PCA recognition of the Early 911S Registry?

[beh911]

This morning I received an email blast from PCA that included amongst other Porsche related content a sample quiz of some sort. One of the questions and correct answer got my attention and reminded me to inquire about this.



Well the correct answer is C, and while 69-73 isn't exactly the years that the Early S Registry covers, it does seem like some sort of shot across the bow. Or am I reading into this?

The monthly Panorama also has a listing in it somewhere of recognized registers for certain cars and our group is never mentioned.

Anything to this? Just curious what the background is. I don't think it really matters if the group is officially recognized in the end, but I find PCA's consistent lack of acknowledgement interesting.

[Chuck Miller]

We (the Early 911S Registry) were approached many years ago with the proposition to join the program by the PCA.

At the time we reviewed the requirements and standards and decided that our Early S Registry would keep our anatomy...

The subject has come up at our monthly meetings a few more times through the years... with the same vote.


However, we may reconsider at a future date.....

Hope this answers your question...

Cheers

[beh911]

It does. Thanks!

[Mr9146]

At the time we reviewed the requirements and standards and decided that our Early S Registry would keep our anatomy...

Autonomy?

Also, I find that the PCA has a habit of snubbing anything that's not "new" like, for example, the way they had the Speedsters and 356s shoved waaaaaaaaaay in the back of the parking corral at Laguna during Rennsport. They were doing a "timeline" approach, but they did it in reverse order. There were obviously fewer pre-As, Speedsters, 356s, early 911s, mid-year 911s, etc. than there were late-model 996/997 cars on hand, so it would have been not only more correct to have the earlier cars in front but also less of a hike for both the early car owners and the early-bird late-model owners.

I just think their priorities are twisted...

[Chuck Miller]

Thanks Marco.... Autonomy (now corrected)....... Man, me and spelling, it's pathological.......

[silverc4s]

There is always the possibility that our collective interest in the cars and the history of Porsche cars would rub off...

[LongRanger]

I don't think PCA's treatment of 'our' cars is all that sinister

PCA is huuuuuge --- total membership = over 100k (!!). . . and the vast majority of that membership owns later-model cars, and are probably only peripherally interested --- if they're interested at all . . . in our doddering old antiques

As far as any 'special interest group' for Longhoods goes . . . I'd say our little Registry's got that covered

And --- I think . . . . PCA's lack of a presence in our part of the Porsche sand-box acknowledges that

[a911s]

I like "anatomy" better...

Let's see if I can create a sliding scale of anatomy (sliding scale being relative of course ) :

PCA > 356 reg > 911 reg > R Gruppe

[sweetE]

PCA is not "snubbing nor showing a lack of interest" in the 69-73 early 911's.
It is just it has not found a person or group to form a Register within PCA to adequately represent the group.
Ask John Straub, who use to be the person within PCA to organize the various PCA Registers.
Our group "The Early 911S Registry" is as good as it gets!!

[Richardnew]

We really don't need the PCA. The PCA really doesn't need us. I see no problem or issues here.

Richard Newton
Facebook