Original or imaculate restoration?

[MarkV]

I have a 1948 Lincoln Cont. (the one in the pic.) Completly orig. with the exception of the engine. I have an original interior in it and it is a little worn and even original down to the paint. I am not redoing it anytime soon and probably will not redo it since it is orig. and I do not have the money for it and I will never sell it since it was my grandpa's car. But, I am curious about the current trend of people wanting original cars, is a worn original better than an immaculate restoration? Let me know!

[Guest BruceW]

I guess it depends on your likes and what you do with the car. We have a 1931 Ford Deluxe Tudor that is mostly original. The only major thing I have done to the car was to rebuild the engine in 1997 when a babbit went bad on a long distance trip (it was the first time the engine had been rebuilt).

We prefer to keep the 31 Ford the way it is at this point even though it is now starting to really show its age 10 years after we bought it from the second owner. We do get plenty of favorable comments from passerbys and the majority state they wouldn't restore it either. The old laquer paint is egg shelling on the fenders and the interior is starting to really show wear from lots of use, so I assume one of these days we will have to eventually do a restoration on it, but for now, we will just keep driving it the way it is.

[Guest Stonefish]

A car is only original once...

Patina seems to be a hot trend in the VW world...original worn paint and interiors = hot.

[mrpushbutton]

There is an increasing appreciation for "experienced" cars, the AACA has done well with their Historic Preservation of Original Features (HPOF) category. Some survivor cars have brought previuosly unheard of sums at auctions of late.

IMHO, if you can't afford to go the currently expected route and over restore the car, it's better off as the factory made it. I personally find those cars far more enjoyable for driving (as long as they are safe and can steer and stop well) than immaculate cars.

[57plymouth]

I agree, they are only original one time. If the car is in good shape, it is priceless reference material for others.

[R Walling]

As a passionate viewer of Antiques Road Show, I know how much a completely refinished 18th century chest of drawers is worth compared to one with the original finish and blemishes. (-$100,000.00)

[rocketraider]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it is priceless reference material for others.</div></div>

That's a point a lot of people miss.

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Roger Walling</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a passionate viewer of Antiques Road Show, I know how much a completely refinished 18th century chest of drawers is worth compared to one with the original finish and blemishes. (-$100,000.00) </div></div>

Somehow, restored furniture is different than cars. I never understood that but once you strip furniture it's value is less.

Cars on the other hand are valued much differently. In 1999 I bought a 1966 Buick Skylark convertible from a 91 year old lady. The car was all original including paint. It did have some fading on the hood & trunk and a couple of small scrapes on the sides front hitting the garage. I was undesided whether or not to paint it or leave it. I did decide to repaint it in it's original color. I also pulled the front clip to detail the engine & compartment. After owning it for 5 years I ended up selling it. I sold that car for $17,500. If I left it in the original condition there wasn't any way I could have received that kind of price. In my opinion, cars are worth more restored........BTW, it recently resold for $20,000

[Bhigdog]

To me it all depends whether or not it aged gracefully. Smooth paint worn to primer in spots, leather with age cracks, dullish chrome, fogged glass, worn pedals, a nice old car smell, that's aged gracefully with a nice patina. On the other hand..... Gaping rust holes, dented fenders, stuffing coming out of rotted seats, broken glass, a strong smell of rodent urine. That's just a project waiting to get done.........Bob.

[Dave@Moon]

First, avoid the trap of seeing antique cars as financial investments, like in Skyking's post. Whether it makes money or not to restore a car (which is more a question of what you start with than what you finish), there is more the question of what is lost. History.

Second, in your case that history is your grandfather. Restore the car and it'll no longer be the car he drove, the seats he sat on, the steering wheel he held, etc.

Third, this car is a CCCA "Full Classic". Restoring it to a standard that will actually enhance it's value will be very expensive. A '48 Ford paint job won't cut it on a '48 Continental. And don't even think about chrome!

Finally, the appreciation for unrestored originals is growing. It isn't for restored cars of most types, including "Full Classics". The reason is they aren't making any more of them. Restorers can build a car out junk if they want.

So if the car is at all presentable in it's original condition I'd save it. If it isn't in a good "#3" condition or better, then your chioce is more difficult. Preserve it fanatically, because you'll never get another one!

[ex98thdrill]

That's where I've always felt that HPOF was a slam against the original cars.

You can win a Senior Grand National with a restored car, yet at times you can see an unrestored original that would easily score enough points to win a First Junior parked with everything else. If an original car does go for the awards, it is forced to compete against the 10 point spread. I still say that the HPOF certified cars should get their certification and then get their respective awards based on what they score regardless of competition.

In simpler terms, the current awards system in AACA gives a progressive awards system for the restored cars, yet the owners of the unrestored cars do not have a progressive awards system.

Despite the awards that my dad and I have won with our restored cars, I still vote for the unrestored originals.

[Rusty_OToole]

Thankfully the trend seems to be away from unnecessary restoration...

Some cars need restoration, some don't. If the car is usable and presentable, it should be preserved.

Interesting case in point. Jay Leno hunted down and bought what are possibly the 2 last unrestored original Duesenbergs on the planet.

One was a Model X sedan that was stored in California since 1947. The other was a 1931 town car from New York City with 7000 miles on it, that has been stored in the same garage since new.

The Model X he preserved, the town car was just too far gone. Despite being stored inside all its life, the elements took too much of a toll.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

This is a good sign due in part to the actions of some of the high profile collectors. Around the time Leno got the Model X, an east coast collector (Dick Shappy) acquired an unrestored Duesenberg after 60 years in one family. The car did need a restoration but what is interesting is the decisions he made to keep major parts of the car original - green paint on the frame & most chrome. The finished product is really the best of both worlds - the chrome, while good overall is far from perfect. I do not think cutting corners was the motivation here - saw this car in person a couple weeks ago and the finished product is really outstanding. Google "Dick Shappy Classic Cars" & you can see 125 or so pix of this car, along with some other interesting stuff.

Those of us who own Model As and not Duesenbergs have seen a rise in popularity of "out of the barn" cars - in fact, there is a club devoted to these cars. A couple guys here in CT make the show rounds with matching well worn '31 slant windows and they have been getting more attention than the show cars. Something different? Looks like fun? Who knows, but it is a fun trend.

[1937hd45]

I agree Steve, The Shappy Duesenberg was a nicely done restoration/preservation. The fact that it was a short wheelbase with a good looking body, made it a better looking car than others. There is another gtoup of cars that should stay untouches IMO, the cars restored in the 1950's. There is something special about a brass era car that was restored in say 1955 and has a dash covered with tour and event plaques. Many of then are still with the original restorer or a member of his family. Bet those cars have great stories to tell.

[jimkf]

Me, I'll take an original car over a restoration. A restoration is another person's interpretation of what that particular car looked like when new. Most times...as is the case with many restored cars...they're too well done. I'll walk past an over restored garage queen to take a look at the gracefully weathered machine next to it.

Something about an original car just speaks to a person. It tells a story...the worn drivers seat, the trunk with it's original tools in place...or even missing...or the engine compartment telling you about the dozens of oil changes that the car experienced are all things that are lost when a car is restored.

Don't get me wrong...many cars deserve a restoration...but those that are entirely serviceable as is should stay that way as long as possible.

Just my opinion!

My cars (all unrestored):

54 Kaiser Manhattan

53 Allstate

51 Jeepster

50 Kaiser Traveler

72 Mark IV

[mrpushbutton]

1937hd45--I too like the brass era cars that were restored in the 50's and 60's. I have seen model A Fords that were restored in the 60's and painted with (then) contemporary colors, like Robin's egg blue! (screaming 1965!)

[Guest brh]

I have the same thing going on, got my grandparents 65 Skylark back in 74. Have kept the car as good as possible (grandpa got ticked cause I kept buying other cars to drive) Over the years she's done pretty good, original paint really starting to show its age, original interior still pretty good condition, have not even detailed the engine. Great car to take out and have fun with. When someone asks a tech question I just go out to the garage and take a look cause its still the same when it was built in 65.

[Twitch]

48Lincoln- as you say you are never going to sell the car so do what makes you happy. It's you car and your money. You mention you probably won't restore it so just enjoy it.

Forget about the "current trend." Are you a follower or an independent thinker? Gee no matter how much car people share there are still nitpicky little divisions such as "keep it original!" vs "No, restore it!"

If you plan to actually drive the car and the interior is disintegrating there is no reason why you shouldn't get it redone in original-like materials while the rest of the car is left alone. I mean you tell me, how desireable would it be if YOU were seeking to purchase a car for it to have busted seat springs and stuffing coming out from under the horse blanket you put over the driver seat?

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

A '48 Ford paint job won't cut it on a '48 Continental. And don't even think about chrome!

</div></div>

This is exactly true no matter what kind of car you're going to restore. If the car has top notch body work & paint (I mean laser straight, no ripples)it will stand out among the finest around restored & unrestored.