What is a survivor?

I've always shown my cars in Concours, which are just a beauty contest. Condition isn't paramount, so "survivors" are starting to get popular.

I'm on the BOD and Car Selection Committee for the Krasl Art Center Concours in St. Joseph, Michigan. I'd like to bring some insight to the board.

As an example I'd like to use my recently purchased 1933 Continental Flyer. It has 50,000 miles and has not been restored, but in the course of 77 years has been partially repainted. It still has pin stripes, so I doubt that all the paint is original. However, a perfectionist restorer friend looked it over and claims that there is no trace of a respray. Even if it wasn't original paint, is it still a survivor?

The mechanical systems all need attention. I'd like to seal the leaks and detail the underside of the car as I make repairs. Much of the oil thrown off from the differential coated all the metal in the area. When cleaned the exposed metal quickly rusts. If I paint the mechanicals as I make everything safe, have I effectively restored the undercarriage, defeating the claim of "survivor", or make repairs and leave it filthy?

The interior was "refreshed" sometime in the '60s The headliner is original, but the rest of the fabric is going to be replaced. I can't stand the smell, and it's the wrong color. It certainly wasn't uncommon for people to reupholster their cars. Were they "restoring" it?

I needed new tires. I took the old tires to my tire guy and he said that one wheel was good, two were marginal and two were wobblers and would never balance. I learned that they could be trued. I took the wheels down to their constituent parts, sandblasted off the original paint, chase all the threads and rethreaded the spokes. After they are trued I'll sandblast them and take them to the powder-coater. They will be reassembled with new tubes and tires and balanced on a modern machine. I went to all the trouble to thoroughly clean them so that I could be assured that I was riding on safe wheels. Clearly, the wheels will be restored, but after breaking 4 spokes taking them apart, I'm glad I did take them apart. Do restored wheels and brakes get a pass as safety concerns, or does that make it a partially restored car?

Mechanically, everything is original, except for the electric fuel pump, which I will probably keep. I plan no other changes, except a thorough cleaning and a brighter tail light bulb.

At what point does this car lose it's moniker of survivor and become just an old car?

AACA has HPOF, which is a class for cars that are "original" unrestored cars. HPOF certification requires 65% original components. As long as it qualifies as HPOF, I think you would be safe to call it a "survivor".

I have always considered a "Survivor" to be a car that is almost 99% original and in almost perfect running and original perfect cosmetic condition in all respects.

The ONLY exception might be a new battery and possibly repro Tires and possibly repro engine hoses, belts, service items~

This is MY idea of a Survivor !

A neighbor has a 1955 Caddy conv. that meets MY criteria~

The term "Survivor" has been expanded and extended by more modern collectors over the decades since the Antique car collecting hobby first began~

Much like the overused term "classic"~

BUT~

Other opinions may differ?

What a fantastic car you have there !

People have been debating the same idea for far longer than there have been cars....

Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you think it is a survivor, call it a survivor, if you don't think it is a survivor, don't call it that.

Brad's very restrictive description would eliminate 99% of vehicles that most old car folk might consider to be survivors — even my wife's '06 PT cruiser and the neighbour's '05 Dodge Caravan fall outside that impossible standard. MCH suggests a more realistic approach, but some of the HPOF cars I saw at Hershey had sufficient restoration to move them out of the Survivor (and HPOF, in my opinion) class.

To me, a survivor is a car that may or may not have been in continuous use, but has only had the usual service and replacement work done to keep it on the road — surviving, if you will, as a working, usable automobile. Or the car could have lived in a barn unused for 50+ years, but if it receives only safety and operational maintenance (tires, hoses, brakes, cleaning, etc. but not paint or upholstery) to get it back on the road, it is absolutely a survivor.

My '47 Dodge has been in regular use since new and I am the third owner. During the 80K miles from new, the car has had tires replaced several times, a replacement fender (hit & run damage), new brakes (original spec), hoses, windshield, a driver's floor patch, light bulbs, busted trim/knobs replaced with like, period driving and backup lights added, and a repaint in 1975. It is a cosmetic disaster, but has survived as useable transportation for 63 years (including a 3,334 mile road trip to Hershey this year where it was certified in HPOF). Granted, the 1975 repaint falls outside of my description of a Survivor, but at least that new paint has deteriorated to the point that it doesn't look out of place. The engine is original and probably never even had the head off, but had the car received a replacement block in, say, the '50s or '60s, it would still be a survivor — they did the engine work to keep the car on the road, not because they were fixing it up as an antique.

I guess everyone has their own definition of survivor. I consider my two cars survivors. They were used as every day transportation in their early lives and have made it this far with normal maintenance and repair. My '72 LTD is substantially original at 41K miles. I'm sure the exhaust, brakes, battery and I know tires are not original to the car and probably there are other minor mechanical parts. One front fender has been painted at some time because it's slightly off color. The interior is in perfect condition. My '71 Buick LeSabre has some bondo and rust repair, a replacement fuel tank, a few mufflers and exhaust systems and goodness knows what else. The interior is decent but has a couple of split seams in the driver's seat and faded plastic throughout. The LTD is in much better condition, but I consider both survivors.

Where does "sympatheticly maintained" to original specs fit in? These are afterall mass produced consumer goods meant as transportation when new. Not objects of collectible art when manufactured. Even though the 33 (to me at least) is collectible sculpture today.

Survivor is becoming the most arguable description in our language!

Mmmm...never saw a rear spring setup like that before. In my opinion (yeah, I know), a "survivor" is a car that has been a well kept original without modifications changes other than the stuff that wears out with use such as bearings, belts, tires, batteries etc. I would not consider a car that was smacked and repaired or restored or semi-restored to be a survivor. Sure, it may still be on the road, but to me a true survivor is the car that has avoided major damage or major abuse. I had a survivor once. It was a low mileage 1955 Dodge Custom Royal Lancer 2 door hardtop. It had a few very minor scrapes from the narrow garage that the owner kept it in. I got it, took it home and waxed it up (it was pink and black and white), and it looked like new. The interior was so immaculate that when the sun was over my shoulder, the reflection off of the chrome steering wheel center would blind me! The seats had the black fabric with the speckled silver through it and were covered with seat covers when I got it. I took off the seat dingy covers to reveal seats that were absolutely as new. Now, THAT'S a survivor.

Good God, another pointless attempt at making some sort of imaginary vintage automobile category based a descriptive adjective, sometimes noun word.

Isn't it sufficient to consider any vehicle of any age over 25 years that runs under it's own power, or can be made to run under its own power, and is unmolested in appearance from what it was originally intended to be (paint color not a consideration) a survivor? I would consider true survivors just lucky to show up though maybe just a mile away from needing to be on life support!

When it comes to vehicles of any nature, a survivor is anything and everything that moves under its own power and can be readily identified as being what it was the day it came off the assembly line.

Barry & Others:

I Know~

I Know~

I have very tough standards for this "Survivor" term.

BUT ~

There are some around that meet my tough standards~

Your Continental Flyer is one that meets my criteria for sure !

Barry your Continental Flyer sure should be considered a true "Survivor" especially because of it's age and Super Original condition~

If It were mine I would just fix the oil & lube leaks and keep it as you found it !

Fixing the wire wheels is, and was, a normal service job in the day.

Brakes are normally serviced regularly also~

You might want to shampoo the interior with a commercial extraction machine and use an odor absorbing product.

Let it sit outside and air-out in the sun with the windows open for a week or two~

It often works~

I would keep the interior as you found it !

Unless you can get a good close color match~

But then you would be going down that restored route ~

GREAT FIND BARRY !

If the car exists and looks more or less like it did originally, it is, by defination, a "survivor". Other than that "survivor" is a totally irrelavent, superficial, and meaningless term. It's just a variation of the term "classic", another totally subjective term designed to give an aura of exclusivity, cachet, and dare I say it snob appeal to what is, after all is said and done, just another "car".

You got a nice car, enjoy it..........Bob

Mmmm...never saw a rear spring setup like that before.

I read that the suspension emulated race cars of the period. Someone posted that Bugatti used something very similar. The design reduces sprung weight by putting the mass of the spring away from the axle.

But...YOU tried to define it yourself in your previous post.

Yes, but only to separate a "survivor" from something which might be best defined as a non running parts car. If it doesn't move under its own power it is not a survivor!

Jim

The word Survivor is one that Bloomington Gold is heavily trying to market. You can visit their site for an opinion of the word.

I'm afraid the moment you say your car has been painted in their opinion it does not qualify. They also use a percentage system to rate the cars on the show field.

I own a 69 Olds 442. The car was at Louisville in the HPOF class. It is still maintaining a factory paint job. Minor touch ups only. Stone chips and all it is far from perfect but FACTORY paint. It has had tires, authentic appearing belts and hoses. The original carb was rebuilt and installed. The core never left my hands. The stock alternator was re-built and put right back on the car.

I think you get the idea.

Once while I was attending an Olds Homecoming I had guys under the hood of my car looking at the heads. The guy said I want to buy the right set. We know the ones on this car are the ones to have. The stamp marks on the firewall are still in the spots GM assembly put them.

Again not perfect just un-molested.

IMHO

The word Survivor is one that Bloomington Gold is heavily trying to market. You can visit their site for an opinion of the word.

I'm afraid the moment you say your car has been painted in their opinion it does not qualify. They also use a percentage system to rate the cars on the show field.

I own a 69 Olds 442. The car was at Louisville in the HPOF class. It is still maintaining a factory paint job. Minor touch ups only. Stone chips and all it is far from perfect but FACTORY paint. It has had tires, authentic appearing belts and hoses. The original carb was rebuilt and installed. The core never left my hands. The stock alternator was re-built and put right back on the car.

I think you get the idea.

Once while I was attending an Olds Homecoming I had guys under the hood of my car looking at the heads. The guy said I want to buy the right set. We know the ones on this car are the ones to have. The stamp marks on the firewall are still in the spots GM assembly put them.

Again not perfect just un-molested.

IMHO

Should anyone really care what Bloomington Gold really thinks? They don't even get it right by their own definition:

"If you have a collector car over 20 years old that remains mostly unrestored and unrefinished, bring it!"

There is something decidedly wrong in considering anything and everything over 20 years old a collector car.

Jim

The various High-end & High-tone Concours events around the country that I often attend have their own terms for a "Survivor".

Some consider an un-alterd barn find in "as found" condition to be a "Survivor"

Jay Leno's Model "X" Duesenberg is not restored~

He just had Randy Ema get it up and running & fix the engine's mechanical issue that caused the car to be retired into the Calif. garage 60 years ago ; where it was later discovered.

Jay then just cleaned it up~

That Duesenberg Model "X" is both a "Classic" & "Survivor" in most Concours terms~

But we are just playing word games with fancy names~

Are we not ???

I did not say that Bloomington Gold's opinion was gospel. Just a reason the word survivor is getting heavily used.

Why do some insist on shopping on Black Friday.

Those with award winning vehicles in the AACA are really proud of the awards.

Go to a Good Guys event and they could care less about AACA badges.

They all have different opinions which we can be free to enjoy is this country.

Is that the original driveline? It looks modern. Cool suspension, great looking car.

I think a survivor is any vehicle that has not been crushed or otherwise destroyed beyond repair.

Hmmm, I had no idea the "survivor" term had become so subjective. I looked at a Corvette website and see that most misunderstand the term just like "classic" over here.

Matthew said the HPOF says 65% original components and finishes and the trademarked "Survivor" website seems to say 50% original and unrestored, so there are the two guides to use. It seems if the interior has been incorrectly reupholstered that would be a large part of the car having been replaced. BUT that certainly does not mean this car is not a great find and great piece of history. Strict definition or no, I would just want to reupholster correctly and preserve everything else and enjoy it. We now know a car of this condition can be the most enjoyable of all old car ownership, and once again Barry has a terrific car to be proud of. Todd C

Is that the original driveline? It looks modern. Cool suspension, great looking car.

Yes, that's the way they came.

Instead of using "survivor" I prefer well kept original or something to that effect ...

my 34 Ford is a well kept original that has original paint on the body and hood (fenders were redone) ALL original interior (except front floor mat, again, my dad replaced the original) and a replacement engine.

I DID buy it out of a barn in Whitemore Lake back in 1969 from a Detroit News ad, $1350. (No one wanted to drive that far to go see it)

The pin stripes were sort of still there (portions) but my dad had Paul Hatton re-do them decades ago ...

maintained, etc, I don't use the term survivor to describe it though

Great looking car Jim. I would suggest there are many who are jealous of such a great find for so little money. I can't imagine anyone passing up an opportunity like that was over a few miles having driven over a thousand miles with a trailer to pick up a parts car that I paid more for than you paid for a really great car.

Jim

Matt is right. Bloomington Gold, being smart business people trademarked the name Survivor and are attempting to grow their shows with additional events. Agree or not with their definition or guidelines, the more publicity for these cars and our hobby is good. Those that want to debate what is or what is not have a right to enjoy the discussion.

AACA founded the HPOF class to have a more liberal look at "original" or "survivor" cars and to recognize that some cars need to have work performed to preserve their integrity and future use. This class has been steadily growing and is enjoyed by many AACA members (the public as well).

We are not a homogenous group that is for sure so trying to make an ultimate definition may not serve much purpose. Lots of opinions but who has the right to make the definitive one?

Barry you have a great car what ever term you use or others use.

After reading all the descriptions of survivors and classics I think my wife fits that same criteria.

when it comes to what a survivor really is... is if it survives my ownership.

this car is a RARE survivor ... :

http://forums.aaca.org/f119/1963-pontiac-bonneville-convertible-project-3950-a-293639.html

project is a better description in my opinion ...

Great looking car Jim. I would suggest there are many who are jealous of such a great find for so little money. I can't imagine anyone passing up an opportunity like that was over a few miles having driven over a thousand miles with a trailer to pick up a parts car that I paid more for than you paid for a really great car.

Jim

I bought it in 1969 ... almost EVERYONE told me at the time I paid too much for it or why didn't I buy a coupe ... :-)

funny thing was the next words out of their mouth was how much do you want for it?

maybe $1350 was high in '69... but look what you got!!! a new cheap car was almost $2000 back then... even if you times ten the $1350.. you couldn't buy that car for $13500 now. (would you sell it to me for $13500?)

and barry wolk... your car IS nice! and a survivor!!!

I hope she does not read your post,for your sake.

The phrase "Nero Fiddled while Rome Burned", comes to mind.

Meanwhile, one wonders just how healthy interest in the hobby is.

Google Trends: classic cars

Google Trends: antique cars

Google Trends: car shows

hmmmm

The phrase "Nero Fiddled while Rome Burned", comes to mind.

Meanwhile, one wonders just how healthy interest in the hobby is.

Google Trends: classic cars

Google Trends: antique cars

Google Trends: car shows

hmmmm

A good question! But then we might have to ask if the nature of interest in automobiles is not changing from what we are accustomed.

From my personal view, I think interest in the hobby began to wain with the death of the American Muscle Cars and Land Barges. For probably most of us here we grew up in a cultural phenomenon where virtually all of society activities were tied to the automobile, this is not the case for perhaps most people born after 1970.

While car shows will draw a younger crowd that will "ooh" and "aah" over the cars we may bring to them few will ever actually entertain owning one, much less learning what one needs to know to keep one maintained or to restore one. We live in a much different world today than existed between 1950 and 1970. Today's youngsters have virtually no ties to a set of glass packs roaring as a car with lots of chrome burns out of the parking lot of the local burger place with the radio blaring recordings from Buddy Holley, Elvis, and James Brown. And most never went to a drive-in movie, where more was going on in the cars than on the screen. Then there was the family vacations on the roads of America for a week or two which have been greatly replaced by being so much in a hurry to get from point A to point B we fly instead of experiencing everything in between.

Yup, it is indeed possible the interest in the hobby is on the wain!

maybe $1350 was high in '69... but look what you got!!! a new cheap car was almost $2000 back then... even if you times ten the $1350.. you couldn't buy that car for $13500 now. (would you sell it to me for $13500?)

If you're buying what you like, then paying too much is really a moot point. As mrspeedyt said, that was a pretty good amount of money in 1969. For comparison... around the same time period my father bought a 1939 Delahaye, a 1940 Packard 180 and a 1942 Lincoln Continental. All CCCA national-meet trophy winners and each for about the same amount of money as Jim paid. Jim has obviously done okay with his investment, but since he has kept the car for 40+ years, I hardly think that investing was the reason for buying.

Getting back to Barry's question:

I think you've now got the understanding that there really isn't a defined meaning of the term. Most concours events pretty much use the AACA version of HPOF (Historical Preservation of Original Features) for the special "unrestored" classes that are becoming popular. Many of the cars I've seen in the "survivor" class have some significant portion of the car as being untouched. Some are completely untouched. Your car definitely fits in the "unrestored" category, even though the interior has been changed. Since the interior was done incorrectly, it would not hurt the status of your car to re-do it correctly, nor does refinishing your wheels.

As for the undercarriage, that's a tough one. But you may want to consider this: After cleaning, which leaves unprotected metal, there is a spray-on product available that will protect it from rusting. I'll get back to you on the name, and how well it works.

this car is a RARE survivor ... :

http://forums.aaca.org/f119/1963-pontiac-bonneville-convertible-project-3950-a-293639.html

project is a better description in my opinion ...

The seller's definition of "survivor" in this case could be "survived this long without being scrapped".

This car is amazing. There seems to very little rust anywhere. There seems to be no wear on anything, but the car was clearly not restored.

Barry

The clear product to spray on your bare metal is an aerosol etch primer, and you should be able to find it at an auto parts store.

Thanks.

btw... i don't have access to my books... who is the maker of your 1933 Continental Flyer ?:confused: