thankfully I was smart enough to buy the rings during my first couple of years.

Thanks for everybody's input. I think I better order everything I need to finish the 33. With Tahoe barely a year away, no telling what will go on back order...or discontinued....Joe

I have four which are NOS or nice reproductions, I would not know how to tell the difference.

Mike

If they don't fit correctly they are reproductions.

For those of us that have not graduated "Chevrolet grade school" this is a hub protector. I had to look it up...

There is a picture of the hub protector and the snap spokes in the 1932 Chevrolet accessory catalog.

They are also listed in the December 31 service news and a photo is in the April service news. I found your comment regarding correct fit interesting as I have some that are apparently reproductions. They really look nice but don't do a lot to protect the hub when prying off the hub cap. Mine came from Al Severyn and it was my understanding that they were some of the remains from "Experi-Metal".

The original Chevrolet accessory hub protectors went down behind the hub cap to protect the wheel hub paint when prying off the hub cap.

The reproduction hub protectors did not go down behind the hub cap to protect the wheel hub like they should. Instead, they stopped short and there was a gap between the hub protector and the hub cap allowing the exposed wheel hub paint to be damaged when prying off the hub cap.

Thanks for the explanation as it sure is enlightening.

Cool! Glad to help out!

By the way, it makes you wonder on reproduction parts when they use an original part for a sample why they can't copy the original part exactly.

A 3D printer might come in handy. Check out this video:




Dean

Doggie and others,
If you have made reproduction parts it is easy to understand why it is not practical to make them all 100% accurate. One of the reasons is that most are made on different equipment than the originals. Another is the cost of tooling or dies. While is is possible to make them to produce 100% accurate parts it might make the parts so expensive that few will buy them. It is a crap shoot to know when embarking on a project to know how many will be sold at a given cost and how long payback might take (if ever). Therefore many parts are not 100% but close enough to pass all but the most discerning people. So wonder no longer

I have seen some reproduction parts that are actually made better than the originals. While that is not usually the case what concerns me is that sometimes the reproduction part becomes so common that it becomes the norm and the real part loses its identity. Without JYD'S input I would have never known the difference as the repops have the bowtie on them. Most times the repop looks ok and does the job fine however the hub protector repops left me wondering how they protected the hub, though they look OK from a distance. In this case they do half the job and we both know what that is called. As far as the business decision when producing them it is no different than any other business decision.

Not practical to make the part accurate??? The name of the game is "reproduction" which means that the part is "reproduced" exactly like the original part. A "facsimile" is different....it is kinda sorta like the original part but it is not totally correct or identical. Two different terms here. Manufactures are calling parts a reproduction when, in fact, in reality, they are a facsimile.

If a manufacturer cannot make a "reproduction" part correctly, then don't make it. In many cases it costs just as much to make the part wrong as it does to make it right. And, when reproduction parts are junk or don't fit correctly, then either the supplier and/or the manufacturer's reputation suffers because of it. And we all know of "reproduction" manufacturer in the old car hobby that is a prime example of that scenario.

There are some companies that do make high quality reproduction parts that are identical to the original and they have no problem selling their product. If they can do it then there is no reason why other manufacturers can't do it as well.

The hub protectors are a good example of an incorrect part. All they had to do was extend the lip on the hub protector so that it would go down behind the hub cap like the original. How much extra would that cost? Nil! The cost of the die to stamp out the hub protector would probably be the same if they had extended the lip on the hub protector during production to match the original part. With computer controlled machines today there is no reason why a "reproduction" part cannot be made to match the original part exactly.

Sorry, I don't buy any excuse for making a part that is inferior or just plain wrong and then passing the product on to the consumer. Besides, "Close Enough" only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes.

Skipper,
I don't agree that "reproduction" means 100% like original. Are your girls the same as either you or your wife? The process to produce them is called "reproduction". To be exactly like the original, the word would be "duplication" or "cloning". I agree that "Facsimile" is a copy, not exactly like the original.

It is far better to make a part that either functions and/or looks like the original part than have old Chevrolets stay in the garage. Yes it is often best to have them be made exactly like the original but as I wrote earlier it is often not economic or practical to make them that way. As an example I have the mast jacket bushings for '29-'40 Chevys produced by a company and I own the dies and molds. To make them with micorda bushing supported by hard rubber would be insane in today's world. It is far better [and much less expensive] to use Delrin bushing and urethane elastomer instead. Yes we use fabric coated wire soldered to the brass contact ring so part of the "reproduction" part is like the original. Would you rather not have those bushings available? That would have been the decision if micorda and rubber were used. We have made over 800 of them in the past 11 years so there are a few others that appreciate the fact that they work even though they are not 100%. I have a few other projects that didn't work out that well.

I also agree that making parts that don't perform or function well is not good. However an inferior part might be better than no part at all.

To me a reproduction part should have the same physical identity (dimensions) and looks and serve the same purpose, otherwise it becomes a "similar part". The hub protectors in my opinion are a perfect example of a "similar" part, but fails to perform the job it is described to do-PROTECT the hub paint. Now if your mast jacket bushing failed to provide a means of operating the horn then would you call it a "reproduction" because it looked similar? While it may serve as a bushing the fact that the horn feature is inoperative changes the function of the part and thus is not a reproduction, but rather a "similar part".

The running board mats I just had made for the 1933 Standards are 3/16 of an inch too small. They look beautiful but will not work as the won't cover the holes in the board. They now have to make ANOTHER set of dies that are larger to allow for shrinkage of today's materials. They would work on smoothie boards. In this case it has to work & be correct...Joe

Chippy, your analogy of "reproduction" and my two daughters just doesn't fly. They are not "reproductions" and they are not clones or duplicates of their mother and I. They are originals and each girl is one of a kind (oh man, ain't that the truth! ha ha!)

"Reproduction" means exactly that.....a "duplicate" of the original part both in appearance, dimension and function. You make the mast jacket bushings....why? That product has been "reproduced" for years by another company....but guess what....they never fit! The mast jacket bushings made by another company were too big in O.D. and the brass ring was glued on the bushing. When the car dudes that paid good money for a junk part tried to install the bushing they found that the bushings would not press into the mast jacket and the brass ring would pop-off in trying to do so. That particular mast jacket bushing was "close enough" but it was not an exact fit, so consequently the bushings didn't work. In this case the bushing was a facsimile and not a "reproduction". That's why you came out with a bushing that worked the same as the original bushing. Where would your reputation be today if your product was junk like the mast jacket bushing that was made previously by another company and none of your bushings worked?

Another classic case of "close enough" is the arm rest pad for the 1972 Cheyenne pickups when they were first reproduced. The arm rest pad was identical in appearance but it was 1/2" too short!!! What good it that? The part was "close enough" but it didn't work. Due to numerous complaints, the company that made the arm rest pad learned how to read a tape measure and they finally got the length right. Why didn't they make it right in the first place? Look at the money they would have saved if they would have made the arm rest pad correct on the first go around.

Another example of "close enough" is the parking light lens gasket for the early 1950 pickups. The gasket was identical in appearance but it was not the same thickness as the original and the gasket was not functional because the gasket was to thin. When installed the parking light lens moved in and out and up and down. It took two gaskets glued together to make one gasket that was the right thickness so that it would work. The company finally got enough complaints so they decided to go from a facsimile to an actual "reproduction" part that worked like the original.

The same on the hub protectors....a lot of money was spent for the dies, materials and etc. and the final result was that the hub protectors don't work as intended. Now, why spend all of that money to make something that isn't right and doesn't work?

The timing hole cover is another example. That piece of junk is called a "reproduction" and a lot of money was spent to make the dies to stamp them out but yet the timing hole cover doesn't even come close to fitting. It is a wall hanger!

Okay, if you don't agree that "reproduction" doesn't mean that it is a duplicate of the original, then what would you call a reproduced part that is 100% like original in appearance, function, and fit?

There are a lot of "reproduced" parts in the hobby today that either don't fit or they are of inferior quality....thus making the term "reproduction" an over abused word. Fortunately, there are some manufactures like yourself that make high end quality parts that are exactly the same as original in fit, function and in appearance.


I totally agree with you on the above. However, when a reproduction part doesn't fit or work what good is it? There are numerous parts that fall into that category. Someone once told me that if a reproduction part doesn't fit or work it is still better than nothing. Wrong! If a reproduction part doesn't fit or work like it should then you are better off with nothing because at least with nothing you have no money invested. But, on the other hand, you have good money invested on a part that doesn't fit or work.

In the case of your mast jacket bushing, I understand what you are saying about substituted materials because of cost and etc., and I have no problem with that because the materials that you use are actually better than the materials that were used originally. Your product looks like the original, it functions like the original and dimensionally it is the same as original. And, your part works! I know...because I have one of your bushings in my car and I would definitely call your product a "reproduction" just like the original part.

Down Boy, Down Boy
Go to the toilet or the fridge for a cool one and relax a few minutes. I agree. When a variation in appearance or materials is unseen, but proper function is achieved, no problem.
Often it seems that someone has gone to a lot of effort and expense to produce an inferior product when a little more of both would have resulted in a satisfactory product.
In Chippers defense, There could be situations when the final 10% of correctness could cost 500% to make.
It would be nice if vendors would reveal the true nature of a reproduced item instead of selling it as correct and hoping we don't notice.

Mike

As a person that reproduces some old Chevy parts, I can assure you that we would rather make a part that was indistinguishable from the original. However, at times the cost is prohibitive. It is easy to speculate that only a little more effort or cost would produce the correct part but, in reality is not the case. Other times the original materials are not available. Take upholstery material as an example. The result is a product that works but may not be 100%. Would you rather have a functional part or search for years to attempt to find an original?

Another point I feel needs to be made, is unless the part is specifically claimed to be an 100% duplication of the original part then don't assume it is.

Also be aware even parts supplied by Chevrolet may not be 100%. Also be aware that there are very few that are knowledgeable enough to determine if a part is 100%. Finally reproducing parts is a crap shoot. The best guesses on the cost, sales price, numbers that can be sold are nearly impossible to predict accurately. Many products will never return the monetary investment and surely not the time involved.

While all your explanations are good I would still like my hub protector to protect the hub when I remove the hub cap otherwise it becomes a hub dress up item and not a hub protector therefore it is a hub non-protector. Does look good though. The "protectors" that Al Severyn sold I believe were produced by Experi-metal and Al just did the finish polishing or so I have been told.