The Rise of the Unrestored Classic

[NutmegCT]

In case you missed the New York Times article:

"WHEN it came time to freshen up Michelangelo’s “David” a few years ago, a spirited debate broke out over which restoration process would be most appropriate for the priceless artwork. Though the cleaning techniques under consideration varied widely in their aggressiveness, it is safe to assume that no conservator recommended sandblasting the 14-foot tall hunk of Carrara marble to remove the centuries of accumulated grime.

A similar reverence for original finishes and the patina of time is developing among collectors of classic cars, an appreciation for automobiles that have been well preserved through the years rather than restored to showroom (or better) condition. "

Here's the entire article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/automobiles/collectibles/19RESTO.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

An interesting take on the need to "tear it apart and make it like new again".

Tom

 

[coldplugs]

This trend seemed to start about 4 years ago in the US. Europeans have almost always valued originality over glitz in old cars.

For years, we took too many cars that were simply "worn" and then overrestored them to the point that they became a caricature of the original - sort of the "My Grandfather's Axe" quandary.

 

[tony barnhill]

I've learned that Mercedes SL's that have never been repainted & are original are worth more than repainted ones in better condition!

 

[70herald]

I think that allot of this is in reaction to some the really absurd extremes some of the "restored" classics have been taking at concourses such as Pebble Beach. Even high end classic cars such as Dusenbergs did not come from the factory with polished or chrome plated nuts and bolts. The funny thing about the article is that the car they show as the example really does not need any restoration! It appears to be in better shape than most 1 year old cars on the road. The only reason to "restore" a car like that would be to make it better than original.

 

[DanNagy]

I am currently restoring a TR6, and this has been a big question on my mind. Right now I am faced with tearing off all of the fenders and trunk lid and adding new, or having the metal work done on the old ones. I just couldn't decide, and left it up to the guy doing the restoration (he has done a lot of brit cars). We finally decided to replace all the fenders and trunk lid with new, but after reading this, I am second guessing myself.

One thing we did decide was not to paint the engine compartment but just the battery box and buff out the rest so that we would have some original paint on the car. But to be honest, that's about all that will be left. Everything else will be repainted, rechromed, and new. I liked the current characer of its bumps and bruises, and thought each one told a story about the its teavels - but those stories have long since been lost. But perhaps I can add my own bumps and bruises to the new sheet metal over time.

The bottom line is that I wanted to make it so that it would last another 30 years. Am I doing the wrong thing?

 

[NutmegCT]

Just a thought from a budget-challenged classic car lover -

I could never afford (or find the patience) to tear down my TR, blast it, and bring it back to factory-new appearance and function. Heck, if I did that I'd probably not want to really "drive" it.

So my goal is to make it a well cared for 1959 automobile (with modern tires ...).

If I'm abducted by aliens tomorrow, I hope folks find my car and say "look at all the miles on that car - he sure took good care it".

My 2¢
Tom

 

[IanF]

Yeah, "original" is definitely becoming more popular. for the most part, most cars tend to be restored to a much higher standard than the cars were originally built to.

An interesting example I saw recently was at the Atlantic City car show some months ago. Amoung the hordes of over-restored muscle cars was a completely original, very low mileage 1970 AAR Cuda (the Trans Am model). For those unfamiliar with these cars, they had somewhat unique options vs standard Cudas and one of which was a flat black painted fiberglass hood. Dodge made a similar Challenger called the T/A.

The real eye-opener was that black paint on the hood and tops of the fenders. It looked horrible. As if it were painted with a 4" brush. Which it may very well have been as I imagine painting it with a brush would have been much faster than havign to mask the rest of the car after the fact.

Now a restored AAR Cuda or Challenger T/A (I've seen many) will have nice, smooth paint from a spray gun after the rest of the car has been meticulously masked off. Any hint of a defect will be sanded out and resprayed. Back in 1970, Chrysler didn't have that kind of time.

 

[Roger]

I much prefer to see an unrestored classic with a good patina, as long as it's not a rustbucket but well-preserved.
Especially with classics with a history, so yuo know you're looking at the very Steering wheel, or Gear lever, used by Moss, Fangio, or whoever.
I lived in France for a while, and saw some beauties there, and of course there are lots back in UK.

Much better than over-restored, totally unrepresentative and unreal modern-day creations, no matter what the concours judges may think.

 

[IanF]

Much better than over-restored, totally unrepresentative and unreal modern-day creations, no matter what the concours judges may think.

I agree... although I suppose it's easier to judge for "perfection" rather than true "originality." The latter being much more subjective than the former...

 

[racingenglishcars]

Of course the problem comes when the old unrestored classic IS rusted. It has been abused with occasional impacts, neighbour's kids, parking lots, poorly done rust repair and repaint jobs, and parked in less than optimal conditions, causing deep down rust. The car is generally not considered rebuildable and is written off as one of the ones who gave it's life to save others. Also increasing the value of the remaining well maintained examples.

Then the times turn, when even Nader is history. A rusted classic in terrible condition is actually worth something. It's not going to be worth a complete show-car quality rebuild, but originallity is out of the question. Enter - fiberglass, aftermarket steel panels, sandblasting, welding, bondo etc. A "good" job will use no fiberglass and minimal bondo. Sandblasting is probably necessary on a vehicle so degradated, though if done only where necessary, originallity can be maintained, at least a little.

Some people think I'm crazy rebuilding mine. It's just that I've had it since 1973 and have lots of good memories with it. Maybe done right, it will at least look like an original.

 

[ronzi]

This issue has led the Porsche Club of America to establish both Preservation and Restoration classes for their national show. It had gotten to the point where is was impossible to be competitive unless the car was fresh from a total ground-up, high dollar restoration by one of the recognized Porsche resto experts.
This is one area where the popularity of TV shows like the Barret-Jackson auction and the auction commentaries published in Sports Car Market are driving the quest for perfection in collector car condition. How many times have we seen imperfect but original cars criticized, sneered-at and generally dissed as being "fright-pigs"?

 

[Exotexs]

that's exactly why I have bought "preserved" Jaguars as opposed to "restored" Jaguars. I call it "Patina" and "Character" and "Originality".

It takes years to find such cars and at the right price!

A "restored" car is usually someone's opinion of what it should be when finished; And, it doesn't smell the same as a "preserved" car.

A "preserved" car is honest, it is what it was when new, in most of its parts.

But obviously some cars are worth "rescuing" by "restoring" them, replacing panels if needed, repainting them, because they were not "preserved", whether by neglect or because the climate or storage conditions took care of them.

It doesn't matter, there's room for everything, even those super-restored cars that have polished screws and bolts where the Factory would have just painted over. Even those Trailer Queens have a place. Because the bottom line is that one is Preserving and is Proud To Show.

It is awesome to see these kids and restorers who take a rotted car and make a polished diamond out of it. I call them "artists", because in a sense, they are like a Michelangelo. (funny how there are no records of how the Sistine Chapel looked BEFORE Michelangelo painted it, it must have been a very bland and sterile place).

Clearly, Preservation Archaeologists are the kind of people I would like to meet, they know the secrets to preserving and restoring very old things. I wonder what they could teach us about preserving and restoring old cars.

Ex

 

[SteveT]

I whole heartly agree that Survivor classes should be a part of most shows. I do agree however, that completely restored LBCs are wonderful and beautiful, but to see an original car with the patina to match is something else.

And, there are fewer and fewer originals around. Now, here is a class to be had; original owners WITH their cars that have never been restored! Wonder how many are really out there?

Steve

 

[Steve_S]

I met with one last night. A guy in one of my car clubs still drives his original MGTC that he bought in 1947 from the showroom floor. Original paint, etc and nearly 110,000 miles on the car.

 

[JPSmit]

we have a woman in our club who bought her TR3 new - has maybe had a respray

 

[terriphill]

Wow this is a timely thread. We just bought an 80 B. THe paint is actually in pretty good shape and with some elbow grease, liquid Ice and buffing it could easily be quite acceptable. It is original and had not been painted. We are trying to decide whether to go with the original color or something we like better "when" we paint it. Now, I am thinking it may just be worth more to work on the original paint and wait to see what happens in the restoration world with this trend. Thanks again guys!

 

[Steve_S]

If the car doesn't have any rust issues and the finish looks ok, I'd keep the original paint. If there is rust evident then it needs to be addressed before it ruins the bodywork and the original paint along with it.

 

[SteveT]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]I met with one last night. A guy in one of my car clubs still drives his original MGTC that he bought in 1947 from the showroom floor. Original paint, etc and nearly 110,000 miles on the car. [/QUOTE]

WOW, that's only 1833 miles per year; I'd love to see that MG.

Thinking about some of the past cars I've been associated with through my parents, 1963 Ford Galaxy 500 convertible; 1968 Dodge Charger, yellow with black top and 383 magnum (the car I learned to drive in); 1974 Mazda RX4 with a two rotor motor. And my own 2001 Integra Type R bought new off the showroom floor, which I sold, just to name a few. If only. . .

Steve T

 

[Steve_S]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]WOW, that's only 1833 miles per year[/QUOTE]
Yes, but remember that he's nearly 90 years old now so most of the mileage was probably put on in the first half of the car's life.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]I'd love to see that MG.[/QUOTE]

Your wish is my command. This car has been everywhere, and you can see stories in each blemish. Damage from sand storms in the western deserts, dents from who knows what, etc. All original inside and out, never taken apart, just well maintained and occasionally washed.

 

[NutmegCT]

Now that is an unrestored classic. A car well-cared for by its original owner (who's probably an unstored classic himself). Absolutely excellent. Thanks.

Tom
covet covet covet covet ...